The Fernley Planning Commission voted 5-2 last week to delay consideration of a proposed $600 million natural gas power plant near the Victory Logistics District, despite a recommendation from city staff to approve the project.
The commission tabled Mark IV Capital’s conditional use permit until its October meeting, citing a pending Nevada Commission on Ethics opinion involving Commissioner Cody Wagner and a desire for additional public discussion of the project.
The proposed Victory Power facility would generate up to 324 megawatts of electricity on approximately 109 acres east of Interstate 80. The project would initially occupy about 50 acres and include up to 36 natural gas generation units, with no more than 29 operating at one time.
City planning staff told commissioners the project complies with the city’s industrial zoning and comprehensive plan and that required findings for approval could be made. Staff recommended approval subject to a series of conditions addressing noise, stack height, environmental review, emergency response and state permitting requirements.
Mark IV representatives said the privately financed project is intended to provide power for industrial development in the Victory Logistics District, including data centers and advanced manufacturing businesses that require considerably more electricity than is currently available.
During questioning, company representatives said potential users have sought between 415 and 440 megawatts of power, although not all of those companies are committed to Fernley. Mark IV representatives said some prospective businesses have already gone elsewhere because sufficient power could not be provided quickly enough.
The company said the plant would employ approximately 30 people once operational and more than 100 workers at various stages of construction. Because the proposed turbines are air cooled, Mark IV representatives estimated the project would use about half an acre-foot of water per year, primarily for offices and landscaping.
The company is seeking a three-year approval period rather than the city's standard one-year CUP expiration period. Representatives said the project is expected to take until early 2029 to construct and commission, in part because the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection air-quality permitting process is expected to take roughly a year.
The applicant also presented a fiscal impact analysis projecting approximately $63.6 million in general fund benefit to the city over 20 years. About $43 million of that projection is tied to a proposed franchise fee associated with a Fernley power district or similar arrangement that has not yet been established.
Before Mark IV's presentation began, Wagner disclosed that the company had formally requested his recusal from matters involving the power plant and Victory Logistics.
Wagner said the company's letter alleged a pattern of prejudgment and advocacy against the project. He said he requested an advisory opinion from the Nevada Commission on Ethics Aug. 5, was asked to provide additional information Aug. 26 and submitted that material Sept. 2.
Wagner said the Ethics Commission notified him shortly before the meeting that it would not issue an opinion in time for the hearing.
Wagner cited a prior Ethics Commission opinion involving another public official and said he believes the commission will find that a public official is not prohibited from voting solely because of opinions previously expressed.
“If a vote is held tonight, particularly on item 3.1, I will plan to participate,” Wagner said.
However, Wagner also recommended delaying the matter until the Ethics Commission issues its opinion.
“I will not be bullied or intimidated out of participating or voting on an item with this amount of importance to Fernley's future,” Wagner said, adding that he remained committed to the applicant's due-process rights.
Later in the hearing, Wagner expressed concern that relatively few residents were present.
“I am shocked there's about 10 residents here, if not less,” he said. “I worry that our population just does not know the impact of what we're about to vote on tonight.”
Vice Chair Jenni McCullar ultimately moved to table the application for two reasons: to await an answer concerning Wagner's ethics inquiry and to allow another public workshop on the power plant.
McCullar said she would like residents to hear from an outside or “nonbiased” party who could discuss the impacts of a similar project in another community. Commissioner Julianne White seconded the motion.
Wagner, Angela Lewis, McCullar, Chairwoman Tessa Garvin and White voted to table the permit. Commissioners Jake VanderHeiden and Barry Williams Sr. voted against the delay.
Near the end of the meeting, Wagner again called for a well-publicized public workshop, saying he wanted more information about the community's views before making a decision.
City Chief Development Officer Michelle Rambo responded that Mark IV had already held two “very well publicized” open houses and that the city had completed the public notification required by Nevada law, including notifying property owners beyond the minimum required area.
Rambo said another public hearing or open house is not required by the city.
“I don't know who's going to hold this public hearing or this public open house because it's not a requirement of the city,” she said.
Wagner then offered to organize the additional meeting himself. Garvin responded that planning commissioners should not be involved in organizing it, and Wagner withdrew the offer.
The conditional use permit is expected to be returned to the Planning Commission in October.
Comment
Comments