Skip to content
Subscribe

Tahoe planning agenices won't let facts get in the way of environmental progress

Published:

The biomass plant being proposed for the small North Lake Tahoe community of Kings Beach looks more and more like a disaster in the making rather than a smart environmental advance.  As I reported here last week, the plant would literally be located in a residential neighborhood only 1000 feet from an elementary school and just a few blocks from the lakefront.  The potential for noise and air pollution ranges from unknown to enormous depending on the type of technology used and the funding available for amelioration of known problems with the biomass process.

Worst of all, there appears to be no compelling reason to put a biomass plant in Kings Beach.  Dave McClure, long-time resident of the Tahoe Basin and vice president of the North Tahoe Citizens Action Alliance, says his organization has been lobbying hard for an alternative to the Kings Beach plant.

"The logical location is Cabin Creek in Truckee, where the material is currently collected, prep'd for treatment and trucked off to the Loyalton biomass plant some 42 miles to the north,"  McClure told me.  "The Department of Public Works is building new facilities to house all of the area's snow removal equipment at Cabin Creek, so it's a perfect place to add a biomass plant if you need to build one, and the trucking costs are reduced to zero."

The biggest advantage of Kings Beach is the existing Nevada Energy inter-tie that will carry energy onto the power grid, but such a facility could be added to Cabin Creek as well, and already exists in Loyalton.

McClure believes that the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and the Placer County Community Development Resource Agency, the two groups that have just released a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on the biomass proposal, want to experiment with a small plant in Kings Beach, then later take similar plants out to other Placer County communities.  Kings Beach is an ideal starting point because its excellent air quality is unlikely to cause concern by the EPA during the required Environmental Impact Study.  The Kings Beach facility will be between one and three megawatts, according NOP, whereas the Loyalton plant is 30 Megawatts.

The 42 mile route from Cabin Creek to the Loyalton plant is a major factor in considering a new plant, but Kings Beach is still a 17 mile drive over busy and often treacherous Highway 267 and onto Kings Beach's narrow city streets.  The Loyalton route has been in use for many years, but a new route between Truckee and Kings Beach may cause serious traffic problems and risks for drivers, bikers and pedestrians in the city.

There are also questions about the success of a small biomass plant.  Such a facility was tried in Carson City, NV in 2007, but was shut down within three years.  The Carson City plant failed for a number of reasons, including cost overruns in construction, problems with disposal of wet ash from the plant, and a lack of adequate processed fuel.  Noise from the plant also became a factor when funding forced the cut back of planned sound-proofing in the building.   Neighbors complained about noise from as far as a mile away.

Friends of Lake Tahoe President Roger Patching complained to the Placer County Board of Supervisors that a false belief has been created:

"that having a biomass burning power plant in the Lake Tahoe Basin will solve some long standing environmental problems. These include the problems of open burning, forest fuel reductions, and the threat of catastrophic wildfires."

Mr. Patching goes on to say, "I am distressed when I see government agencies nurture false conclusions."

Finally, there is the question of whether Kings Beach was selected for the biomass plant because it simply does not appear as capable of defending itself as well as some of Lake Tahoe's more affluent towns.  Where would this proposal stand if it was being recommended for Incline Village, or for the Tahoe-Donner neighborhood of Truckee?  This is NIMBY in reverse -- PIITBY.  Put It In Their Back Yard.

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Where your CMS allows, set the canonical URL to the original IVN article.
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

Tahoe planning agenices won't let facts get in the way of environmental progress

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

To for

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us