H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviewsVolume9,No.4(2019)https://networks.h-net.org/h-environment

Publicationdate:May6,2019RoundtableReviewEditor:ChristopherF.Jones

AndrewNeedham,PowerLines:PhoenixandtheMakingoftheModernSouthwest(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,2014).ISBN:9780691139067ContentsIntroductionbyChristopherF.Jones,ArizonaStateUniversity 2CommentsbyMatthewKlingle,BowdoinCollege 4CommentsbyJamesAllison,ChristopherNewportUniversity 10CommentsbyJulieCohn,UniversityofHouston 17 CommentsbyRobertLifset,UniversityofOklahoma 24 AbouttheContributors 27Copyright©2019H-Net:HumanitiesandSocialSciencesOnlineH-Netpermitstheredistributionandreprintingofthisworkfornonprofit,educationalpurposes,withfullandaccurateattributiontotheauthor,weblocation,dateofpublication,H-Environment,andH-Net:Humanities&SocialSciencesOnline.

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.4(2019) 2

IntroductionbyChristopherF.Jones,ArizonaStateUniversitynMarch21,2019,theNavajoNationdecidedbyaslimmargintoabandoneffortstopurchasetheNavajoGeneratingStation(NGS).The2,250MWcoal-firedpowerplantneartheborderbetweenArizonaandUtahhadbeenconstructedinthe1970sbyaconglomerateofutilitiesandgovernment

agencies.Formorethanfourdecades,theplantranatnearfullcapacity,becomingoneoftheworstcontributorstoclimatechangeinthenation.In2017,thecoalitiondecidedthatitwasnolongerprofitabletokeepNGSrunningduetolownaturalgasprices,anddeclaredthatitwouldenditsleasein2019.WiththeNavajoNationunableandunwillingtofindanewbuyer,itisexpectedtheplantwillclosesoon.Forenvironmentalists,thisisadecisiontobecheered.Removingoneofthenation’slargestcoal-firedpowerplantsfromoperationisanecessarystepforaddressingclimatechange.Butatthesametime,theclosureofNGShighlightsoneoftheprofoundjusticequestionswefaceasasociety:howdoweprovideasustainabletransitionforcommunitiesbuiltaroundfossilfuels?Fordecades,jobsatNGSandthenearbyKayentaMinerepresentedsomeofthebestpayingopportunitiesinaregioncharacterizedbychronicpoverty.RevenuesfromtheNGSleasecomprisedaboutaquarteroftheoperatingbudgetfortheNavajoNation,andtheroyaltiesfromtheKayentaMine(whoseonlycustomerisNGS)haveprovidedasmuchasthree-quartersoftheHopiTribe’sannualfunds.Theloomingclosureoftheplantanditsminearelikelytohavedevastatingconsequencesonthelocaleconomy.Howdidwegethereandwhatcanwedo?AgoodstartforanyoneinterestedinsuchissuesistobeginbyreadingAndrewNeedham’sPowerLines,abookthatuncoversthedeeplyentangledhistoryoftheriseofPhoenixanditsexploitedhinterlands.AsNeedhamdocuments,thespectacularriseofthemodernsouthwestwasnotsimplytheresultofanti-NewDealbusinessrelocationorthedevelopmentofairconditioning;itwasatransformationpredicatedonkeepingblueskiesinPhoenixwhileextractingenergyandwaterfromelsewhere.AndthatelsewhereturnedouttobetheNavajoreservationinthenorthernpartofArizona,aregionmuchricherinnaturalresourcesthanpoliticaloreconomicpower.Inthisbook,then,NeedhamdeftlytellsataleofthegrowthofPhoenixthatextendsdeepintoitshinterlands,revealingthedamagingandsociallyunjustwaysinwhichcoalwasminedandburnedforthebenefitofothers.Itisastorywemustgrapplewithtodayaswedeliberatehowtotransitionawayfromfossilfuelswhileprovidingjusticetothecommunitieswhowillbemostharmed.PowerLineshasbeenrecognizedwithseveralmajorbookawards,includingthe2016GeorgePerkinsMarshPrizefromtheAmericanSocietyforEnvironmentalHistoryandthreeseparatebookawardsfromtheWesternHistoryAssociationin2015:theCaugheyWesternHistoryPrize,HalK.RothmanPrize,andDavidJ.Weber-ClementsPrize.Itwasalsonamedwinnerofa2015SouthwestBookAwardfromtheBorderRegionalLibraryAssociation.

O

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.4(2019) 3

Thisroundtable’sreviewersdeserveimmensecreditfornotonlythequalityoftheirresponses,buttheirlongstandingpatienceinwaitingforthisroundtabletoseethelightofday.Theearliestreviewsweresubmittednearlythreeyearsago,soifanyfootnotesseemoutofdate,thatshouldnotbeheldagainstthereviewers.MatthewKlingleopenstheroundtable,illustratingthecontributionsthebookmakestourbanpolitical-environmentalhistories,whileraisingtopicsofintra-urbaninequality,comparativecasestudies,andregionsasunitsofanalysis.JamesAllisonpraisesNeedhamforintegratingenvironmentalanalysesintobroaderstorieswhileaskingquestionsaboutthedistinctionsbetweenenergyandpowerandencouragingfurtherattentiontothecomplexitiesofNavajonationalismthatshapedtribalaction.JulieCohnplacesPowerLinesinalongerhistoryofelectrificationanditspolitics,focusingonpublicversusprivateownershipandthetopicofresourcecurses.RobertLifsetconcludestheroundtable,situatingNeedham’sworkinthecontextofrecentpublicationsinthehistoryofenergyandexploringreasonsfortherevivalofcoalinthe1960sand1970s.Unfortunately,AndrewNeedhamwasunabletocompletearesponsetoaccompanythisroundtable,sothisisthefirstintheseriestoappearwithoutcommentsfromtheauthor.Beforeturningtothefirstsetofcomments,Iwouldliketopausehereandthankalltheroundtableparticipantsfortakingpart.Inaddition,Iwouldliketoremindreadersthatasanopen-accessforum,H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviewsisavailabletoscholarsandnon-scholarsalike,aroundtheworld,freeofcharge.Pleasecirculate.

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.4(2019) 4

CommentsbyMatthewKlingle,BowdoinCollegenmycampusofficesitsawoodendesknameplate.Itsays“LloydE.Bowman”inwhitesansserifletters,yellowedwithage,flankedbypeelinglogosoftheDepartmentofInteriorandtheBureauofReclamation.Behindthenameplateisablackandwhitephotoofaconcretedam,litbyfloodlights,juttingintoaninky

night.LloydBowmanwasmygrandfather.HetookthephotoofSeminoeDamontheNorthPlatteRiverin1938aspartoftheconstructioncrew.Hisleather-encasedsurveyor’stapemeasuresitstothesideoftheframedpicture,nearthenameplate.ForLloyd,buildingdamsandstringingwirewasnobleandnecessarywork.RaisedinasodhousecarvedoutoftheWyomingprairie,heknewlifewithoutelectricallightsandrunningwater.Hegave38yearstoBuRecasanengineerandsupervisorbeforeretiringtochaseparinsuburbanSanDiego.Lloydcherishedtheplacesthatprovidedhislivelihood,takinghisdaughterandtwograndsonsoncampingtripsacrosstheintermountainWest.Tohim,concretedamsandhigh-tensionpowerlineswereasmuchpartoftheregionasrapid-chokedriversandsnow-cladpeaks.Ikeepmygrandfather’skeepsakescloseformorethansentimentality.Theyarealsotalismanstoinspirework.LloydgraspedinhissunbakedforearmsandcallusedhandswhatIknowinmyhead:weliveinaworldofentanglements,andnoneofusarepure.1ThisinsightliesattheheartAndrewNeedham’sPowerLines.Aswithmanygoodbooks,thetitleconveystheargument.ThepowerlinestyingcoalbedsintheNavajoNationtosuburbanhomesofgreaterPhoenixaremorethanconduitsforelectricity.Theyarealsotheembodimentofthe“unequalandfrequentlyunperceivedsystemsofcommodityproduction,distribution,andconsumptionthatunderlieandabetdailylifeinmetropolitanAmerica.”2Themodifier“metropolitan”isthecruxofNeedham’sargumentbecauseWilliamCronon’sNature’sMetropolisisbothinspirationandfoiltoPowerLines.AsinCronon’spath-breakingbook,Needhamisoftenlessconcernedaboutaparticularplacethantheconnectionsbetweenplaces.SubstitutetheflowsofDakotawheatorWisconsinwoodintothetradingpitsandlumberyardsofChicagofortheflowsofKayentaMinecoalorBoulderDamhydropowerintotheelectricalgridofPhoenixandyouhaveasimilarstory.Urbanhistoryismetropolitanhistoryisregionalhistory.31MythinkinghereisalsoinfluencedbyRichardWhite,“TheProblemwithPurity,”TannerLectureonHumanValues,deliveredattheUniversityofCaliforniaatDavis,May10,1999,availableathttp://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_documents/a-to-z/w/white00.pdf(accessedJuly26,2017).2AndrewNeedham,PowerLines:PhoenixandtheMakingoftheModernSouthwest(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,2014),17.3NeedhammadethisargumentearlierinAndrewNeedhamandAllenDieterich-Ward,“BeyondtheMetropolis:MetropolitanGrowthandRegionalTransformationinPostwarAmerica,”JournalofUrbanHistoryvol.37,no.7(November2009):943-69.

I

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.4(2019) 5

ThePhoenicianboosterswhomadethemodernValleyoftheSunalsosaw“theengineofWesterndevelopmentinthesymbioticrelationshipbetweencitiesandtheirsurroundingenvironment.”4ButwhereasCronon’sbookwasalmostentirelyaboutsuchrelationships,Needham’sbookisalsoanurbanhistoryaboutaspecificcity.ItreversestheanalyticofCronon’sstudytorevealtheoften-hiddenmetropolitannatureofPhoenix’sbuiltenvironment.InNeedham'shands,thatnatureismostvisibleandmostpowerfulwhenitisdefinedasapoliticalsubject.PowerLinesisthusmostsuccessfulasanurbanpoliticalenvironmentalhistory.ThedistinctionisimportantbecauseNeedham’schoicetowriteaboutacityisnotnovelinitself.Thecityassubjectinenvironmentalhistoryhasgainedmuchgroundinthepastthreedecades,thanksinlargemeasuretoCronon’sexample.Aswithsomuchofthehistoricalfield,however,manyoftheseworksaremostlysocialorculturalinfocus,lookingforthemanifestationsandmeaningsofurbannatureinstrugglestoprovidecleanwaterandremovewaste,createparks,controlferalanimals,reshapewaterwaysandtopography,orexcludethosehumanresidentsonthemarginsofpowerfromtheenvironmentalamenitiesofurbanlife.5Alladdresspoliticsinsomeway,somemoredirectlythanothers,butfewareassuffusedwithpoliticalhistoryandpoliticaleconomyasPowerLines.WhatmakesPowerLinesoriginalisNeedham’scritiqueofpostwarliberalpoliticaleconomy(or“growthliberalism”aslabeledbysomescholars)asshapingandbeingshapedbyspatialandenvironmentalfactorsovertime.Whilethismayseemintuitivetoenvironmentalhistorians,Needhamtakesthisstorytohistorianswhomayneverreadenvironmentalhistory,showingwhyprevailingideasaboutproductionandconsumption,politicaleconomyandstateaction,andurbanandregionalplanningfallshortbecausetheylimittheiranalysistodiscourseandpolicyalone.Naturemattersinthisbook,materiallyanddiscursively,justasitmattersinalmostallhistory.

4WilliamCronon,Nature’sMetropolis:ChicagoandtheGreatWest(NewYork:W.W.Norton&Co.,1991),34.5Forrepresentativeexamples,seeAndrewHurley,EnvironmentalInequalities:Class,Race,andIndustrialPollutioninGary,Indiana,1945-1980(ChapelHill:UniversityofNorthCarolinaPress,1995);MartinV.Melosi,TheSanitaryCity:UrbanInfrastructureinAmericafromColonialTimestothePresent(Baltimore:TheJohnHopkinsUniversityPress,1999);AdamRome,TheBulldozerintheCountryside:SuburbanSprawlandtheRiseofAmericanEnvironmentalism(NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,2001);KathleenA.Brosnan,UnitingMountainandPlain:Cities,Law,andEnvironmentalChangealongtheFrontRange(Albuquerque:UniversityofNewMexicoPress,2002);AriKelman,ARiveranditsCity:TheNatureofLandscapeinNewOrleans(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,2003);MatthewKlingle,EmeraldCity:AnEnvironmentalHistoryofSeattle(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,2007);MichaelRawson,EdenontheCharles:TheMakingofBoston(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,2010);CatherineMcNeur,TamingManhattan:EnvironmentalBattlesintheAntebellumCity(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,2014);andColinFisher,UrbanGreen:Nature,Recreation,andtheWorkingClassinIndustrialChicago(ChapelHill:UniversityofNorthCarolinaPress,2015).

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.4(2019) 6

NeedhamarguesthatwhatLizabethCohencalled“theconsumer’srepublic”needstoaccountfortheenvironmentalconditionsthatmadepostwargrowthpoliticspossible.6Asaresult,PowerLinesisoftenmoreinconversationwithsignatureworksintwentieth-centuryurbanhistorythanitiswithenvironmentalhistory.7LongstandingthemesattheheartofmodernU.S.urbanandpoliticalhistory—postwarreconversion,urbanandregionalredevelopment,housingpolicy,theriseoftheconservativeright—arefoldedintoenvironmentalhistorywhiletopicsoftenseenasenvironmentalhistory—wildernessprotection,pollutionabatement,growthmanagement—arefoldedintourbanandpoliticalhistory.NeedhamdemonstratesthatanyanalysisofPhoenix’sgrowthcoalitionwouldbeinsufficientwithoutaddressingtheclimaticchallengesofbuildingamajorcityinthearidSouthwest,theseemingsurfeitofnaturalresourcessuchascoalforindustrialandresidentialelectricalpower,ortheperceivedneedtoprotectcleanairandwildplacestoattractmigrantsattheexpenseofstripminesandsmokeplumesontheNavajoReservation.AsNeedhamconcludes,Phoenix’sspectaculargrowthwasnotsimplytheartifactofsuccessfulcityboosters,savvyCongressmenorSenators,sympatheticfederalagencies,oramuscularpostwarliberalconsensus.Itwasalsopossiblebecauseofthecity’srelativeproximitytocoalfieldsonthemarginalizedNavajoReservation.CoalbecamethelatesttoolforincorporatingNativepeoplesintotheAmericanbodypolitic.BureauofIndianAffairsofficialscolludedwithPhoenixelitesandevensometriballeaderstoreplaceagriculturewithindustryto“modernizetheNavajo”throughdevelopingthereservation’scoaldeposits.8Itwasachimericaldream.CoalminesandpowerplantsshippedenergysouthtoPhoenix,leavingpollutionandprivationintheirwake.Urbandevelopmentwasthuspredicatednotjustuponhinterlandresourceextractionbutalsohinterlandcolonialism.Thetwinnedstoriesofsuburbandevelopmentandurbanunderdevelopmenthavemanyantecedentsinurbanpoliticalhistory,butnotmanyparallelsinenvironmentalhistory.AnotherofNeedham’sachievementsistobringthesetwonarrativestogether.AsIhavedescribedtoseveralcolleagues,PowerLinesisamashupofNature’sMetropolisandRobertSelf’sAmericanBabylon,ahistoryofwhitesuburbandominationandblackurbanresistanceinpostwarOakland,6LizabethCohen,AConsumer’sRepublic:ThePoliticsofMassConsumptioninPostwarAmerica(NewYork:AlfredA.Knopf,2003).7Forrepresentativeworks,seeThomasJ.Sugrue,TheOriginsoftheUrbanCrisis:RaceandInequalityinPostwarDetroit(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1996);LisaMcGirr,SuburbanWarriors:TheOriginsoftheNewAmericanRight(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,2001);BeckyM.Nicolaides,MyBlueHeaven:LiveandPoliticsintheWorking-ClassSuburbsofLosAngeles,1920-1965(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2002);RobertO.Self,AmericanBabylon:RaceandtheStruggleforPostwarOakland(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,2003);AlisonIsenberg,DowntownAmerica:AHistoryofthePlaceandthePeopleWhoMadeIt(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2004);KevinM.Kruse,WhiteFlight:AtlantaandtheMakingofModernConservatism(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,2005);MatthewD.Lassiter,TheSilentMajority:SuburbanPoliticsintheSunbeltSouth(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,2006);andKevinM.KruseandThomasJ.Sugrue,eds.,TheNewSuburbanHistory(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2006).8Needham,PowerLines,123-156.

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.4(2019) 7

California.Thecoevolvedhistoriesofblackpoliticalliberationandwhitetaxrevolt,Selfargues,cannotbeunderstoodseparately.Intheend,Selfconcludes,thestoryofOaklandexplainshow“capitalismvaluesdifferentspacesdifferently,”andwhenthose“valuesareinplace,embeddedinproperty,”theresultantconsequencescandictate“allkindsofaspectsofsociallife”fromguttedpublicschoolstoabandoneddowntownretailers.9NeedhamtakessuchinsightsandappliesthemtoexplaintheimpoverishmentofPhoenix’sruralandindigenousenvirons.ForallofNeedham'sambitions,however,heleavesmuchterrainunexploredorunexplained.Suchomissionsareexpected,eveninabookofsuchsweepandcommand.Thebookisatitsbestinexplaininghowthepoliticaleconomyofenergyproductionandconsumptionisintegraltourbanmorphologyandpoliticsonaregionalscale.Herightlychallengesurbanandenvironmentalhistoriansaliketolookbeyondthecitylights.Yetbyenlargingtheapertureofhislenstocaptureawiderfieldofvision,Needhamalsolosesfocusonhowandwheretheregionalgeographiesofenergyhaveperhapsshapedurbangeographiesofinequalitywithinthecity.Towhatdegreedidinexpensiveelectricalpoweraffectpublichousing,highwayandinfrastructureplanning,schooldistricting,orotherpoliticalinstitutionsthatcontinuetodividePhoenixandothercitiesbysocio-economicstatus?HowandwhyhavesomeneighborhoodsflourishedwhileothersdeclinedduringPhoenix'srapidascent?AsAndrewRossnotesinBirdonFire,ajeremiadagainstPhoenix’srampantgrowth,recentconcernsoversustainabilityandenvironmentaljusticehaveevolvedwithintheurbancrucibleofreactionarynativistpoliticsandsanctioneddiscriminationagainstLatinoresidentsandimmigrants.ByfocusingonmakingPhoenixmoresustainable,heconcludes,manygreen-mindedPhoeniciansaremaking“technicaladjustmentstobusinessasusual”ratherthanfacingthedeepinequitiesthathavelongdefinedtheircityanditsregion.10Conversely,howdidthearrivalofelectricalpowerandindustrialminingfurtherexacerbatesocialtensionsandenvironmentalinequalitiesontheNavajoReservation(orthemanyothersovereignreservationsthatencirclemetropolitanPhoenix,fromGilaRiverIndianCommunitytothesouthtotheSaltRiverPima-MaricopaIndianCommunitytothenorth)?NeedhamexaminesoftenbitterdisputesbetweenNavajotribalfactionsoverenergycolonialismindetail,avoidingtheobvioustrapofdepictingallNativesasecologicalIndians.StillmorecouldbedonetoinvestigatetheparadoxesofhavingaccesstoelectricalpowerinruralNorthAmericawhileenjoyinglittleofthepromisedeconomicuplift.TheforestedhollowsoftheTennesseeRiverValley,thesagebrush-fleckedplateausoftheColumbiaRiver,theborealtaigaofindigenousQuebec—theseandotherplaceshavebeensacrificedfordistanturbanenergyconsumption.Suchcommunitiesinvitefurtherinvestigationintothesocialandenvironmentalconsequencesofurbanappetitesforevermoreenergyextractedfromplacesfarflungandunseen.

9Self,AmericanBabylon,18.10AndrewRoss,BirdonFire:LessonsfromtheWorld’sLeastSustainableCity(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2011),313-14.

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.4(2019) 8

Inasimilarvein,Needhammightalsohavedonemoretoidentifythestrengthsandlimitationsofregionalismasananalyticaldevice.HeframestheSouthwestintheearlytwentiethcenturyasa“regionoffragments,”ofisolatedcitiesscatteredacrossthedesertscramblingforpoliticalandeconomicascendancy.11Buthemissesanopportunitytoprobehowhisideaofmetropolitanism(whichreliesheavilyupontheunacknowledgedanduncitedinsightsofCanadianscholarHaroldAdamsInnis)mightcomplicateearlierdefinitionsofWesternNorthAmericaasurbanregion.12AndwhataboutthecomparativeinsightsofPowerLines?TowhatextentdoPhoenix’senergygeographiesmirrorsimilargeographiesinotherNorthAmericancitiesorregions?WhatdoesafocusonPhoenixanditshinterlandsrevealthatparallelsordivergesfromafocusonVancouver,Houston,orCharlotte?Finally,Needham'sbook,perhapsunwittingly,joinsasmallbutgrowingandimportantchorusofhistoriesthatchallenge,evensubvert,expectedhistoriesofconservationandenvironmentalism.13IfnotforthecrusadesoftheSierraClubandotherenvironmentalorganizationstostopthecontinuedimpoundmentoftheColoradoRiver,orthesupportofpowerfulallies,suchasStewartandMoUdall,whostooduptoFloydDominyandtheBureauofReclamation,orthedemandsofbusinessmenforcleanskiestoattractaerospaceworkersandsuburbanhomeowners,theValleyoftheSuntodaymightbecooledandilluminedbythelower-carbonelectricityofconcretehydrodams.NeedhamistoosmarttoassignblamefortheunequalgeographiesofpowerthatdividetheSouthwesttoenvironmentalistsalone.Yetinhisconclusion,wherehequotesfroma1971articlebyJackNeary,wholamentedthesmoke-smudgedskiesoftheoncepristineColoradoPlateau,hemissesanopportunitytounderscorefurtheraninconvenienttruth:ouraffectionsfornatureareoftencommensurate

11Needham,PowerLines,23-54.12Innisfirstdevelopedhis“metropolitan-hinterlandthesis”inHaroldAdamInnis,TheFurTradeinCanada:AnIntroductiontoCanadianEconomicHistory(Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress,1930,1956).CrononacknowledgesInnisinNature’sMetropolisasshapinghisargument.SeeCronon,Nature’sMetropolis,53-54,401.ThemostprominentcontemporaryadvocatefordefiningtheNorthAmericanWestasanurbanregionisCarlAbbott.SeeTheMetropolitanFrontier:CitiesintheModernAmericanWest(Tucson:UniversityofArizonaPress,1993)andHowCitiesWontheWest:FourCenturiesofUrbanChangeinWesternNorthAmerica(Albuquerque:UniversityofNewMexicoPress,2008).13Forrecentexamples,seeChristopherC.Sellers,CrabgrassCrucible:SuburbanNatureandtheRiseofEnvironmentalism(ChapelHill:UniversityofNorthCarolinaPress,2012);EllenGriffithSpears,BaptizedinPCBs:Race,Pollution,andJusticeinanAll-AmericanTown(ChapelHill:UniversityofNorthCarolinaPress,2014);CarolynFinney,BlackFaces,WhiteSpaces:ReimaginingtheRelationshipofAfricanAmericanstotheGreatOutdoors(ChapelHill:UniversityofNorthCarolinaPress,2014);CarlA.Zimring,CleanandWhite:AHistoryofEnvironmentalRacismintheUnitedStates(NewYork:NewYorkUniversityPress,2016);andMilesA.Powell,VanishingAmerica:SpeciesExtinction,RacialPeril,andtheOriginsofConservation(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,2016).

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.4(2019) 9

withourdesirestoconsumeitwithoutheedtothewidercostsofourappetites.14Indeed,environmentalism’scontinuingblindspotofconsumptionperhapsmirrorspostwarliberalism’scontinuingblindspotofsocialinequity.Thepromiseofliberalismwasraceblindnessandequalityofopportunity;therealitywasthatthepromiseonlyappliedifwhiteprivilegewasnotthreatened.Asotherhistorianshaveshown,somecitedbyNeedhamhimself,self-avowedwhiteliberalswereoftenthefirsttodecryschooldesegregationoraffirmativeactionwhenitaffectedtheirpersonalprospectsorpoliticalsupremacy.15Tobesure,progressivePhoenicianswerenotatfaultfortheenvironmentalinjusticesunleashedupontheNavajobycoalminingandelectricalgeneration.Buttheywerenotfullyinnocent,either.Themarkofanygreatbookistherangeofquestionsitopensratherthantheanswersitgives.Bythismeasure,PowerLinesopensimportantandunsettlingquestionsforenvironmentalhistorianstoexplore.ItprovidesamapforotherhistorianstofollowwhenapplyingenvironmentalhistorytoenduringtopicsofsignificanceintheAmericanpast.Anditisalsoasoberingreminderthatwehaveanobligationtoourselvesandourpublicstotellstoriesthatmaysubvertorupendcherishedbeliefs.Weallliveinaworldofentanglements,andnoneofusarepure.

14MatthewKlingle,“TheNatureofDesire:ConsumptioninEnvironmentalHistory,”inTheOxfordHandbookofEnvironmentalHistory,AndrewC.Isenberg,ed.(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2014),467-512.15Forexample,seeLilyGeismer,Don’tBlameUse:SuburbanLiberalsandtheTransformationoftheDemocraticParty(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,2014),astudyofchangesinliberalismwithininBoston’sRoute128suburbancorridor.NeedhamcitesGeismer’s2010UniversityofMichigandissertation,thebasisofherbook.

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.4(2019) 10

CommentsbyJamesAllison,ChristopherNewportUniversity

“EnvironmentalSensibilities”sagraduatestudent,Irecallendlessconversationsamongmycohortaboutthestateofenvironmentalhistory,whereitwasheaded,andwhatrolewewouldplayinitsfuture.Thesewerepassionateexchangesfullofnaïveproclamationsandambitiousplans,andtheyoftencontainedmorethana

hintofcontemptforourfellowgraduatestudentsworkinginmoretraditionalfieldsofstudy.Wesometimessnickeredatthestilteddiscussionsheldbytheseriouspoliticalanddiplomatichistoriansaroundus.Wedismissedtheoverlyabstract,andadmittedlyintimidating,debatesamongscholarsofrace,class,andgenderaboutconstructedcategoriesanddiscoursesofpower.Andwewereopenlyhostiletointellectualhistorianswhofailedtogroundtheirsophistriesaboutthepowerofideasinthematerialworld.Yousee,mygroupknewasecrettheothersdidnot.Itwasourcategoryofanalysis–nature–thatwasdestinedtochangethepracticeofhistory.Howcouldtheynotseeit?Iftherewasonethingallhumanssharedincommon,itwasthattheyexistedinareciprocalrelationwiththenonhumanworld.Surely,thishadtobeaccountedforinourhistoriesofthehumanpast,andwewerejustassurethatourcolleagueswouldeventuallyseethelight.Asoneofmyfellowbelieversnevertiredofasserting,environmentalhistorywouldonedayceasetoexistasafieldsimplybecauseallhistorianswouldreflexivelyincorporatenatureintotheirworkasamatterofprofessionalcustom.Inasimilarvein,Irecallbrashlyinformingcolleaguesinafirst-yearmodernAmericanhistoryseminarthattheywereall,infact,environmentalhistorians,theyjustdidnotknowityet.Wewereinsufferable.ButIknowwewerenotalone.Bynow,multiplegenerationsofenvironmentalhistorianshavehadtheopportunitytoponderthepotentialofafullyincorporatedenvironmentalperspectiveonthepastandfantasizethatutopianfuturewherenatureisheldonparwithclass,race,gender,andevenpowerasacategoryofanalysis.Dewy-eyedgraduatestudents,likemygroup,havethesebreathlessconversationsaneweveryyear,butwehavealsohadthemassoberprofessionalsinmoreformalsettings.BeginningmostclearlywithapairofseminalessaysfromRichardWhiteandDonaldWorsterinthemid-1980sandcontinuingontoPaulSutter’srecentpublicationintheJournalofAmericanHistory,environmentalhistoriansnevertireofruminatingonthestateofourfield,prophesizingitsfuture,andsermonizingonwhyothersshouldtakeheed.16Infact,despitemyfriend’sassertionthatenvironmentalhistorywillonedayrecedeintotheshadowsasweconvertthemasses,theinstitutionalizationofthefieldintovibrantprofessional

16RichardWhite,“EnvironmentalHistory:TheDevelopmentofaNewHistoricalField,”PacificHistoricalReview54,no.3(1985):297-335;DonaldWorster,“Appendix:DoingEnvironmentalHistory,”inTheEndsoftheEarth:PerspectivesonModernEnvironmentalHistory(NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1988),289-308;andPaulS.Sutter,“TheWorldwithUs:TheStateofAmericanEnvironmentalHistory,”JournalofAmericanHistory100,no.1(2013),94-119.

A

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.4(2019) 11

organizations,journals,conferences,andonlineforumssuchasthisonetohoststate-of-the-fielddiscussionsmakesthatdaylessandlessprobable.Yetinsomesignificantway,AndrewNeedham’sworkexaminingtheurban,political,economic,environmental,andindigenousforcesthatforgedthemodernAmericanSouthwestfeelsasifwe,theenvironmentalhistorians,areclosetothePromisedLand.YearsofencouragingcolleaguestoincorporatenatureintotheirstudieshasproducedinPowerLinesaneleganttemplateforjusthowtodoso.Tobesure,thisworkisnotanenvironmentalhistoryinwhichnatureisaproblematicconcepttobeunpackedorsimplyadespoiledsubjectmattertobeexplained.Butitisahistorythattakesseriouslytheagencyofnonhumanforcesinallthings,includingtopicssoseeminglyfarafieldasfederalhousingcodes,mortgagelendingpractices,andcitycharterdebates.Theresultisacomprehensivestudyofthewell-knownphenomenonofpostwarmetropolitangrowththatgracefullyincorporatesanenvironmentalperspectivetorevealwhatwehavemissedpreviously.Assomeonesomewhereoncesaid,ourgoalisnottobeenvironmentalhistorians,buthistorianswithenvironmentalsensibilities.Clearly,Needhamhasthosesensibilities.Atitscore,PowerLinesisanurbanandpoliticalhistory.ItssubjectmatteristhedevelopmentofthemodernmetropolitanSouthwest,withPhoenixasitsfocus.Assuch,thebookrelaysafairlyfamiliartaleofNewDealandpostwarfederalpoliciesencouragingsuburbangrowthunderthebeliefthatanyassociatedeconomicbenefitswouldbesharedwidely.Federally-backedhousingcodesandlendingpracticessupportedtheconstructionofmass-producedneighborhoodsthatwerewiredforthemassconsumptionofenergy.Federallawsalsobrokeuputilityholdingcompaniesandencouragedthegrowthofregionalutilitiesthatpursuedanunabashed“grow-and-build”strategytosupplythesehomeswithabundantelectricity(73).AndfederaldollarsunderwrotetheexpansionofdefenseindustriesthatcreatedjobstolurepeopletotheSouthwestandintothenewhomes.Atthesametime,localelitesseizedcontrolovertheallocationofthisfederalsupporttofurthertheirowneconomicinterests.InPhoenixandelsewhere,theyconvertedagriculturallandintoplanneddevelopmentsthatensuredtheliberaldreamsofbroadprosperitydisintegratedintothesegregatedrealityoftheurban/suburbandivide.Asthecountrysidewasmadereadyforthehordesofincomingwhiteworkers,minoritieswererelegatedtothepoliticalperipheryevenastheylivedamongstthecrumblinginfrastructureoftheurbancore.ThesepointsregardingthegrowthoftheAmericanSouthwest,asNeedhamfreelyadmits,arestandardcontributionsto“acompellingsynthesisofpostwarAmericanhistory[that]hasfocusedattentiononmetropolitanspaceasthecentralbattlegroundofAmericanpolitics”(6).Theauthor,likeotherurbanandpoliticalhistoriansbeforehim,explainsinexcellentdetailthefederalpoliciesandlocalactionsthatproducedthesocial,economic,andpoliticalconfigurationswithintheSouthwestandheshowshowthesestructuralrelationsthenshapedwhatwaspossibleforindividualactors.Thisisfineandimportantwork.

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.4(2019) 12

ButthegeniusofPowerLinesliesinNeedham’sabilitytodemonstratehowabroaderenvironmentalperspectivecanexpandandalterastorywethoughtweknewwell.Refusingtoremainconfinedbymetropolitanborders,theauthorseizesuponthemostubiquitousyetmysteriousofnaturalforces–energy–toconductananalysisthatreachesfarbeyond.IfoneofthehallmarksofthemodernSouthwestwasthepervasiveavailabilityanduseofelectricitytomakesuburbanlifelivable,Needhamremindsusthatthematerialityofthatenergymattered.Whereitcamefrom,howitwasgeneratedandtransmitted,andwhatsocialandenvironmentalcostswereincurredalongthewayarenecessaryelementsofthemetropolitangrowthstory.Needhamthusinvitesthereadertogazeabovethelegionsofair-conditionedhomesfilledwithelectronicappliancesandfollowthepowerlinesoutoftown.InthehinterlandsoftheColoradoPlateau,inaspacefewurbanscholarshavedaredtoventure,wemeetthepeopleandresourcesthatmademetropolitangrowthhappen.TheNavajoNationanditsprodigiouscoalsupplieslieatthecenterofthenewgeographyNeedhamrevealstoexplainthemodernSouthwest.Hiddenfrompreviousaccountsofregionalgrowth,theNavajo’sobscuritywaspartlytheresultofscholarlyperspectiveandlargelytheintentofhistoricalactors.“Downtownbusinessmen”whodirectedPhoenix’spostwargrowthalignedthecity’svisionofitselfasasunnyandhealthyenvironwithfederalpoliciesaimedatwinningtheColdWar.Thismeantattractingthe“clean”industriesofthemilitary-industrialcomplexwithastableandfriendlygovernment,lowtaxesandlaborcosts,andenvironmentalamenities.Bynecessity,then,any“dirtywork”associatedwithmakingthisgrowthmodelwork–suchasproducingcheapelectricity–hadtobelocatedindistantplacesoutofsightandmind.EntertheNavajo.Theirremotereservationcontainedmillionsoftonsoflow-sulfurbituminouscoal–nottomentionampleoil,gas,anduraniumdeposits–andcrucialwaterrights.Ifthoseresourcescouldbetapped,electricitycouldbeproducedforexporttoboomingsouthwesterncitiesandtheunwantedbyproductsleftbehind.Butotherforceshadtoaligntomakean“ecotechnologicalsystem”baseduponNavajoresourcesviable(9).Needhamthustacklesthedecades-longevolutionofelectricityprovisionintheregiontoshowhowasystemthatbeganwithNewDealdamsandsocialplannersmorphedintothepostwarproliferationofparallelandwastefulpublicandprivatesystems,andthensettledintoaninterconnectedandefficientpublic-privategrid.Here,theauthorisathisbestexplainingtheevolvingmissionoftheBureauofReclamation;thetangledrelationshipsbetweenminingcompanies,utilities,municipalities,andpublicagencies;andthecomplicatedfinancialandtechnologicalinnovationsrequiredtobuildastrongandstablegrid.Peeringthroughthisthicket,Needhamseizesonthefungibilityofelectricityasthekeyfactorthatmadetheintegrationofdistantgeographiesthroughapowergridpossible.Onceprivateutilitiesconvincedpublicagenciesthatelectricityproducedanywherecouldserviceneedseverywhere–andthetechnologyexistedtotransmititlongdistanceswithlittleentropy–theBureauofReclamationcouldtapexcesscoal-sourcedelectricitytomeettherisingdemandsofitsagriculturalconsumers

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.4(2019) 13

whileprivategeneratorscouldaccesshydroelectricityforpeakurbandemand.Utilitiesalsocouldworrylessaboutthecarryingcostsofidleplantsandcouldstartmaximizingeconomiesofscalebyconstructingtrulymassivefacilitieswhereveritwascheapesttogenerateelectricity.Increasingly,thatplacewastheNavajoReservation.Thebuildingofthisinterconnectedelectricitygridisacrucialmissingcomponentofthemetropolitangrowthstoryandrevealingitshistoryisamajorcontribution.ButthisnewfindingaloneisnotsufficienttoexplainhowNavajoresourcesfueledsouthwesterngrowth.TheNavajopeople,theirtribalgovernment,andthelegalstructuresthatgovernedbothplayedprominentrolesaswell,andNeedhamunderstandsthis.IntwochaptersdedicatedtotheNavajo,theauthorshowshowtriballeadersinitiallyembracedenergydevelopmentanditspotentialrevenueasavehicletoimprovesocialservicesandestablishinfrastructuretolurejobs.Mimickingtheirmetrocounterparts,theseleaderspassedordinancestomakeiteasiertodobusinessonthereservationandmadepromisesaboutthemodernizingbenefitselectricitycouldbringtribalmembers.ButthefactthattheNavajoReservationfailedtoexperiencethesametypeofgrowthasthesurroundingregiondemonstratesthereallimitsplacedontribalpossibilities.FederalIndianpoliciesaimedatterminatingtribalstatusandassimilatingNativeAmericanssetthecontextfortribalnegotiationswithenergyfirms,whileintensereservationpoverty–alegacyofearlier,evenmoreinsidiousfederalpolicies–madesuchbargainingfarfromarms-length.Theresultswereone-sideddealsthatsimplyextractedNavajoenergyforuseelsewhere.TheasymmetricalbenefitsofreservationenergydevelopmenttriggeredanewnationalistresponseamongyoungNavajoinfluencedbytheanti-colonialrhetoricofgroupsliketheNationalIndianYouthCouncil.Needham,infact,seesvariousshadesofnationalismonthereservation–moreonthisinamoment–andarguesthattheseobjectionsshapedfuturedevelopment,evenpreventingsomeexploitativeprojects.Butheastutelyconcludesthatindigenousresistancehaditslimits.Forthoseprojectsalreadyinplace,withcapitalfixedinaninfrastructurethatprivilegedmetropolitandesiresoverNavajorights,thediewascast.Thetribalgovernmentcouldregulateexistingenergydevelopmentthroughtaxesorenvironmentalordinances,butnotpreventorfullycontrolit.Inshort,theauthor’shandlingoftheNavajo’sexperiencewithenergydevelopmentdemonstratesIndianagency,butalsodeftlysituatesIndianactionswithinfluctuatingfederalpoliciesandeconomicstructuresthatbothconstrainedandwerethemselvesaffectedbythoseactions.Truly,PowerLinesisanimpressivemappingoftheconstellationofforcesthatcreatedthemodernSouthwest.Itcontributesonsomanyfronts,nottheleastofwhichisprovidingamodelofhowtoincorporatenon-humanactorstorevealpowerfulforcespreviouslymissed,includingotherhumans.Butnoworkiswithoutitsissuesandthisoneisnoexception.Asascholaroftribalenergydevelopment,mygripes,unsurprisingly,revolvearoundtheauthor’shandlingofenergyandIndians.

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.4(2019) 14

Tobegin,IwouldencourageNeedham–andallscholars–tothinkmorecarefullyabouttheconceptsof“energy”and“power.”Assomehistorianshaveargued,thesetermsarenotinterchangeableandtheclumsyrenderingofthemintosynonymscancorruptananalysisofenergysystems.17Energyisthecapacitytodowork,whilepoweristherateatwhichthatenergyisdirectedtowardsaccomplishingsometask(i.e.doingwork).Energyispotential,powerispractice.Physicistskeeptheseconceptsseparateandclear,butweinthehumanitiesandsocialsciencestendtolosethatdisciplinewhenexplainingwhysomeactororactorshasmoreorlesspower.Wewoulddowelltorememberthatthe“social”powerweseektoexplainisbaseduponthosematerialenergyinputsavailabletohistoricalactors.Again,energyprovidesthecapacitytoexercisepower,butitistheabilitytoputthatenergytoapurposethatdeterminespowerfulness.Unfortunately,Needhamoftenfallspreytothecommontendencytoelidethesedifferences,butthedifferencesmatter.IntheclearestexampleofthisfromPowerLines,theauthormasterfullydetailstheforcesthatre-orientedtheSouthwest’selectricitysystemtowardstheNavajoandtheircoal,butthenclaimsthatthisnewgeography“reversedtraditionalcenter-peripherygeographies;whilepowerflowedoutofthiscenter,politicaldecision-makingpowerwasnotretainedthere”(174).Thisisnosmallcontention.IfIamreadinghimcorrectly,Needhamisarguingthatthewell-established(thoughproblematic)core-peripheryanalysisthatscholarsusetoexplaintheflowofcommoditiesoutoftheperipheryandintothecorewherepowerfuldecisionmakersresidewasinvertedinthiscase.Butthisissimplynottrue.Forone,powerdidnotleavetheNavajoReservation–the“core”ofNeedham’snewgeography–energydid.Thepowertodirectthatenergyhad,forthemostpart,alwaysresidedoutsidethereservation.Thisdidnotchangesimplybecausethematerialcommoditiesofcoalandelectricitywerenowbeingexported.Itistruethatthereservationbecamethe“center”ofenergyproduction,butcallingitthe“core”ofanewsysteminwhichpowerwaslocatedinthe“periphery”confuseswhatscholarsmeanbytheseterms.UnderNeedham’sapproach,onecouldtakeanyextractiveindustry,locatetheheartofitsproduction,andlabelthatareaa“core”outofwhichcommoditiesfullofenergyflowed,directedbypowerfulpeopleelsewhere(the“periphery”inNeedham’sview).Thistypeofspatialanalysismighthelprevealwherecommoditiesoriginate,butdoeslittletoexplainhowtheygetincorporatedintobroadermarkets.Theconfusionofthesetermsandtheerroneousconclusionitsupportscouldhavebeenavoidedwithamorecarefulhandlingoftheterm“power.”IalsohavequalmsaboutNeedham’streatmentofNavajonationalism.Toexplainitsemergence,theauthorreliesheavilyonbroaderpatternsofIndianactivismduringthe1960s.Mostspecifically,hetargetstheworkoftheNationalIndianYouth

17EdmundRusselletal.,“TheNatureofPower:SynthesizingtheHistoryofTechnologyandEnvironmentalHistory,”TechnologyandCulture52,No.2(April2011):246-59;seealsoElliotWest,TheContestedPlains:Indians,Goldseekers,andtheRushtoColorado(Lawrence:UniversityPressofKansas,1998),esp.xxi-xxiv;RichardWhite,OrganicMachine:TheRemakingoftheColumbiaRiver(NewYork:HillandWang,1995),esp.6,13-14.

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.4(2019) 15

Council(NIYC)thatofferedtheintellectualframeworkofcolonialismtohelpyoungAmericanIndiansunderstandtheirsubordinatepositionwithinAmericansociety.Thiscontextiswelldoneandhelpful,anditisclearthatmanyNavajogravitatedtowardsthismessage.ButtheconnectionbetweenthesebroadercurrentsandtheNavajonationalistmovementisundeveloped.Needhamprovideslotsoftestimonials,liftedfromNavajonewspapers,of“youngradicals”critiquingreservationenergydevelopmentinanti-colonialterms.HealsogivesanecdotalevidenceofcertaintribalmembersattendingNIYCtrainingcoursesorbeingpoliticizedoncollegecampuses.Andnumeroustribalorganizationsaredescribedthatself-consciouslyframedtheireffortsasanexerciseofNavajonationalism.Butasopposedtotheauthor’sdetailedhandlingofPhoenixeliteswhoorchestratedmetropolitangrowthbybuildingnetworksoflike-mindedbusinessmenandpoliticians,thereislittlesenseofhowthisindigenousmovementbeganorevolved.Whoweretheorganizers,whattriggeredtheiractions,andhowdidtheyenrollotherstothecause?Howdidkinandclanrelationshipsshapethegroupsthatformed?Andhowdidexistingtribalpoliticalstructures,includingapervasivepatronagesystem,negotiatethisnewideology?WearetoldthatTribalChairmanPeterMacDonaldembracedtherhetoricofnationalism,butwhy?Wasthisanopportunisticmovetocooptamovementorwasheaproductofthemovementitself?Theanswersarenotprovided.Instead,weseetheoutcomesintheformofletterstotheeditor,protestpamphlets,politicalspeeches,anddirectactionprotests,butwedonotknowhowtheNavajopeoplegotthere.Certainly,“gettinginside”theNavajocommunitytounderstandthebuildingofamovementthatmaynothavebeenwell-documentedisadifficulttask.Itisalsoaskingalotofaprojectdesignedprimarilytoexplainmetropolitangrowthhappeningelsewhere.Butthelackofaground-leveltribalanalysisdoesmatter,asitcloudsNeedham’sreadingofNavajonationalism.Theauthor,infact,seesmultiplestrandsof“nationalism”here.OneisrepresentedbyPeterMacDonald’sdesiretonationalizeenergyprojectsandhavehisgovernmentrunthemasameanstostrengthentribalsovereignty.TheotheristhebrandpreferredbyyoungradicalswhosupposedlyrejectedalldevelopmentasacolonialthreattoNavajoculture.ButIsuspectthattheseversionsaremoresimilarthanNeedhamletson,andthatthetribalconflictislessaboutshadesofideologyandmoreaboutwhobenefitsandlosesfromenergydevelopment.Ifweknewmoreaboutthenetworksofpeoplethatmadeupthetwocamps,wewouldknowforsure.TheevidencethatisprovidedshowsthatbothsidesopposedenergydevelopmentcontrolledbyoutsidersandthatbothsideswouldsupportenergyprojectscontrolledbyaNavajogovernmentthat,inMacDonald’swords,would“doitright”(232).Ofcourse,whatdoingitrightmeantandforwhomwasthecruxoftheissue,andthisiswhyweneedtoknowmoreaboutthepeopleinvolved.ButwhentheheadoflocalNIYCchapter,JohnRedhouse,says,“Weshouldseektodevelopourresourcesourselvesandreceiveagreaterportionoftheirtruevalue,”heisadvocatingthesamestyleofnationalismasPeterMacDonald(240).

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.4(2019) 16

Needham’sconcludingsectionentitled“LocalPower”showsthattherealdividewasnotbetweencompetingvisionsofnationalism,butbetweenMacDonald’ssupporters–whoevertheywere–andthosetribalmemberslivingclosesttotheminesandpowerplantsthatwouldforeverdisruptexistinglifeways.Thislattergrouphadthemosttolosefromenergydevelopment,andwhiletheysometimesframedtheirprotectionofplaceintermsofpreservingNavajotraditionsandidentity,itisnotatallclearthatthosesopersonallyaffectedwouldmakethesameargumentsiftheprojectswereplannedelsewhere.Inotherwords,whatNeedhamseesasdisputesoverdifferentformsofnationalism,IwouldsuggestarebetterframedastheoutwardmanifestationsofdifferentpositionswithinthesocialandnaturalgeographyoftheNavajoNation.Whereonelived,whotheirpeoplewere,andwhattheirownpersonallifeexperiencesentailedwouldhaveaffectedanindividualNavajo’sstanceonenergydevelopment.Nodoubttheauthorwouldagreewiththis.Buthisapproachtounderstandingtribaldivisionsbyexaminingtheresultingrhetoricratherthantrackingthesocialandmaterialconditionsthatfirstformedopposingcampsleavestheimpressionthattribalmemberssimplyflockedtoaparticularideology.Idonotthinkthatwasthecase.Instead,tribalfactionsmostlikelyformedalongotherlinesthatareundevelopedhere,andthenthosegroupsadoptedaparticularnationalistrhetoricthatmostforcefullyadvocatedtheirposition.Parsingthroughthisrhetoric,however,revealsthattheunderlyingnationalistdesirewasthesame:NavajocontrolofNavajoenergydevelopment.Butnobookcanbeallthingstoallpeople.Theseminorcriticismsaside,PowerLinesisanimpressivepieceofscholarshipthatconnectsawidearrayofhistoriographies.Urban,political,indigenous,energy,andenvironmentalhistoriansmustalltakenotice,andaccordingtothediversesetofawardsPowerLineshasalreadygarnered,theyaredoingso.Theseaccoladesarewell-deservedandIwouldaddmyvoicetothechorusofapplauseforAndrewNeedham’sfinebook.Welldone,Andrew,andthankyouforvindicatinganobnoxiousgangofenvironmentalhistorians.

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.4(2019) 17

CommentsbyJulieCohn,UniversityofHoustonndrewNeedham’sprize-winningPowerLinesoffersacomplexanddetailedstoryabouttheelectrificationofgreaterPhoenixandtheenvironmentalconsequencesofthisproject.Moretothepoint,PowerLinesisaboutthepeoplewhoinvestinandbenefitfromelectrification,andthepeoplewho

carrytheenvironmentalburden.ThebookbeginsinPhoenixandendsontheColoradoPlateau,asNeedhamfollowstheelectricitybackward,fromitsmanypointsofuseinthesprawlingcity,tothedams,coalmines,andpowerplantsatwhichitisproduced.Inthisnarrative,Needhamfindsthemoney,andtheprivation,byfollowingthepower.InNeedham’sretelling,thebenefitsandburdensofelectrificationareunequallydistributedbetweentheurbancenterandthehinterlands,whilethephysicalinfrastructurestretchesacrossboth.Needhamprovidesarivetingsocialandpoliticalhistoryofthearea,revealinglongstandinginequitiesbetweenwhitePhoeniciansandotherresidentsofcolor;ashiftingbalanceofinfluenceamongbusinessleaders,politicians,federalagencyofficials,andactivists;andinterurbanandinterstatenegotiationforaccesstothebountyoftheWest.Forhistoriansinterestedinenergyingeneral,andelectricpowerinparticular,Needhambringshumanconsequencesintoanenvirotechnicalstory.Thisopenstheopportunitytoexploreseveralinterestingquestionsinthehistoryofelectrification,allofwhichimplicateinequitiesinresourcedevelopment,transformation,anduse.Needham’snarrativeengagesthefirsttwoquestionstogether:Iselectricityacommodityoraservice?And,dependingupontheanswer,shoulditthereforebeproducedanddeliveredbypublicorprivatepowerentities?Lessdirectly,butquiteprovocatively,Needhamraisesthespecterofthe“resourcecurse.”Ifelectrificationbringsbothbenefitsandburdens,andthedistributionofeachisinequitable,doesthisrevealsomesortofinherentcursehidingwithintheenergyabundanceoftheUnitedStates?CommodityorService?PublicorPrivate?WhenThomasEdisonfirstsoldelectriclightingsystemstowealthyhomeowners,commercialbusinesses,cities,andtownsinthelate1800s,hecompetedwithgas-lightingcompaniesandotherelectriclightingsystems.Hewassellingacommodityaffordabletoafewandunattainableformost.Afteronlyafewshortyears,however,ownersofpowercompaniesenvisionedmakingelectricitysoaffordableandvaluabletocustomersthatitwouldbe“possibletomakeelectricalsupplyanecessityandnot,asitnowisinmanyinstances,ratheraluxury.”18Bytheearly1900s,statesbegantoregulateinvestor-ownedpowercompanies.Statecommissionsconferredmonopolyserviceareastoindividualutilitiesinreturnforcontrolledratesandthisfurtherunderscoredthenotionofelectricityasapublic

18"StationEfficiencies,"ElectricalWorld52,no.22(1908).

A

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.4(2019) 18

service.Overtime,intheUnitedStates,thequantityofelectricitygeneratedbyinvestor-ownedcompaniesfaroutpacedthatproducedbygovernment-ownedpowercompanies.Butthetotalnumberofmunicipalcompaniesexceededthenumberofprivatecompanies,andclimbedthroughthefirstdecadesofthetwentiethcentury.Formorethanonehundredyears,politicians,utilityowners,civicgroups,governmentadministrators,andothersdebatedwhetherelectricpowerserviceshouldbeapublicoraprivateenterprise.19Throughout,investor-ownedutilitiesstrovetomakeaprofitonthecommoditytheysold,whilecustomersgrewaccustomedtoelectricalserviceattheflipofaswitch.Inpracticalterms,thedebatesmaynotmattertocustomersaslongasthelightsgoonandtheratesarereasonable.ThestateofTexasoffersaclearexample.MostofTexashashadaderegulatedwholesalepowermarketsincetheearly2000s.Individualcustomershavetheopportunitytoselectageneratorbasedonanynumberoffactors,includingprice,lengthofcontract,andquantityofrenewablesinthemix.Yet,Texansarenotoriouslypooratresearchingoptionsandselectingproviders.Ithastakenfifteenyearsfortwo-thirdsofpowercustomerstoswitchfromalegacyprovider.20Thisdespitethefactthatpricesvarybyasmuchas6centsperkilowatt-hour,adifferenceof$833peryearfortheaveragehousehold.21InTexas,theproblemmayrestwiththechallengeofdecipheringthechoices,butitalsoreflectsadegreeofcomplacencyamongcustomers.Onanotherlevel,thepoliticsofpublicvs.privatepowerrevolvearounddifferingconceptionsofgovernmentsandeconomies.SomeintheUnitedStateshavearguedthatagovernment-ownedpowersupplyrepresentscreepingsocialism.Electrificationwasoriginallyacapitalistenterpriseandshouldstaythatway.Thesemightbetheproponentsofelectricityasacommodity.Othersarguedthatasavitalandessentialpublicservice,electricityisrightlyundertotalgovernmentcontrol.Inthegrayareabetweencommodityandservice,stillothershaveadvocatedforclosegovernmentoversightofinvestor-ownedpowercompanies.TheUSpowerindustry,however,hasstubbornlyremainedahybridofpublicandprivatesystems,regulationatvariouslevelsofgovernment,and,today,competitivemarketsalongsidemonopolynetworks.InPowerLines,Needhammakesthepointthat“electricitycomeswithnolabelsaying‘MadeinChina.’”(18)Onaninterconnectedsystem,thephysical

19Forexample,seePhilipJ.Funigiello,TowardaNationalPowerPolicy:theNewDealandtheElectricUtilityIndustry,1933-1941(Pittsburgh:UniversityofPittsburghPress,1973);RichardRudolphandScottRidley,PowerStruggle:TheHundred-YearWaroverElectricity,1sted.(NewYork:Harper&Row,1986);RichardF.Hirsh,PowerLoss:TheOriginsofDeregulationandRestructuringintheAmericanElectricUtilitySystem(Cambridge,MA:MITPress,1999).20JamesOsborne,“InTexasPowerMarket,FlightyCustomersPoseChallenge,”BizBeatBlog,DallasMorningNewsWebsite,December23,2015,http://bizbeatblog.dallasnews.com/2015/12/texas-power-companies-contend-with-flighty-customers.html/.21“2014AverageMonthlyBill–Residential,”EnergyInformationAgencyWebsite,http://www.eia.gov/electricity/sales_revenue_price/pdf/table5_a.pdf.

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.4(2019) 19

characteristicsofelectricity–andinparticularthefactthatitliterallyfollowsapathofleastresistanceandleastimpedance–complicateidentificationofitsgeneratingorigin.Evenifelectricityisacommodity,theaveragecustomerwouldfinditimpossibletodistinguishbetweentheelectronfromthecommercialpowerplantandtheelectronfromthefederaldam.Thisimpliesthatitreallydoesn’tmatterwhogeneratedthepower.NeedhamnotesthatPhoeniciansmighthavebeenabletolocatethesourceoftheirelectricitybefore1965.(165)OnemightdisputetheplausibilityofthisbyalsonotingthatthePhoenixareapowercompaniesalreadyexchangedpoweronaninterconnectedsystem,albeitasmallerone.Butmoreimportantly,NeedhamsuggeststhatPhoeniciansmighthavecared.After1965,powercamefrom“anebulouspoolthatcombinedpublicandprivatecoal,naturalgas,andhydropower,intoatotallyfungiblecommoditywhoseorigincouldnotbelocated.”(165)Needhamhereexplicitlyreferstoelectricityasacommodity,notaservice.PowerLinesopensanopportunitytoreconsiderthelongstandingdebatesaboutthenatureofelectricityandwhobestshouldgenerateanddeliverit. ConsiderthreedifferentpointsNeedhammakes.First,ineachdecade,smallgroupsofindividuals(dareIsay“powerbrokers”?)fromboththepublicandprivatesectorsmakethechoicesaboutelectrificationforPhoenix.ThePhoenixstoryisunusualbecauseinvestor-ownedutilitiesandaquasi-governmentalregionalauthority,theSaltRiverProject(SRP),competeddirectlyforaccesstomarketsatcertainpoints,evenwhentheysharedpower.InPowerLines,thePhoenixdeal-makersseemedlessconcernedwithwhichentitysuppliedthepowerthanwiththedirectionandextentoftheregion’sgrowth,forwhichabundantelectricitywasessential.AsNeedhamsays,“Inthesepolitics,thepublic-privatecoalitionsthatgovernedSunbeltcitiescompetedagainstoneanotherandtheirNortheasternandMidwesterncounterpartstoattractcapital.”(105)Thealliancesamongboosters,electedofficials,andagencyheadstoexpandPhoenixseemedtorenderthepublicvs.privatepowerdebatemoot,becauseintheendallthatreallymatteredwasexpedience.Thisthenopensthequestionofwhobenefitedfromtheprojectofelectrification(primarilyAngloPhoenicians)andwouldthathavedifferedbasedonwhowasproducingthepowerandtransmittingitoverthepowerlines? Second,NeedhamdescribesalliancesbetweentheSRPandthePhoenixinvestor-ownedutilities,despiteperiodiccompetition.ThefirstmajorprojectofthefederalBureauofReclamation,RooseveltDam,producedelectricitycontrolledbySRP.Notably,Phoenix’sinvestor-ownedutilitiesalsoobtainedpowerfromthedambeginningin1913.(pp.36-38).In1928,SRPandCentralArizonaLightandPowerCompany(CALAPCO)formallydelineatedtheirrespectiveserviceareas.Inthe1930s,regardingaschemetobringpowerfromBoulderDamintoArizona,“…SRPjoinedCALAPCOinfightingtheproposal.Inpart,thisrejectionreflectedthegeneralabsenceinPhoenix,beforethe1950s,ofthebattlesbetweenpublicandprivatepowerthatcharacterizedmuchofthenation’selectricalpolitics.”(41)Inthe1950s,SRPandArizonaPublicService(APS),thesuccessortoCALAPCO,disputedtheboundariesofeachentity’sservicearea,butultimatelyresolvedthisbyintegratingtransmissionnetworksandplanningthesequencingofnewpowerplants.(76)In

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.4(2019) 20

Needham’sanalysis,SRPandCALAPCO/APSweremorealikethandifferent,bothseekingtoprotecttheirfinancialoperations,theirdefinedcustomerbase,andtheirregionalautonomy.BothentitiessharedthevisionofmakingPhoenix“thecenterofaSouthwesternempire.”(42)Inthisregard,thedistinctionsbetweenpublicandprivatepower,andtheinterestsofthedifferententitiesappearblurredfromtheget-go.Third,Needhamillustratesthatthereareclearwinnersandlosersaselectrificationtakesplace.Theurban“blob”ofPhoenixwinswithsufficientelectricityfrombothcoal-firedandhydroelectricplantstosupportcountry-clubliving,“clean”industry,andexpansivesuburbandevelopment.ThedistantColoradoPlateauanditsresidentslose,withenvironmentaldamage,depressedeconomicactivity,internalpoliticaldiscord,andinadequateelectricity.WhileNeedhamillustratesthatprivateinvestorscertainlydominatedtheprojectofelectrification,andespeciallycoal-miningandpowergenerationontheColoradoPlateau,hisstudyalsosuggeststhatthefederalgovernmentwascomplicitintheunequaldevelopmentanddistributionofelectricpower.Henotes,forexample,bythe1960s“federalpolicyfocusedincreasinglyonunlockingresourcesonNavajolandratherthanensuringemploymentaccompanieddevelopment.”(124)Theprocessofelectrification,asNeedhamshows,ismuchmorecomplex–witheachnewdevelopmentcontingentonpastchoices–thansimplyaquestionofpublicvs.privatepower.Butitwouldbeinterestingtoconsiderwhatapublicpolicymighthavelookedlikethatensuredequitableaccesstoelectricity,andequitablesharingofthenecessaryburdens.Byextension,howmightthiscontemplationcontributetocontemporarydebatesabouthowtoaccessadequateandequitablydistributedelectricityforthefuturewithoutfurthercompromisingtheearth’sclimate?IstheColoradoPlateau“Blessed”witha“ResourceCurse”?TheunequaldistributionofbenefitsandburdensfollowingelectrificationofPhoenixsoundssimilartotalesofresourceextractionandblightinotherpartsoftheworld.BritisheconomistRichardAutycoinedtheterm“resourcecurse”in1993todescribeaninverserelationshipbetweenacountry’sexportableresourcewealthanditsdomesticeconomy.22MostresourcecursestudieslookatcountriesinAfrica,SouthAmerica,andAsia.23Ineconomics,politicalscience,internationalstudies,andrelatedfields,scholarshavetestedthenotionoftheresourcecurseanddebateditsmeritsasanexplanatorytool.Somehaveofferedalternativeanalysestotheapparentdisconnectbetweenresourcewealthanddomesticeconomicgrowth,22RichardM.Auty,SustainingDevelopmentinMineralEconomies:TheResourceCurseThesis(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1993).23AnthonyJ.Venables,"UsingNaturalResourcesforDevelopment:WhyHasItProvenSoDifficult?"TheJournalofEconomicPerspectives30,no.1(2016):162.ForresourcecurseanalysesintheUnitedStatesseeGrantD.JacobsenandDominicParker,“TheEconomicAftermathofResourceBooms:EvidencefromBoomtownsintheAmericanWest,”TheEconomicJournal126,no.593(2014):1092-1128;StratfordDouglasandAnneWalker,“CoalMiningandtheResourceCurseintheEasternUnitedStates,”No.14-01,WorkingPapers,WestVirginiaUniversity(2015):1-28.

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.4(2019) 21

suggesting,forexample,that“resourcedependenceappearsasasymptom,ratherthanacauseofunderdevelopment.”24Toanenvironmentalhistorian,thenotionofaresourcecursesoundsdangerouslysimilartoenvironmentaldeterminism.Thecontinuingdebatesovertheresourcecurseconcept,however,suggestthatitisaverycompellingtoolforunderstandingwhyresourceextractionhasbeneficialresultsinsomeplacesandburdensomeresultsinothers.Needham’sbookillustratesthespecificityofhistoryasawayofunderstandingresourceextraction,resourceuse,andeconomicbenefitinaparticularregionoftheUnitedStates.Needhamoffersneithereconomicregressionchartsnorpan-regionalcomparisons.Instead,hetakesthereaderonanin-depthexplorationoftherelationshipsbetweenagrowingsouthwesterncityanditshinterlands.TheupshotofNeedham’sstoryisadisturbingperspectiveontheinequitiesbetweentheboomingexpansionofPhoenixandthedireconditionsoftheNavajoNationontheColoradoPlateau.Itsoundsverymuchlikearesourcecursestory:• Intheearlytwentieth-century,Arizonaanditsneighboringstatesrepresenta

regionwithlaggingeconomicdevelopment.• Fallingwaterandcoalcomprisetwoexamplesoftheuntappedresourcewealth

ofthearea.• Wheninvestorsandgovernmentagenciesdevelopthoseresources,thebenefits

accruedtosomeandnotothers,mostnotablynottheresidentsclosesttothecoalandthefallingwater.

Needham’sstudyismarkedlydifferentfrommostresourcecurseanalyses.Usingthehistorian’stoolbox,Needhamweavestogethertheparticularsofdecisions,investments,exclusions,andsoforththatresultedinelectrificationofPhoenix.Further,Needham’sstorytakesplaceintheUnitedStates,acountrynottypicallyidentifiedwiththeresourcecurse.Thisstudyfocusesonelectrification,usuallytreatedasahighlytechnicalprojectofeconomicadvancement.Unlikeoilanddiamonds–resourcesthataretypicallyminedandthentransportedacrosstheglobeformyriaduses–thecoalandfallingwaterinPowerLinesareharnessedtoproducepowerinsitu,whichisthenusedrelativelycloseby.Buttheareaimmediatelyadjacenttothepowerplantsdoesnotenjoyaccesstoabundantandaffordableelectricity.TheelectrificationofPhoenixanditshinterlandsisdifferentfromthestandardresourcecursenarrativeinotherways.ThehistoricalandevolvingrelationshipbetweenIndiantribesandthefederalgovernment,forexample,complicates24C.N.BrunnschweilerandE.H.Bulte,“LinkingNaturalResourcestoSlowGrowthandMoreConflict,”ScienceMay2,2008:616-617;StephenHaberandMenaldoVictor."DoNaturalResourcesFuelAuthoritarianism?AReappraisaloftheResourceCurse."TheAmericanPoliticalScienceReview105,no.1(2011):1-26.JørgenJ.AndersenandMichaelL.Ross,“TheBigOilChange:ACloserLookattheHaber–MenaldoAnalysis,”ComparativePoliticalStudies47,no.7(2013):993.

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.4(2019) 22

questionsofownershipandcontractingauthority.TheNavajoNationexistsasasovereignentitywithintheUnitedStates,buttheUSCongresshasplenarypoweroverthenation.ThroughoutthehistoryofresourcedevelopmentontheColoradoPlateau,asNeedhamillustrates,federalagenciessteppedintofinalizethetermsunderwhichoutsideentitiesaccessedcoalandproducedpower.NeedhamtracestheeffortsofNavajoleadersacrossmanydecadestoharnessthereservation’senergyresourcesonbehalfofitsinhabitants,buttheoversightroleofthefederalgovernmentwasonefactorthatminimizedthesuccessoftheseinitiatives.(124).Needhambringstheenvironmentalconsequencesofcoalminingandriverdammingtothefore,perhapsintroducingadifferentnotionofwhataresourcecursemightbe.ThegrowthofPhoenixrepresentsonetypeofenvironmentaltravesty:conversionofadrydesertlandscapeintoanetworkofroads,powerlines,sprinklersystems,buildings,grassylawns,andothermanmadeartifacts-sustainedonlybyexcessiverelianceofimportedenergyandwater.Thestrip-miningandpowerproductionontheColoradoPlateaurepresentsasecond,asdepictedintheimagedescribedas“TheRapeofBlackMesafor$$$”with“…agiantdeath’sheadrisingfromthecombinedemissionsofFourCorners,Navajo,andMojaveGeneratingStations.”(219)Thenetworkofextra-high-voltagetransmissionlinesformingawebacrossthesouthwestrepresentsathirdvisualenvironmentalconsequenceofelectrification.Arguably,thedevelopmentofPhoenixbenefitedmillionsofindividualresidentswhofoundworkandwell-beingthere.TheNavajodidparticipateintheeconomicactivityofenergydevelopmentontheirreservation.ThepowerlinesdorepresenthealthyeconomiclinksbetweendifferentlocalesintheSouthwest.Buttheoverallenvironmentaltransformationoftheregioncanbetroubling,especiallyasoneattemptstodetermineifresourcewealthisacurseorablessing.So,istheColoradoPlateaucursedbyitsmineralwealth?Needham’sbooksuggeststhatmineralsaloneareneitherthecursenortheblessing,ratherthesocialdecisionsmadeaboutthoseresourcesaretelling.Istherevalue,then,inacknowledgingthattheUnitedStatesisnotimmunetotheresourcecurse,particularlywhenexaminingtheprocessofresourcedevelopment,transformation,anduseingivenregions?Further,ifoneunderstandscertainregionsoftheUnitedStatesassufferingfromaresourcecurse,canthisconceptbebetterexploredbyintroducingattendantenvironmentalburdensandbenefitsalongsidetheeconomicandsocio-culturalones?InPowerLines,AndrewNeedhamhasprovidedamplematerialtoprovokenewinquiriesintosomeofthepersistentconcernsofenergydevelopmentandhumanexperience.Hepushesthereadertoabandonthebinariesofcommodityandservice,publicandprivate,infavorofaskingbroaderquestionsaboutthebenefitsandcostsofelectrification.Perhapsitistimetoreframeboththehistoricalinquiryaboutelectrificationandmorecontemporaryargumentsaboutwhocontrolspowerintermsofwhatcustomerscareaboutmostandhowtoachievethatwithexpedience.Butthenthequestionremains,whichcustomerscount?Bylookingatbotheconomic

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.4(2019) 23

andenvironmentalaspectsofelectrificationinArizona,Needhamhasinvitedtheconceptoftheresourcecurseintothishistoricalnarrative,andhasfurtherofferednewwaystothinkaboutwhattheresourcecursemightbe.CantheenvironmentalconcernsbeintegratedwitheconomicandpoliticalconsequencestobetterunderstandhowenergydevelopmenthastakenplaceintheUnitedStates,whowinsandloses,andwhy?NeedhamsuccessfullyintroducedastoryaboutPhoenix,urbanexpansion,technicalintegration,andenvironmentalchange;andthenleftthereaderstandingbesidetheNavajo,ponderinghowtorectifytheinequitiesofacentury-longprojecttoturnonthelights.

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.4(2019) 24

CommentsbyRobertLifset,UniversityofOklahoma eadingthefirsthalfofAndrewNeedham’sbookonthegrowthandexpansionofPhoenixandtheNavahonationtothenorthremindedmeofWilliamCronon’sNature’sMetropolis.OnlyPowerLinesbeginstoapproachCronon’sachievementwithoutdoingthefullCronon;insteadoftracingevery

commodityflowintoandoutofPhoenix,Needhamfocusesonone:energy.Energyformsthefoundationandgroundingoftheentirebook.BeginningwiththebuildingofBoulderDam,Needhamtracesinthefirstchapterhowenergytiedtogetherafragmentedregion.Thesecondsection,“Demand”describestheexpansionofmetropolitanPhoenix;partIII,“Supply”exploreshowtheenergythatpoweredPhoenix’sexpansionandthegreatersouthwestcamefromtheNavahoreservation;andpartIV“Protest”examinestheoppositionthisarrangementproducedamongenvironmentalistsandanewgenerationofNativeAmericanactivists.Largepartsofthisstoryarenotnew.Onecanfindintheenergyhistoriographythestrugglebetweenpublicandprivatepower,theriseinthedemandforenergy,andtheenvironmentalimpactsofenergyproduction,includingtheimplicationsoftheincreasingphysicalseparationofenergyproductionandconsumption.WhatisnewishowNeedhamdeftlybringsthesetogetherinahistoryofthesouthwest.Priortothe1960s,thesouthwestwaspoweredbyfederallybuilthydrointheinter-mountainwestandnaturalgasfromwestTexas.Thefuturecapacityofhydropowerwaslimited(italsocarriedtheadditionaldrawbackofarelianceonthefederalgovernment)andbythe1950sitbegantoappearthattherewouldnotbeenoughwestTexasnaturalgastocontinuetomeettherisingenergydemandoftheregion.Atomicpowerwasdismissedastooexpensive(Isuspectthelargeamountofwaternuclearpowerrequiresalsoplayedarole).Localutilitycompaniesfacedhardlimitsontheirabilitytopursueagrowandbuildstrategywithoutcontrolofanewsourceofenergy.ThesolutionwastotapthelargereservesofcoalsittingbeneaththeNavajonationtothenorth.ButinpartbecausePhoenixdevelopedanidentityasagrowingcitywithouttheairpollutionproblemsthatplaguedothers,thecoalwouldbeminedandusedtopowerelectricitygeneratingstationssitedonthereservation.WithinadozenyearstheNavajoreservationwouldberingedbyfourlargecoalpoweredplants,oneofwhich,FourCorners,createdsolargeaplumeofsmokethattheMercuryastronautsreporteditwasoneofthetwoman-madeobjectstheycouldidentifyfromspace(theotherbeingtheGreatWallofChina).By1975,theNavajoandHopireservationsgenerated8,000MWofelectricity,representingalmost65%ofalltheelectricityconsumedinArizona,NewMexicoandsouthernCalifornia.

R

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.4(2019) 25

NeedhampayscarefulattentiontoaseriesofdevelopmentsandchoicesthatledtoagreaterrelianceoncoalpoweredelectricityproducedontheNavajoreservation.Tociteoneexample,theBureauofReclamation’seffortstobuildthelongdistancetransmissionlinesthatwouldbringpowerfromthedamsenvisionedintheColoradoRiverStoragePlan(CRSP)andstitchtogetherthewestweremetwithaneffortbyteninvestorownedutilitiestocreatetheirowngridconnectingthesouthwest.Thiseffortbyprivatepowerwouldlinkutilitiesallowingthemtocollectivelybuildlargerpowerplants(takingadvantageofeconomiesofscale)usingthecheapestfuel:coal.Asaresult,theNavajoreservationwouldbeusedtopowernotjusttheexpansionofmetropolitanPhoenixbutalsoAlbuquerque,SaltLakeCityandgreaterLosAngeles.ThesecondhalfofthisbooktracestheimpactofthesedevelopmentsontheenvironmentandpoliticsoftheNavajonationessentiallyarguingthatthereservationbecameasacrificezonefortheeconomicdevelopmentofthewealthierandwhitercitiestothesouthandthewest.Byhighlightingagreatenvironmentalandpoliticalinjustice,NeedhamcarefullytracesthesocialandenvironmentalconsequencesofhowPhoenixbenefittedfromcheapenergywhileshiftingtheburdenassociatedwiththisenergyproductionontoothers.Needhamthenattemptstosuggestthattheriseofcoalinthesouthwestforeshadowedthelargernationalrevivalofcoal,whichhasresultedinincreasingcarbonemissions.Herethebookisonweakerground.Whiletheturntocoalinthesouthwestinthe1960spredatesitsnationalrevival,coalconsumptionincreasesinthe1970sbecausetheenergycrisismakesoilandnaturalgasmoreexpensiveanddifficulttoobtainwhilenuclearpowerfailedtofulfillitspromise.Theenvironmentaljusticedynamicofsitinglargeamountsofgeneratingcapacityinalandscapepopulatedbytheregion’spoorestmostdisempoweredresidentsisnotuniquetothesouthwest.Buthownecessarywasthisdynamic,whenthefederalgovernmentthroughaseriesofpoliciesculminatinginthePowerPlantandIndustrialFuelUseActof1978,orderedelectricutilityplantstoswitchfromburningoilandnaturalgastocoal?Thehistoricalforcesthataccountfortheturntocoalinthesouthwestinthe1960sdonotexplainitsnationalrevivalinthe1970s.Thisbookispartofanemergingscholarshipinthehistoryofenergy.Inthepasttwoyearsthisscholarshiphasexpandedourunderstandingofenergytransitions(ChristopherJones,RoutesofPower),tracedthediplomaticandculturalimpactsofaparticularformofenergy(PeterShulman,Coal&EmpireandBobJohnson,CarbonNation)andexaminedtheimpactofenergyproductiononenvironmentalism(Lifset,PowerontheHudson).AsanefforttouseenergytofindnewinsightsintothedevelopmentofaregionNeedham’sbookisbestreadalongsidePaulHirt’s,TheWiredNorthwestandChristopherManganiello’sSouthernWater,SouthernPower.ItwouldbeinterestingtoreadhowtheauthorseesPowerLinescontributingtothishistoriography.

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.4(2019) 26

FollowingenergyallowedNeedhamtotracethepoliticalandsocialinequalitiesofthesouthwest,theimpacttheydrewonthephysicallandscapeandtheideasthatpoweredalargeanddiversegroupofcharacters.It'saremarkabledemonstrationofthepowerofenergyasananalyticaltoolandtheinsightsitcanbringtohistoricalinquiry.

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.4(2019) 27

AbouttheContributorsJamesAllisonisanassistantprofessorofhistoryatChristopherNewportUniversity.Aformerenergyandenvironmentalattorney,hishistoricalscholarshipfocusesontheinterplayofenergydevelopmentandruralandindigenouscommunitiesandlandscapes.Hisfirstbook,SovereigntyforSurvival:AmericanEnergyDevelopmentandIndianSelf-Determination(YaleUniversityPress,2015),explainshowAmericanIndiansleveragedtheircontroloverreservationresourcesduringthe1970sEnergyCrisestoexpandtribalsovereignty,whilehiscurrentprojectexplorestheconstructionof“energycorridors”thatdeliveredAppalachiancoaltoglobalmarketsattheturnofthetwentiethcentury.JulieCohnisaResearchHistorianwiththeCenterforPublicHistoryattheUniversityofHouston.Interestedinthehistoryofenergy,environment,andtechnology,sheisauthorofTheGrid:BiographyofanAmericanTechnology(MITPress,2017),whichanalyzesthedevelopmentoftheinterconnectedpowersysteminNorthAmerica.ChristopherF.Jones,AssociateProfessorofHistoryatArizonaStateUniversity,studiesthehistoriesofenergy,environment,andtechnology.HeistheauthorofRoutesofPower:EnergyandModernAmerica(Harvard,2014)andiscurrentlyworkingonaprojectexaminingtherelationshipsbetweeneconomictheoriesofgrowthandthedepletionofnon-renewablenaturalresources.MatthewKlingleisAssociateProfessorofhistoryatBowdoinCollege.HeisauthorofEmeraldCity:AnEnvironmentalHistoryofSeattle(Yale,2009)andiscurrentlyresearchingabookanalyzinghowtoday’shealthcrisisgrowsfromourchangingrelationshipswithnatureandshiftingpatternsofsocialinequalityintheUnitedStatesandtheworldfromthelate-nineteenthcenturytothepresentday.RobertLifsetistheDonaldKeithJonesAssociateProfessorofHistory&HonorsattheUniversityofOklahoma.HeistheeditorofAmericanEnergyPolicyinthe1970s(2014)andauthorofPowerOnTheHudson:StormKingMountainAndTheEmergenceofModernAmericanEnvironmentalism(2014).Copyright©2019H-Net:HumanitiesandSocialSciencesOnlineH-Netpermitstheredistributionandreprintingofthisworkfornonprofit,educationalpurposes,withfullandaccurateattributiontotheauthor,weblocation,dateofpublication,H-Environment,andH-Net:Humanities&SocialSciencesOnline.