A number of conservation groups have challenged the state's air pollution permit for a new coal-fired power plant, asserting that coal-gasification technology to cut carbon dioxide emissions is a proven and viable option.

Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental law firm, filed a petition for review of the permit to the state Environmental Quality Council on Tuesday. The council enforces rules and regulations administered by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality.

The Powder River Basin Resource Council, Sierra Club and Wyoming Outdoor Council are also parties to the petition.

State environmental regulators on Oct. 15 approved the permit for Basin Electric Power Cooperative's 385-megawatt Dry Fork Station power plant to be located a few miles north of Gillette. It's a conventional-style, pulverized-coal-fired power plant expected to pump more than 3 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for the next 40 years.

The world's top scientists say human-caused CO2 is almost certainly a key factor in global warming.

"Wyoming is out of step with the rest of the nation," Sierra Club Great Plains Region director Steve Thomas said in a prepared statement.

"Across the country, states and local officials, most recently in Kansas, are saying 'no' to outdated coal-fired power plants and are looking instead to cleaner energy solutions that can boost economies, create jobs, protect public health and help fight global warming," Thomas added.

Gov. Dave Freudenthal planned to join Basin Electric officials at a groundbreaking ceremony at the Dry Fork Station site today. The plant is expected to go into service in 2011.

"We are in the process of evaluating the petition," Basin Electric spokesman Floyd Robb told the Star-Tribune on Thursday.

Robb said Basin Electric had to choose the "best available control technology" several years ago in its planning process to meet increasing load demand among its co-op members. At the time, Basin Electric determined that a coal-gasification design, which presents the opportunity to strip CO2, wasn't a viable option.

The state is obligated, under the Clean Air Act, to require "best-available" technology on new major point sources of pollution. Petitioners argue that technology includes methods to reduce CO2 emissions, citing a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are "pollutants" subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act.

Robb said Basin Electric wasn't prepared to discuss such details until the company has thoroughly reviewed the petition.

"We made our technical decision on best available control technology when we needed to make that decision," Robb said.

Basin Electric has also said that its conventional pulverized-coal blueprint for Dry Fork is the best value for its ratepayers, and far cheaper than coal-gasification.

Many of the Powder River Basin Resource Council's members belong to Basin Electric's member co-ops. Council organizer Shannon Anderson said ratepayers will likely get stuck with higher costs if carbon capture and sequestration regulations are implemented by the federal government.

"Our members are more worried about what it would cost to retrofit the power plant if carbon capture and sequestration is mandated," Anderson told the Star-Tribune on Thursday. "That's going to cost ratepayers a lot of money."

Petitioners argued that coal-gasification, while more expensive to build, is actually more cost efficient in the long run and will only save utilities and ratepayers money.

Basin Electric officials said they do not have a plan in place to finance a carbon-capture retrofit at Dry Fork Station.

Just one day after receiving the DEQ air pollution permit in October, Basin Electric withdrew its application for a $750 million USDA Rural Utilities Service loan, which had been challenged by environmental groups in federal court.

Robb said the co-op decided to forego the USDA loan because it stipulates an environmental impact study. Robb said inflation of labor costs, manufacturing, steel and other materials could add $175 million to the total cost of the project during the yearlong study process.

Inflation has already increased the cost of the project from $800 million a few years ago to $1.3 billion today, according to Robb.

Energy reporter Dustin Bleizeffer can be reached at (307) 577-6069 or dustin.bleizeffer@casperstartribune.net.