As Sacramento officials consider a proposal to vaporize the city's garbage and turn it into energy, some people are finding it hard to contain their enthusiasm.

"I know this is schmaltzy, but I think we're on the side of the angels on this one," said Jim Rinehart, Sacramento's economic development director. "In a decade we're going to see these all over the United States. It will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and is really worthwhile."

While the team promoting the concept is promising a remarkable upside – creating renewable energy while lessening the impact on landfills at no cost to the city – a Bee review of the proposal found a lack of data on key issues and conflicting operating information.

No commercial plant the size of the one proposed in Sacramento exists in the world. The city was unable to provide The Bee with detailed performance and emissions data. "Because there is no operating facility in the U.S., there are no data," Rinehart said.

Earlier this year, the City Council approved the waste-to-energy plan in concept and authorized nonbinding negotiations with Sacramento-based U.S. Science & Technology. Those talks have been extended twice, most recently on Aug. 26, when the council unanimously agreed to 90 more days of negotiations and vetting.

Before the plant can operate, it must go through environmental reviews and monitoring. City Councilman Rob Fong told Rinehart that performance standards, including emissions levels, should be included in the company's contract with the city.

Even with those assurances, environmental groups voice strong reservations.

"The only thing proven about this technology is that it's problem-plagued," said Bradley Angel, of the San Francisco environmental group Greenaction. "The City Council has been given a series of incorrect claims and straight out false claims."

The only two commercial plasma arc plants in the United States – in Hawaii and Richland, Wash. – have had problems and neither has processed garbage, Angel said.

The plant in Washington, which processed mixed radioactive and other hazardous waste, experienced breakdowns and went bankrupt within a year.

The Hawaii plant, which processes medical waste, still operates but has been cited for stockpiling infectious waste.

Rinehart said he has faith in the plasma arc technology. But when pressed, he said he couldn't say with certainty that efforts to filter potentially hazardous and invisible toxins out of the Sacramento plant's emissions will work as expected.

"I can't use the word 'convinced' until it's up and operating," Rinehart said. "When we have it built and emissions come out and if they exceed (standards) it will be shut down."

Lee Shull, a toxicologist from Environmental Resources Management, a partner firm in the waste-to-energy project, said the technology is "incredibly clean." Shull, who also is on the advisory board for U.S. Science & Technology Corporation, stressed there will be plenty of public discussion at a later date about emissions.

In its pitch to Sacramento last year, U.S. Science & Technology said other cities are looking to build their own plants, including St. Lucie County, Florida.

However Cristina Llorens, spokeswoman for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, said the agency has not received a permit application for the project. St. Lucie County officials said paperwork should be submitted to the state in a few weeks.

Sacramento last year began to study plasma arc gasification as a cost efficient and green option to trucking garbage daily to a Nevada landfill.

Superheated electrified gas, or plasma, along with coke (a derivative of coal) vaporizes organic wastes, producing a synthetic fuel that can be sold for a profit to energy companies. Molten glass and metals form a glassy slag, which can be sold for construction materials.

U.S. Science & Technology has said the proposed Sacramento plant will be financed in part by selling electricity, another untried aspect of the plan. Officials from the Sacramento Municipal Utility District have questioned its energy efficiency and are not supporting the proposal.

The Hitachi Metals plant in Utashinai, Japan, is viewed as the model for Sacramento's proposal. But that operation has had to burn auto shavings along with trash to adequately power its operation and hasn't sold any excess energy, said William Ludwig, CEO for U.S. Science & Technology.

Sacramento paid upfront for 12 city officials to travel to Japan to let them view the small-scale plant. U.S. Science & Technology will reimburse the city. Receipts are still being compiled, city officials said, so the trip's total cost is unavailable. An initial six-day trip made by City Councilwoman Lauren Hammond and a staffer cost about $14,500, according to city documents.

The Sacramento plant would be built and operated privately. Sacramento's primary obligation would be to guarantee a steady stream of garbage. The city would pay for trash to be hauled to the plasma plant, but no more than it currently spends.

It's unclear how much trash the city is promising to U.S. Science & Technology, as amounts stated in interviews and documents differ. And the door is left open for the plant to accept more than garbage, including medical and hazardous waste.

Rinehart, the economic development director, told The Bee he did not know how much the plant would cost or how it would be financed. Ludwig said the company had shared that information with the city and pegged the price tag at $200 million.

Ludwig said the company has a number of financing options and investors. He would not provide names, saying that was confidential.

Hammond, who chaired a working group on the plant, said the city would "do everything we can" to review the environmental impact, but that concerns being voiced now shouldn't kill the project.

"Just because we're in new waters doesn't mean we should abandon this," Hammond said.

Call The Bee's Terri Hardy, (916) 321-1073.