In today's Star I had an article on the costs of cleaning up nitrogen oxide emissions at the Navajo Generating Station in Page near the Utah border. Now, here are some links to other articles on this same subject.

Here, for instance, is an article from 2010 by the website Circle of Blue, titled, "The Rising Cost of Settling the American Desert." Its slant is obvious from the start, opining that: "In almost every way conceivable, the power plant and the canal reflected the hubris of a rich nation at the height of its wealth, and determined to build in one of the driest regions on the continent energy-hungry and water-wasting cities that defied the laws of nature."

Here is a different view, from the Arizona Republic, from late last month, arguing that the federal government should subsidize the cost of slashing NOX emissions at the plant to spare Arizonans the fiscal pain of compliance. Saying that the Obama administration's clear agenda is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from coal plants, the editorial says that if that's a national priority, the feds should pay.

Next, the Tucson Audubon Society published an article in its Vermillion Flycatcher maagazine back in 2011, outlining the plant's environmental costs in emissions of CO2, mercury and the like, amd adding, "Next time you go to your faucet for water, stop and think a moment about the ecological consequences." This link leads you to a pdf of the story.

The Central Arizona Project, which delivers most of Tucson's drinking water, weighed in on EPA's proposed 84% cut in nitrogen oxide emissions from the plant with a press release quoting its general manager, David Modeer, expressing concerns about the emission cuts and their cost to CAP water users.

"We remain concerned,” said Modeer -- a former Tucson Water director --   “that the EPA’s proposed regulatory solution does not address the full economic impacts to CAP and its customers of the rule as it stands. The cost of Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) installation could be up to $1.1 billion if additional particulate controls are required. We also believe that the EPA has no conclusive evidence that these proposed controls will have any perceptible impact on visibility in the Grand Canyon area, as referenced in a 2012 Department of Energy study."