Another one (two) bites the dust!

Three dozen plus and counting can't be wrong. The latest to join the honor role are Orlando, Florida and Boise, Idaho. Pamplico, South Carolina can't be far behind, right?

In both cases the utilities themselves made the prudent decision to pull the plug. How long will we have to wait until that kind of responsible behavior is exhibited in South Carolina?

In Orlando, utility leaders wisely understood that impending CO2 regulation makes coal an extremely expensive gamble that would have hurt households and industry both in the pocketbook. Can we afford to ignore this in South Carolina?

In Idaho, utility execs balked at both the high cost of constructing a new coal plant AND the unacceptable environmental impact of coal. Can coal be a good investment for South Carolina if it isn't for Idaho?

Ever wonder why the national pro-coal lobby has descended on our State? Why the same pro-coal people frequent this site? Its because they are losing ground every day. People in positions of responsibility around the country are stepping up and making the the right decisions to protect their environment, their health and their economy.

They know South Carolina is going to be the next state to say "NO" to this dirty, unhealthy, expensive, and risky proposition.

Bad "CARMA" for S-C

I recently heard about this new site while listening to the radio. Its appropriately dubbed CARMA and it is designed to make tracking CO2 emissions from power plants easy and useful. CARMA “reveals the carbon emissions of more than 50,000 power plants and 4,000 power companies in every country on Earth.” From the CARMA website:

CARMA provides the world’s most detailed and comprehensive information on carbon emissions resulting from the production of electricity. Power sector emissions make up 25% of the global total, 40% of carbon emissions in the United States, and are a primary cause of global warming....

Our goal is to put anyone in the world just a few clicks away from complete, tailored information about carbon emissions for any plant, any company, and any locale. CARMA provides data for all power facilities and companies, whether they are entirely coal-fueled or completely reliant on renewable energy sources. We hope that CARMA will equip millions of concerned global citizens – consumers, investors, political leaders, managers, professionals, and community organizers – with the information they need to take action and build a low-carbon future....

Our own professional experience, as well as plentiful research, has shown that public disclosure of critical information can have powerful effects on environmental performance. We believe that the time is ripe for rapid reduction of carbon emissions, and CARMA is intended to be our contribution to this effort.

So, how does South Carolina fair in terms of CARMA? What about Santee Cooper?

Bad Credit

Santee Cooper Preps Bonds To Fund Coal Units

The South Carolina Public Service Authority, also known as Santee Cooper, plans to sell $340 million in tax-free bonds to bankroll developments, including its planned 600 MW Pee Dee and 580 MW Cross Unit 4 coal-fired facilities. About 70% of the utility's debt is tax-exempt, says Jeff Armfield, treasurer in Moncks Corner, S.C., which it can issue by virtue of being state-owned.

About $196 million will go toward the Cross Unit 4, now under construction and expected to come onl ine 2009 at an existing pulverized coal facility in Berkeley County. About $60 million will be spent on preliminary work for Pee Dee near Kingsburg, withconstruction beginning sometime next year. A further $28 million will be used for environmental studies and the remainder on general corporate purposes. The sale will be split in two to target investors with different appetites.

The retail bo nd piece is set for July 17 and the sale to institutional investors for July 18. Armfield says the notes should land coupons in the 5% range, and may be priced slightly higher on the retail side where investors are hungrier for yield. Serial maturities ranging from one to 20 years make up $191 million of the offering. A $50 million 25-year tranche, $46 million 30-year tranche and $39 million 35-year tranche round out the issue.

Citigroup and Goldman Sachs are leads managers, with co-managers Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley. Santee Cooper recently went through a process of evaluating existing relationship banks and potential new ones, which Armfield says he had wanted to do for the past few years to make sure it was using the most effective configuration. However, it ended up sticking with the same group. The notes are rated Aa by Moody's Investors Service.

"It's the economy, stupid!"

The latest tactic of the pro-coal lobby in South Carolina is to gloss over the minimal jobs creation impacts of the Pee Dee coal plants (i.e. 80 jobs) while asserting that if we don't build these plants, our state will lose manufacturing jobs to China. Of course, no evidence has been provided in support of these fear-mongering claims.

Once again, however, advocates for efficiency and renewables have a positive, rather than a negative, message.

Witness this report released last week on the economic impact of the renewable energy and efficiency industries in the United States:

[In] 2006 the combined [Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency] industry generated nearly a trillion dollars in industry sales, 8.5 million new jobs, more than $100 billion in industry profits, and more than $150 billion in increased federal, state, and local government tax revenues. In addition, [Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency] reduce the risks associated with fuel price volatility and can facilitate an industrial boom, create millions of jobs, foster new technology, revitalize the manufacturing sector, enhance economic growth, and help reduce the trade and budget deficits.

How many jobs could this industry create? The report goes on to find that this industry could create over 20 million jobs in this country by 2030. And this is their moderate scenario. Read for yourself to discover what an aggressive commitment to clean energy would mean for employment in our nation.

News Coverage of DHEC Public Hearing

Charleston Post & Courier

“Meeting Held on New Coal Plant”

by Tony Bartelme

November 9, 2007

PAMPLICO — Nearly 400 people from across the area converged on this tiny town's high school gym Thursday night, but not to watch the Hannah-Pamplico Raiders play basketball.

They came to root for or against Santee Cooper's plan to build a $1 billion coal-fired power plant nearby, a plant some say is a public health threat and others say is critical to keeping the lights on for half the state's residents and industries.

Before Santee Cooper can move forward with the plant, it needs a permit from the state Department of Health and Environmental Control. Last month, DHEC approved a draft permit.

Thursday night's public hearing was the only one DHEC has scheduled for this project, and the parking lot around the high school filled quickly as the sun set. Employees of Santee Cooper and two of its biggest customers, Alcoa and Nucor, arrived in a chartered bus, irking a group of environmentalists.

"That's what I call stacking the deck," said Mike King, head of Pee Dee River Watchers — a group opposed to the plant.

"I hope they're getting overtime," said Ben Gregg, executive director of the S.C. Wildlife Federation.

Moments before the hearing began, Gregg, King and other opponents held a news conference, demanding that DHEC suspend the draft permit until the agency tests people in the area for mercury contamination.

They cited a recent series by The Post and Courier that identified mercury hotspots in the state and showed how some of the worst form a triangle of mercury contamination in the area where Santee Cooper wants to build the new plant.

The newspaper also paid to test people who eat fish in this area and along the Edisto River and found that frequent fish-eaters have unusually high levels of mercury in their bodies.

"These findings raise serious questions about the impact of this plant on a human population already at risk for mercury poisoning," said Ann Stoeckman, a biology professor at Francis Marion University.

But Santee Cooper supporters far outnumbered opponents. Many pro-plant attendees wore stickers with "Pee Dee" written in green. Some were still in their utility company uniforms.

Eighty-four people signed up to comment. Many were with Santee Cooper, Alcoa, Nucor and other area industries and said a coal-fired power plant was the best way to keep rates down and jobs in America. Representatives from the state's electric co-ops also turned out in force.

Pamplico Mayor Gene Gainey presented a petition signed by 1,076 area residents who want the plant built. Santee Cooper estimates the project will create 1,400 construction jobs and 100 permanent jobs at the plant if it opens as planned in 2012.

Gainey said the community has lost 3,000 mill jobs over the past several years and sees the power plant as a chance to reinvigorate the area's economy. He sees new businesses coming to the area, lured by the plant and a widened four-lane highway connecting the town with Florence and places east and south.

"I'm trying to take care of this town," Gainey said. "In my opinion, if we didn't get this plant, we'd still be stalemate just sitting down here in the country like we've been for years."

Gainey dismissed concerns over pollution, especially from poisonous mercury. "I think it's overblown." He said he's met extensively with Santee Cooper and is assured that the plant will exceed all pollution requirements.

King was the first to speak out against the plant and the first speaker to have the microphone taken away after he went over his allotted three minutes.

"The problem is mercury, and it's already here," he said, citing The Post and Courier's findings that DHEC has used its advanced blood-testing equipment to test only one member of the public for mercury. He urged DHEC to "turn the page" and deny the permit. He said he has a petition signed by 469 people against the plant.

The public can submit written comments to DHEC through Dec. 7. After that, the agency will sift through comments and possibly ask Santee Cooper to respond. Then a project engineer will decide whether to issue the final permit. But that's not likely to be the end of the debate.

"We have no illusions," said Thom Berry, DHEC spokesman. "No matter what the decision is, we figure this will end up in court."

Florence Morning News
“Power Plant Hearing Draws Crowd”

by Jamie Durant
November 9, 2007

PAMPLICO — Concerned residents and local conservation groups packed the gymnasium of Hannah-Pamplico High School on Thursday night to voice their opinions on the proposed Santee Cooper coal-burning power plant to S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control officials.

Although the people in attendance were encouraged to present their concerns about the coal plant, DHEC officials weren’t permitted to respond to any of the issues raised in the public hearing.

“We have to follow a very rigid set of rules,” DHEC spokesman Thom Berry said. “We cannot respond to questions. We can only take in comments from the public. Once the public comment period ends Dec. 7, we will then get all of those comments back in and we will respond to everyone.”

The 600-megawatt coal-fired generation facility, which would be located on a 2,709-acre tract along the Great Pee Dee River, is scheduled to become operational sometime after 2012.

Berry said there won’t be any decisions in the matter for a number of months while procedures are followed.

He also addressed the concerns about the additional mercury the proposed coal plant would add to the Great Pee Dee River, which is already under advisory regarding the mercury content of the fish caught in the river.

“That’s one of the things we always take into consideration, not just here, but (for) any plant, anywhere in the state,” Berry said. “One of the things we look at is, how does this fit in to the already existing conditions? Because our goal, and the EPA's (Environmental Protection Agency’s) goal is no detrimental loss to the quality of the environment.”

But taking the mercury content into consideration isn’t enough to appease many of the conservationists protesting the plant.

“We believe that the (Great) Pee Dee River is already heavily burdened with mercury, as a matter of fact we know it is,” Mike King, representative of the Pee Dee River Watchers, said.

“We think it is unconscionable for DHEC to already approve a draft air permit for this plant, hastily, even before the environmental impact statement is done by the (U.S.) Army Corps of Engineers.”

King and other members of the conservation groups who gathered in front of the school with signs telling the dangers of coal-based power, said a busload of Santee Cooper employees were bused to the event to tilt the balance of power in the auditorium.

“They were bused in, all the Santee Cooper employees have filled up the auditorium, courtesy of the South Carolina state taxpayers,” King said. “They are paid minions of Santee Cooper.”

Santee Cooper President and CEO Lonnie Carter denied having his employees brought to the hearing en masse. “That’s incorrect,” he said.

Santee Cooper spokeswoman Laura Varn said although there were no buses involved, Santee Cooper employees did make an effort to carpool to the event.

Moments after the comments portion of the evening opened, Carter took the stage to reassure the crowd about Santee Cooper’s commitment to providing affordable, responsible power to the Pee Dee.“

I think this is a good opportunity for Santee Cooper to come out and remind people of how seriously we take our job,” he said.

Carter said that despite the opposition to a coal-based energy source, he doesn’t foresee any problems in bringing the proposed plant to fruition.

“I don’t see any stumbling block, because this facility is being designed and built with the best control technology in the world,” he said.

Lou Green, executive vice president of the Electric Cooperatives of South Carolina, said even with consideration of renewable resources and valiant energy efficiency efforts, there would still be a need for the proposed plant.

“We don’t think (that’s the case),” he said. “We know.”

Green said that although newer, possibly cleaner, forms of energy are being discussed, they are years away from being economical for consumers.

“We have to do something between now and the time when we can use more renewable fuels and save for energy to provide the energy that is needed,” he said.Green said the studies researching the need for the power plant often are misused by many of the groups opposing the plant.

“They are mischaracterizing the studies,” he said. “They look at some of the most optimistic numbers about how much renewable energy we can have without looking at what is practically achievable and cost effective.

“The idea that we’re going to shift immediately to renewable resources is just unrealistic. That fact that we’ve got to use more of them and be more conservative is absolutely on target. It’s just a matter of timing.”

Terry Cook, who lives along the stretch of the river where the proposed plant is to be built, said she thinks the plant could have ill effects on her health and property.

“I came to speak to try to stop this coal plant from coming to my neighborhood,” she said. “In my backyard will be a landfill and an ash pond if this plant goes in. I’ve got grandchildren. There’s a lot I want to show them — one of them is not a coal-fired power plant.”


Associated Press, Myrtle Beach Sun News
“Coal Plant Fired Up More Debate”

by Graeme Moore

November 8, 2007

It was a full house Thursday night and a lot more debate over Santee Cooper's proposed coal-fired power plant in lower Florence County.

Around 300 people showed up to Hannah-Pamplico High School's gymnasium for the public hearing held by the Department of Health and Environmental Control. Of those, more than 80 signed up to speak. Each person was given three minutes to comment on the proposal.

Before Santee Cooper can move forward, DHEC must issue what's generally referred to as an "air" permit. The regulatory body has already issued a draft permit, but must grant a final version before construction could begin.

And as the case has been, DHEC continues to hear resistance on the proposal.

"South Carolina is not a third-world country. We think we ought to have clean air, and we believe we ought to have clean water, and this proposal is not going in that direction," said Ben Gregg, executive director of the SC Wildlife Federation.

But Santee Cooper answers concerns like that by saying its facility would be one of the cleanest in the world. It promises state-of-the-art technology that would reduce potentially hazardous pollutants.

But that's not the only hurdle Santee Cooper must cross. It will also have to gain permission from the Army Corps of Engineers which is conducting an Environmental Impact Study. Some say that could take years to finish.

Meeting Tonight!

DHEC Public Hearing on the Pee Dee plants TONIGHT in Pamplico, SC.

PLEASE ATTEND!

Help stop this:

Coal's Big Guns Turned On South Carolinians

So who are these "Americans for Balanced Energy Choices" anyway, and why are they so concerned about the future of coal in South Carolina?

Are you surprised that they are a fake "grass-roots" organization fronting for a coal industry trade organization (the similarly innocuously titled "Center for Energy and Economic Development")?

No? How about that its president is a registered lobbyist for the coal industry or that its executive director is a former employee of the Kentucky Department of Mines and Minerals (which presides over mountaintop removal mining in that state).

Read more about them here and here. Here's a transcript from PBS's MacNeil/Lehrer program in which ABEC's executive director squares off with Jeff Goodel, author of Big Coal.

Interested in some of ABEC's past work? Here is a particularly heinous example in which they exploit children to communicate their "truths" about coal. I find it hard to stomach, and agree with this gentlemen's assessment of these guys.

But perhaps there is a silver lining to Big Coal turning its big guns on the people of South Carolina. ABEC's has recently deployed in Nevada and Pennsylvania as well, two states where big coal feels like it is losing some ground as coal plant proposals meet increasingly fierce opposition.

The same must be true here, thanks to a truly grass-roots network of folks opposed to the Pee Dee plant that is growing everyday. ABEC's sudden appearance is proof of the popularity of the anti-Pee Dee plant message.

Now Santee Cooper is calling in reinforcements from these out-of-state spin doctors.

South Carolinians won't fall for it.

Methane from Santee Cooper

Two pieces on Santee Cooper and their proposed coal plant appear in the Post and Courier today. One is a recap of the issue, in preparation for the DHEC hearing tomorrow in Pamplico, the other is a Q&A with S-C Sultan Lonnie Carter.

In the Q&A and the article, Lonnie Carter reels off a series of chestnutts like these:

"In some ways it can be a little bit gaudy to think that we can actually affect the climate, actually change it or stop something that's going on."

Gaudy? That says it all doesn't it? No matter that the vast majority of the worlds geologists, climatologists, and meteorologists agree that global warming is happening and that burning fossil fuels is the cause. And, heck, even if they are right, we can't do anything about it, so we might as well burn a bunch of coal! People who think otherwise are just gaudy.

"I don't know [if utilities contribute to global warming]. If you listen to the scientists and how they parse out the data, the utility is a portion. Transportation is another good-sized portion, and then you have the residential and industrial side. They aren't hugely different in terms of percentages."

According to an inventory of SC's GHG emissions, electricity accounts for over 36% -- the #1 contributor. I comes down to this: Lonnie Carter & Santee Cooper just doesn't think there is anything wrong w/ coal. He's not worried about its negative consequences for the health, the environment or the economy of the state.

"I didn't coin this, but we're the Saudi Arabia of coal. We have so much coal available to us. It's a natural resource. We get over 50 percent of our current electricity from coal. We can't abandon coal. It's got to be part of our future for those reasons."

This is the best proof yet that S-C is behind the recent coal marketing going on in this state; this mirrors exactly the "Americans for Balanced Energy Choices" talking points. S-C is nothing if not "on message." In fact, the size of RECOVERABLE coal reserves is far from certain. But maybe the work of the National Academy of Sciences is too "rabid." Instead let's rely figures produced by the National Mining Association.

Are people willing to accept the high toll of mining increasingly difficult-to-access coal? Mountain top removal and mining accidents are two examples. Also, east-coast utilites like Santee Cooper routinely IMPORT coal from foreign nations like Venezuela. So, its hardly "America's fuel" in practice. Still, Lonnie Carter would have us emulate Saudi Arabia; he makes a good Sheik of what amounts to a little rogue Emirate (i.e. Santee Cooper) within the state of South Carolina. Big Coal, indeed.

"Remember what I said before, every carbon-based fuel, even wood and biofuels, all those things, have carbon emissions."

True, except that carbon emissions from biofuels don't contribute to global warming, since the embodied carbon in biofuels is part of the globe's carbon cycle, whereas the emissions from coal, by virtue of the fuel being dug out of the earth and burned, is not. If Lonnie Carter doesn't know this, then why are biofuels part of S-C's goal to produce 40% of its power from non-GHG sources by 2020?

"I've heard there are more greenhouse gases from livestock on the globe than any other source."

Totally absurd. There's no question that current livestock husbandry has a significant impact on the environment, including GHG emissions. They are not the leading source of GHG emissions, however. To suggest otherwise is brilliant, but wrong.

"Don't expect me as a utility executive to arbitrarily tax my customers for a problem that the rest of the world needs to deal with."

So what about the impact of a carbon tax or a cap and trade system on the rates of Santee Cooper's customers after Santee Cooper arbitrarily insists on building three more coal-burning units in South Carolina? We are talking hundreds of million dollars annually using conservative estimates. Who will pay? Not Santee Cooper. If that is not a tax on Santee Cooper's customers, I don't know what is. Or if you don't believe the U.S. will ever get around to regulating carbon (wishful thinking), how about raising rates on your customers to build new generation so that you can lower rates even further for your industrial customers. Is that taxing your customers? S-C is alledged to have done just that in a recently filed class action law suit.

"A lot is said about where mercury comes from in our waters. The information I get from the EPA is that it's not coming from U.S. power plants. According to the information they put out is that power plants contribute only 1% percent of the mercury."

Does the EPA really contend this? (If so, someone please reference the study). Is China responsible for the contamination of the Pee Dee rivers? I refer you back to the excellent story on mercury produced by the P&C: "Coal, Power and Poison."

"When we normally talk about emissions, you talk about tons, but when you talk about mercury, you talk about pounds, because we're talking about small quantities."

One drop of mercury (about the amount in a thermometer) falling in rain a year can contaminate fish in a 20-acre lake, and one pound of mercury is enough to contaminate 500,000 fish. Most of SC's waterways are already contaminated with mercury. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Carter goes on to evade direct questions on the following topics: why have you chosen coal for the Pee Dee project? Have you examined the economic risks of coal in a carbon-constrained economy? to Santee Cooper? to your rate-payers? Shouldn't we be concerned about the build up of Mercury in SC's water? Doesn't S-C have a moral/ethical responsibility with respect to the health of South Carolinians?

Just add these to the list of unanswered questions...

Anti-Coal Flyer from Morning News

Speak Out Against the Santee Cooper Coal Plant: When, Where, Why & How

When & Where:
DHEC Public Hearing, Thursday November 8 @ 6pm
Hannah-Pamplico High School Gym
West side of Highway 51 (Pamplico Hwy)
Map and directions

Why:
DHEC is giving you the chance to comment on the proposed Santee Cooper coal plant to be built south of Pamplico on the Great Pee Dee River. This plant will emit 138 pounds of mercury. Mercury is a dangerous neurotoxin linked to human illnesses like birth defects, nerve disorders and heart failure. Mercury becomes toxic methyl mercury in our rivers. One pound of mercury is enough to contaminate 500,000 fish. People and particularly children eating contaminated fish are at risk. According to a recent article in the Post and Courier newspaper between Conway and Florence there are mercury “hot spots” that form a “Mercury Triangle” of contaminated fish around the proposed coal plant. All three rivers near the proposed site, the Little Pee Dee, the Lynches and the Great Pee Dee are contaminated with mercury according to DHEC.

Santee Cooper currently is responsible for over one third of the state’s mercury pollution as represented by its top 25 polluters. Four of Santee Cooper’s existing coal plants are listed by EPA in the 25 most polluting plants or industries in South Carolina with respect to mercury.

There is no cure for mercury poisoning, except to stop exposure to it.

This proposed coal plant will not only pollute our air and water with mercury; it will emit 7500 tons of soot-forming SO2 and 900 tons of particulate matter. These emissions will negatively impact children suffering from asthma and adults with heart and lung ailments. Every year, emissions from coal plants lead to numerous premature deaths in South Carolina.

How:
Come to the hearing on Thursday night and express your opinion on DHEC's decision to issue a draft permit for this unacceptable coal plant.

If you are unable to attend Thursday’s public hearing you can send you email your comments to: SCPeeDeePlantComments@dhec.sc.gov or mail your comments
to:

Joe Eller
S.C. DHEC Bureau of Air Quality
2600 Bull St.
Columbia, SC 29201

For some facts, figures and questions about Santee Cooper's dirty coal plant, and DHEC's decision to issue a draft permit, that might be useful if you attend the meeting or plan to write comments, click here.

Mayors Step Up

This advertisement appeared in the paper yesterday. Beats the coal ads (see this past post) that Santee Cooper has running all over the state with the help of "Americans for Balanced Energy Choices." (That's Orwellian doublethink if I've ever heard it; coal already is 50% of our nation's energy mix; that's hardly balanced). Click the image above for a larger image of the ad that appeared yesterday. How does this square w/ Santee Cooper's plans to go on a greenhouse gas emitting spree over the next 10 years (4 coal plants, 18 million tons of CO2)? Inquiring minds want to know.

News coverage from Rock Hill (www.heraldonline.com) and Hilton Head (www.islandpacket.com).

SC Mayors Urge Action to Reduce GHGs

On Friday over 100 mayors representing over 1 million South Carolinians released an open letter to the presidential candidates. The message: SC voters want candidates to address climate change and provide solutions.

Coverage of the event is everywhere: Savannah, Augusta, Hilton Head, Beaufort, Charleston, Myrtle Beach, Columbia , Rock Hill, Charlotte, etc.

You can also listen to a national radio program on "climate on the campaign trail" that includes mention of the Mayors' initiative here.

Here's hoping the candidates listen.

And others too.



If over 1,000,000 South Carolinians think that climate change must be addressed at the highest level of our government, perhaps they would not be too pleased to learn of Santee Cooper's mad rush to build 4 coal plants within 10 years (two already permitted in Berkeley County; two proposed on the banks of the Pee Dee), adding nearly 18 million tons of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere every year, the equivalent of a small country...

Step It Up in Columbia Tomorrow: No New Coal

Step It Up 2007 is a campaign organized by people all around the country, calling for leadership on global warming. Our goal is to empower the grassroots climate movement to take action locally by calling for national change. One of the core messages of this movement is that no new coal plants are necessary in this country. Watch the below video to see and hear some of the reasons why.

Tomorrow, Saturday, November 3rd, Step It Up events will be occurring all over the nation. Given Santee Cooper's plan to build two coal burners on the banks of the Pee Dee, it's appropriate that a Step It Up event will be held in our state capital tomorrow. (Details below). Consider coming out to "step it up" on global warming and the Pee Dee plant tomorrow.

Step It Up South Carolina

Columbia, SC

November 3, 2007 10:00AM to 12:00PM

Hosted by John Hartz

Event Description:

Presidential candidates are making regular visits to South Carolina. We have a historic opportunity to let them know how we feel about global warming. Join us for a workshop on how to engage the candidates on this critical issue. Workshop sponsors include the South Carolina Chapter of the Sierra Club and the Conservation Voters of South Carolina.

Location:
1314 Lincoln St

Directions:
The Luther Lee Building is located on the block behind the Blue Marlin Restaurant. It is an historic brick building on the north side of Lincoln Street.

Register here

Sunflower Seeds in South Carolina?

Of course SC DHEC has issued a draft permit for the Pee Dee "Energy Campus" (coal has to be enlightened somewhere, I suppose). As a reminder, DHEC is holding a public hearing "to allow interested persons the opportunity to express concerns and provide comments regarding the proposed plant and the air quality documents that have been drafted" a week from today in Pamplico. Click here for details.

Which leads to this question: what do DHEC and Kansas have in common? Nothing yet, but that's why I've been meaning to post on Kansas for a couple weeks now. Why Kansas of all places you ask? From the Washington Post (10/16/07)

The Kansas Department of Health and Environment yesterday became the first government agency in the United States to cite carbon dioxide emissions as the reason for rejecting an air permit for a proposed coal-fired electricity generating plant, saying that the greenhouse gas threatens public health and the environment.

The decision marks a victory for environmental groups that are fighting proposals for new coal-fired plants around the country. It may be the first of a series of similar state actions inspired by a Supreme Court decision in April that asserted that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide should be considered pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

In the past, air permits, which are required before construction of combustion facilities, have been denied over emissions such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury. But Roderick L. Bremby, secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, said yesterday that "it would be irresponsible to ignore emerging information about the contribution of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to climate change and the potential harm to our environment and health if we do nothing."

So Kansas joins Florida, North Carolina, Virginia and Texas among 20+ U.S. states that have said no to old-fashioned coal plants. Beyond the clear significance of denying a coal plant because it is the most GHG-intensive way to produce power, this decision unequivocally demonstrates that a state agency charged with protecting public health and the environment can and should stop these kinds of projects. Many of you may have already guess where I am going with this:

DHEC, are you listening?

For more on the Kansas Department of Health and the Environment and their decision to deny the permit for Sunflower Electric Power Corporation's proposed 1400 MW coal plant, go here or here

A story in this week's Charleston City Paper follows the ongoing controversy.

Here's hoping South Carolina and Kansas have something in common soon.

Coal on TV

Instead of reading another blog post, why not watch some TV? With all the recent talk on mercury in this state, I thought the below video, a production WTTW, a public television station in Chicago, of would be of interest to readers (watchers!)



South Carolina's mercury problem is one of the worst in the nation; can we learn something from Illinois?

Green Lipstick on a Sooty-black Pig?

Some of you out there may have recently caught wind of Santee Cooper's new "committment" to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions.

The "initiative" calls for 40% of S-C's power to come from "non-greenhouse gas emitting resources, biomass fuels, energy efficiency and conservation by 2020."

Great right?

Well, not so fast.

Santee Cooper is insisting on building its 2 coal plants along the Pee Dee -- in addition to two identical plants in Berkeley County, for a total of 4 coal plants within 10 years. Together they'll emit approximately 18 million tons of carbon dioxide per year, every year, for 50 years (total = 870 million tons). According to data S-C submitted to the Department of Energy, they emitted nearly 21 million tons of CO2 in 2005. So these four plants will increase S-C CO2 emissions by at least 84%. How will this square with their goal to reduce emissions by 40% by 2020?

Not well.

So, S-C doesn't appear very earnest to reduce its GHG emissions as long as it is on a coal plant binge.

But even so, you might ask, isn't 40% from renewables and efficiency a good thing?

It would be if the numbers bore that out.

According to the presentation at S-C's latest board meeting at which this "green" plan was announced, 10% of the 40% will come from existing nuclear power, less than 1% of the 40% will come from existing renewables (mostly landfill gas), 21% of the 40% from new nuclear power plants, and no more than 9% of the 40% from biomass and efficiency.

This isn't so bad if your a fan of nuclear power, though many utility industry insiders are grumbling that Santee Cooper's nuclear goals are unreachable and irresponsible. Still nuclear power is certainly GHG emission-free. Leaving the economics and waste issues of nuclear aside, if you feel that efficiency and renewables should be exploited to their limit before focusing too heavily on nuclear fuel, then you might wish for more.

For instance, the Electric Cooperatives of South Carolina recently released a report showing that they could produce the equivalent of 20% of their power from efficiency by 2017. So why stop at something less than 9% from efficiency?

So even on the truly clean energy side of things (efficiency and renewables) Santee Cooper isn't really putting its money where its mouth is.

For those interested in reading more on this issue, opposing opinion pieces ran this past Sunday in the Myrtle Beach Sun News here and here.

Finally, from MSNBC: "Chinese scientists have successfully bred partially green fluorescent pigs" (click on photo below, if you dare)

Coal Round-up

Three more mercury articles over at the Post and Courier today! Here's one on mercury and DHEC, one on the new federal mercury rule, and one on mercury and wildlife. Thanks to the P&C for giving this serious issue wider exposure. In case folks out there think the Post and Courier is a liberal rag, here's a recent USA Today article along the same lines.

Meanwhile, the P&C has been infested with "clean coal" advertisements (you were warned). Take me up on my challenge. Visit this "clean coal" website and let me know if you are convinced that this dirty rock is "America's fuel."

Finally, fighting coal is not just for environmentalists anymore, according to this article. Who are environmentalists anyway if not people who actually give a d*#@ about our well-being and our children's well being (i.e. instead of enriching oneself at everyone else's expense). This article makes that case, at least for folks out West, nicely.

First Monday Breakfast Club Meets to Discuss Energy Issues

This morning, October 29, 2007, the First Monday Breakfast Club hosted John Ramsburgh of Conservation Voters of South Carolina. The following video of the event provides an excellent update on energy issues that we are currently facing in South Carolina, the proposed Santee-Cooper coal fired plant, and alternative energy options to that plant.

Click To Play

Mercury Rising

Every year the U.S. EPA and the state Department of Health and Environmental Control release reports containing an inventory of industry emissions. These reports essentially tally up the amount and types of pollutants that are released into the environment by large polluters such as coal-fired power plants, steel mills, cement factories and incinerators.

Although there are differences between both state and federal inventories, both unequivocally agree that South Carolina’s coal-fired electric generators are the biggest source of manmade mercury pollution in the state.

According to the EPA’s 2005 Toxic Release Inventory, coal fired plants pumped over 1,460 pounds of mercury into the air and water. DHEC’s found this number to be more to the tune of 1,630 pounds of toxic mercury per year. [From Post and Courier Oct. 29, 2007 “Need for Power Fuels Mercury Contamination” by Tony Bartelme]

Either number is not a good sign. Eating fish contaminated with mercury is the main source of poisoning in people. Mercury has been linked to brain damage, heart disease, as well as other health problems, and can be fatal to developing fetuses.

But what does this mean for South Carolinians?

A Post and Courier study released Oct. 28, 2007 [“The Mercury Connection” by Tony Bartelme] found the following…

--Of 41 people tested for The Post and Courier, 17 who eat freshwater fish from South Carolina rivers had hair samples with mercury levels higher than what the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considers safe. Twenty-four had samples higher than what's typically found nationally in people who frequently eat fish.

--Six who were tested had mercury levels that would put them in the top 1 percent of those measured in a recent nationwide study. Leading mercury scientists and doctors contacted by the newspaper urged those with the highest levels to consider medical attention.

--State health officials have done little to document this toxin in people, especially those in poverty-stricken rural areas who depend on fish as a main source of food. Three years ago, DHEC acquired a $250,000 scanner capable of measuring mercury in human blood. This year, it acquired another scanner. So far, the agency has tested only one member of the public, a doctor from Hilton Head.

--Some of the state's worst mercury hot spots are in the Lowcountry near industrial polluters. Between Conway and Florence, hot spots form a "Mercury Triangle" where fish are so full of mercury that the state warns against eating a single bite of some species. Highly contaminated fish also are in hot spots on the outskirts of the Charleston metro area in the Edisto River, Four Holes Swamp and the Black River.

--Mercury contamination is a well-documented global problem in ocean fish, especially in large predator fish, such as swordfish and shark. But many freshwater fish caught from South Carolina's mercury hot spots have levels two to five times higher than swordfish off the coast, DHEC data shows. In fact, average mercury levels are so high in fish from some South Carolina rivers that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration could order a national recall if they were sold in stores.

Do we really want to allow Santee Cooper to add an additional 300 pounds of mercury to our environment every year?

Fish DHEC Says to Avoid: Catfish (especially on the Little and Great Pee Dee rivers, Four Hole Swamp, Edisto and Black rivers), Largemouth bass (especially on the Black, Combahee, Edisto, Little Pee Dee, Great Pee Dee, Coosawhatchie rivers, Four Hole Swamp), Bowfin (Mudfish) (especially on South Santee, Edisto, LittlePee Dee, Great Pee Dee, Coosawatchie rivers, Four Hole Swamp), Chain Pickerel (especially on Little Pee Dee, Great Pee Dee, Lumbee, Edisto rivers, Four Hole Swamp), Warmouth (especially Four Hole Swamp, Edisto River).

Breakfast Club

Attend the Florence First Monday Breakfast Club's talk on the Pee Dee coal plant in the AM; take what you learn to Senator Leatherman's Pamplico public meeting in the PM.

Public Meeting to be held 10/29/07 in Pamplico

There will be a public meeting held by Senator Hugh Leatherman on the subject of the Pee Dee plant on Monday, October 29th at 6PM. The meeting will take place at the Hannah-Pamplico High School in Florence County.

Please attend and voice your opinion on the coal plant.

Coal vs. Gecko

A a week or so ago I brought Americans for Balanced Energy Choices to your attention. They're a group that plans to market coal to Americans though the media.

Now they've got a website up and running as well as a commercial that has been airing on CNN. You tell me: which is more appealing, the big hunk of black coal, or the Gecko? Is anyone convinced that coal is anything other than what this ad implies: a dirty and archaic way of generating electricity?

By the way, while you're over at the Americans for a Balanced Energy Choices website, be sure to check out the "Americans" that are its supporters. Looks like a long list of utilities, mining operations, and the railroads that link them.

Santee Cooper Sued

Santee Cooper, whose avowed mission is "to provide reliable power at the lowest cost possible" is being sued, according to the Sun News.

An Horry County businessman is leading a lawsuit that was served on Santee Cooper on Thursday, claiming the utility wrongly imposed a rate increase on its residential and commercial customers.

The lawsuit, which is seeking class action status, claims that in 1994 or 1995, Santee Cooper imposed a lawful rate increase to pay off a capital expansion debt.

The increase as approved required the state-owned utility to reduce the rates after the debt was paid, the lawsuit says, but rates were never cut.

The lawsuit asks that the money be returned to customers.

"We believe it involves hundreds of millions of dollars," said Gedney Howe of Charleston, the lead attorney in the case.

And South Carolina is supposed to trust Santee Cooper when it says it needs a coal plant, that this plant is being built for the express purpose of keeping the lights on for the residents of the Grand Strand?

The plaintiffs in this law suit allege that S-C raised rates on its residential and commercial customers in order to subsidize special rates for industry and power sold out of state.



Could it be that the same dynamic is at play with the Pee Dee plant (i.e. cheap power for back-room business deals, not "keeping the lights on"; windfalls for special interests, not low rates and a high quality of life South Carolina's residents and business-owners)?

What do you want for Christmas?

From the Union Daily Times:

The other present I want [for Christmas] is 300 watts of green energy, only instead of Santa Claus bringing it down my chimney, I'm going to pay Santee Cooper for it. The company, through Broad River Electric Cooperative, is offering residential and commercial customers green power derived from solar energy or methane gas extracted from landfills. Residential customers can get 100-watt blocs and commercial customers 200-watt blocs. The residential blocs cost $3 a month and that's what I'd planned to start with until my wife, Melony, suggested we go ahead and get three blocs for $9 a month, so that's what we're going to do.

We're not going to wait for Christmas to do it, either - and may not wait for the canvas bags, as Melony's thinking about making us some - because the sooner we all start buying green power the better. Santee Cooper is trying to build a coal-fired power plant on the Great Pee Dee River. The last thing South Carolina - and this world - needs is another facility spewing fossil fuel pollution into an already too-polluted atmosphere.

The Coastal Conservation League estimates the plant will put 300 lbs. of mercury, 8.7 million tons of carbon dioxide and thousands of tons of smog and soot-forming pollutants into the atmosphere every year. The League also states that the plant would create coal ash landfills hundreds of acres in size near the river and use millions of gallons of water a day impacting 100 acres of wetlands.

This won't happen if we consumers use our dollars to tell Santee Cooper and other utility companies that we want green power. The $9 a month I'm going to be spending on green power isn't much, but if everyone in this state who has the opportunity to do so bought that much green power or more it would send a powerful message that when it comes to saving the environment, South Carolinians are willing to put their money where their mouths are.

Members of the state's 20 Co-ops or Santee Cooper customers can currently buy green power. They should seize this opportunity, since others in the state will have to wait.

Santee Cooper has announced plans to offer green power statewide, however, as of last week, these plans have yet to be finalized. The state's investor owned utilities have long been planning to start their own green power program, dubbed Palmetto Clean Energy (see this press release from SC's Office of Regulatory Staff). No word yet from these folks as to when green power will be available for purchase.

Hopefully by Christmas either Santee Cooper or the Palmetto Clean Energy people will have a state-wide program operating, but at this rate, you're more likely to get coal in your stocking.

Statewide alternatives to a new coal plant are needed now. This includes the ability to purchase verified green power from your utility (NC GreenPower, the North Carolina program upon which Palmetto Clean Energy is rumored to be based, cannot guarantee the money you send them is actually invested in renewable energy), as well as a full-service programs to help you save energy in your home.

Instead of aggressively developing and promoting such services, most utilities in this state continue with plans for large scale generation projects, either coal or nuclear, with the occasional green-washing PR event, while low-hanging fruit is left unharvested.

Consider contacting your utility, whether Santee Cooper or Progress Energy, and demanding both: (1) verifiable renewable energy and (2) comprehensive energy efficiency programs -- that way you could expect to find both a cleaner environment and a fatter wallet under the Christmas Tree (and hopefully no coal in your stocking).

Fortune 500?

From Forbes.com:

A new report from Standard & Poor's says many public power and electric cooperatives utilities are still investing in coal-fired plants, despite rising efforts to curtail operations of existing ones and prevent new facilities from being built.

Although the industry is designing new plants that limit emissions, the report says many industry experts believe utilities will not effectively control carbon emissions for another 10 to 20 years because of technological and economic constraints.

"We recognize that coal-fired assets meet the pressing need for economical baseload capacity, particularly after the long hiatus since utilities last added large quantities of this type capacity to their generation fleets," said S&P credit analyst David Bodek. "Yet, our evaluations must also recognize the financial impact that carbon emission constraints might have on coal operators in coming years."

The report said financial margins for utilities could deteriorate as additional expenses are incurred, and credit quality would suffer. These costs could result from financing new capacity additions, emissions controls for existing facilities, fuel switching to natural gas or renewable resources, or compliance with regulatory directives, such as carbon taxes or cap-and-trade systems.

Despite warnings from Wall Street, Santee Cooper continues to plunge headlong into a massive coal plant project. They've recently been aided an abetted by the Metro Charleston Chamber of Commmerce, which endorsed the project recently. One can only assume that the MCCC believes "deteriorating financial margins" for the state's electric utility are good for regional economic development. Or maybe, they didn't even do the research before making their endorsement.

“Low cost and reliable power are listed consistently as top reasons by companies looking to relocate or expand,” read a statement from Charles Van Rysselberge, president and CEO of the chamber.

The $1 million coal-fired generation facility is expected to add 1,400 jobs during construction, and create 100 full-time jobs with an average salary of $50,000 once completed, the release said.

Once again, one has to wonder if SC's pro-coal business community (including Santee Cooper and the MCCC) have done their homework. Standard and Poor's doesn't seem to think electricity from coal is going to stay low cost very long. As for jobs, what sounds better? 1,400 temporary jobs; 100 permanent jobs from an automated coal plant, with no guarantee regarding how many of these jobs will be sourced locally, or the kinds of numbers suggested by all the recent studies on the amounts of local jobs created by clean energy technologies (e.g. tens of thousands).

Again, it makes one wonder: when folks speak of "economic development" -- whose are they talking about?

Gore, U.N. Body Win Nobel Peace Prize

By DOUG MELLGREN / Associated Press Writer
OSLO, Norway --

Former Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize today (Friday October 12, 2007) for their efforts to spread awareness of man-made climate change and lay the foundations for counteracting it.

"I am deeply honored to receive the Nobel Peace Prize," Gore said. "We face a true planetary emergency. The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity."

Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth," a documentary on global warming, won an Academy Award this year and he had been widely expected to win the prize.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee said global warming, "may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states."

Gore said he would donate his share of the $1.5 million that accompanies the prize to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan nonprofit organization devoted to conveying the urgency of solving the climate crisis.

Used Coal Salesmen

If only what happened in Vegas, really did stay in Vegas. Unfortunately, this piece of news is likely to find its way to South Carolina soon.

An industry front group called Americans for Balanced Energy Choices last month began soliciting proposals from Nevada public relations firms interested in providing services such as public education, media relations and outreach to presidential candidates in the state. The group is funded by the coal, railroad and utility industries.

The National Journal recently reported that the organization's budget will go from $8 million in 2007 to about $30 million in 2008, most of which will pay for outreach and advertising campaigns nationally, and in Nevada and Pennsylvania in particular.

Joe Lucas, executive director of the organization, downplayed the spending. He said the group's national budget will increase to $30 million to $40 million in 2008 because it "recognizes the job (of selling coal) is harder to do," but he declined to say how much it will spend in Nevada. He also said that the group hasn't decided whether to hire a PR firm here, and that it received few responses to the request for proposals.

Like a lot of places in the United States, Nevada is beset by misguided coal plant projects. But why should South Carolinians beware of a well-organized, well-funded effort to wash the dirt from coal?

[Diane Farsetta, senior researcher for the Center for Media and Democracy, a non profit watchdog organization] thinks the group will try to use a Nevada campaign as a springboard to gain momentum in the national debate on coal, and the strategy could be effective "unless people really ask questions and think about who's funding it."

When the "coal is clean" campaign comes to our state, riding to the rescue of Santee Cooper, ask yourself: who's funding it? And can coal really ever be clean? Nope.

Photos from Coal Fired Plant Site

These photos were taken Weds. October 10, 2007 on the perimeter of Santee Cooper’s Wildlife Management Area, the site where the proposed coal fired plant would be built. The first couple of photos are taken of future ash pond and landfill locations which closely abut the property of a family living in Pamplico, SC. The photos of the Great Pee Dee River were taken from the limestone bluffs, which will also be adjacent to a solid waste landfill.

Stopping Dirty Investments

The Rainforest Action Network recently launched a campaign which aims to stop construction of coal plants at their very source: their capital investment. RAN is focusing on putting pressure on both the Bank of America and Citigroup because they finance coal company projects that cause carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and toxic mercury pollution.

Reuters (New York): By Steve James

...."These banks MUST set real goals to reduce the 'financed emissions' from their investment portfolio and start funding the future," RAN said, accusing the pair of pledging to address global climate change while still funding the coal companies.

RAN said that rather than phase-out coal and reduce dangerous emissions, coal's proponents are pushing for the construction of more than 150 new coal-fired power plants throughout the United States.

"This new coal rush would add between 600 million and 1.1 billion tons of additional C02 emissions annually and negate nearly every other effort currently on the table to combat climate change," the group said.

RAN said Citi pledged in May to direct $50 billion over the next 10 years to addressing global climate change through investments. "Financing for renewable energy, energy efficiency and improvements in energy infrastructure amount to $31 billion spread across 10 years.

"While this may seem like a significant commitment, it amounts to less than 0.2 percent of the company's $2.2 trillion in assets," the group said.

Citi underwrote more than $38 billion for the energy industry in 2006, it said, while financing just one transaction for alternative energy. In 2006 Citi financed 200 times more money for "dirty energy" than it did for alternative energy.

Similarly, it said Bank of America pledged in March to support environmentally sustainable business and to address global climate change. "Unfortunately, CEO Ken Lewis' lofty rhetoric is at odds with his company's track record," RAN said. "In 2006, Bank of America spent nearly 100 times more money on dirty energy than it did supporting clean energy."

Bank of America's new climate pledge commits less than 0.2 percent of the company's $1.5 trillion in assets to curbing climate change, it said.

"As long as Citi and Bank of America continue to fund dirty energy, they are holding back the resources needed for clean energy to flourish."

DHEC Issues Draft Air Permit to Santee Cooper

The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) issued a draft air quality permit for the two proposed 660 MW coal plants on the banks on the Great Pee Dee in Florence County yesterday.

The permit is a draft, which means the document has yet to be approved. In fact, they will be open for public comment until Friday, December 7 of this year. You can submit a comment here.

There will also be a public hearing on the draft permit on November 8, 2007 in the gym of Hannah-Pamplico High School in Pamplico, SC. There you can express your opinion in person regarding DHEC's decision to issue a draft permit for this plant.

Perhaps most disappointing, besides DHEC's refusal to delay its issue of the draft air permit until completion of the EIS process at the request of the Southern Environmental Law Center and the United States Department of Interior, among other concerned groups, is its decision not to require Santee Cooper use the best technology available to limit the pollution from its coal plant. DHEC did not require that Santee Cooper construct an IGCC unit, which is the cleanest coal burning technology available today -- instead DHEC, in its draft permit, has assented to Santee Cooper using one of the least technologically advanced and most dirty of the available coal combustion technologies.

DHEC's press release from Tuesday:

Please be advised that the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC), Bureau of Air Quality, has drafted a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) air quality construction permit and Preliminary Determination for the proposed Santee Cooper Pee Dee power plant near Kingsburg, South Carolina. These documents have not yet been approved and are open to comment.

DHEC will hold a public hearing to allow interested persons the opportunity to express concerns and provide comments regarding the proposed plant and the air quality documents that have been drafted. A copy of Public Notice #07-095-PSD-N-H announcing the public hearing and 60-day public comment period is attached. This notice has been published in the Florence Morning News, The Sun News, and The State newspapers on Tuesday, October 9, 2007, and may also be viewed on DHEC’s website at any time during the public comment period. The 60-day public comment period begins today, October 9, 2007, and will officially close on Friday, December 7, 2007. In an effort to provide the public with convenient access to the draft and preliminary documents, the permit application, and other relevant correspondence, this information has been posted on DHEC’s website and can be viewed at: http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/baq/SanteeCooper.aspx. The attached public notice provides instructions for reviewing and/or obtaining hard copies of these documents and how to submit written comments.

The public hearing will begin at 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 8, 2007, in the gymnasium of Hannah-Pamplico High School in Pamplico, South Carolina. Please see the attached map or call the school at (843) 493-5781 for directions.

We would like to thank you for your comments and interest in this proposed project. Please bring this notice and public hearing to the attention of others you know who may be interested in Santee Cooper’s proposed Pee Dee Generating Station.

Lights Out or Cheap Power? Choose Your Reason

Some food for thought as the week begins. Santee Cooper representatives are fond of implying that, if the Pee Dee coal plants aren't built, then the lights will go out all over South Carolina:

Santee Cooper CEO, Lonnie Carter:

Santee Cooper is charged with the responsibility of making sure the lights come on when the 2 million customers who depend on us flip the switch.... We need additional generation by 2012. Otherwise, we will be 370 megawatts short of projected demand that year, and 835 megawatts short in 2015.

Contrast that statement with this one I found on SCPrimeSite, "The online economic development resource of Santee Cooper," a site that market's Santee Cooper's "low-cost power" to relocating businesses:

South Carolina has power to spare.

That's right. Santee Cooper itself says so. Which is true? Lights out? Or power to spare? One might ask, does Santee Cooper's left arm know what the right is doing? More likely, S-C is talking out of both sides of its mouth. To the people of South Carolina: we need more power! and the quickest, dirtiest way possible! To big business: you want cheap power? We got plenty! Come and get it! (And we'll get you more, on the backs of unsuspecting South Carolinians).

Santee Cooper's Pee Dee plants are not about need for power; they are about an outmoded model of economic development (initiated during the great depression).

Do benefits of this hackneyed economic development strategy outweigh the social and environmental costs of a dirty coal plant?

Or should we pursue cost-effective, clean energy strategies -- and have our cake and eat it too?

Statewide

Kudos to Jeanne Brooks of the Greenville News for pointing out how important clean energy is for our state:

[Santee Cooper] says renewable energy, energy efficiency and conservation efforts can't help enough.

But South Carolina consumed the fourth highest amount of electricity per person in the nation in 2003.

We used more than Texas (No. 15), North Carolina (No. 16) and Georgia (No. 18). We used more than Florida (No. 27)!

We used so much electricity that although we pay one of the cheaper rates, the monthly bill for an average homeowner here was seventh highest in the country.

Conservation can't help? We haven't really tried.

...and connecting the dots between the Upstate and Santee Cooper's proposed Pee Dee Plant.

[The] Southern Environmental Law Center points out the coal-fired power plant that Santee Cooper wants to build on the Great Pee Dee River will release into the air each year thousands of tons of smog ingredients and the tiny sooty particles that, breathed in, can set off wheezing and heart attacks.

Bill Chameides, dean of Duke University's Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences, says there'll be -- not usually but sometimes -- days those smog ingredients and particles will reach the Upstate.

The plant will also release annually more than 300 pounds of mercury, a neurotoxin.

The state Department of Health and Environmental Control already has mercury contamination advisories -- warnings -- against eating certain fish from 62 bodies of water in South Carolina and the Atlantic Ocean along our coastline.

Still another of the proposed power plant's future gifts: 8.7 million tons of carbon dioxide each year for the next 50 or so years.

This is everybody's problem.

Images from the Plant Site

South Carolina's Electric Cooperatives Show Leadership: You've Got the Power

Yesterday, South Carolina's electric cooperatives, which provide power for over 700,000 South Carolinians in every county in the state, announced a major energy efficiency and renewable energy initiative.

They also released two landmark studies on the potential for energy efficiency and renewables in this state. The studies show what many in the state have long believed: efficiency and renewables are NOT theoretical options for the future. Instead, they offer REAL and PRACTICAL alternatives TODAY to traditional energy sources, such as coal.

For instance, the studies show that as much as 20% of the Cooperatives' customers’ power needs can be met with energy efficiency programs. Further, nearly 5% of need can be met through renewable energy. Together, this amounts to nearly 1700 MW of savings within 10 years (Santee Cooper's plans for a new coal plant in the Pee Dee region call for 1200 MW, and the Cooperatives are their #1 customer!).

The Cooperatives rightly point out that they cannot do this alone and that achieving these potentials will not be easy. The Cooperatives should be commended by all for taking this bold initiative and showing such farsighted leadership. The data uncovered by their studies and the initiatives that stem from them deserve the broadest support. If South Carolina's citizens, regulators, and political representatives all prioritize efficiency and renewables as the Cooperatives have shown a willingness to do, then the state will have its 1700 MW of clean energy within a decade.

From this morning's Post and Courier:

South Carolina residents can cut their electricity use by about a third and state utilities can get at least 3 percent of their power from renewable sources, according to two studies released Monday by the state's 20 electric cooperatives.

The cooperatives, nonprofit groups that serve 1.6 million South Carolina residents, touted these numbers while announcing a commitment to spend $10 million a year — roughly 1 percent of their revenue — on renewable energy and programs to help their members cut electricity use.

"This is pretty major," said Ron Calcaterra, chief executive officer of the Central Electric Power Cooperative. "And quite frankly, it's more than anyone else in the state is doing right now."

The money will bankroll a subsidy program to install 7 million ultra-efficient compact fluorescent lights in South Carolina homes over the next 10 years.

"The choice for us is very simple: Either we send the money to coal miners in West Virginia or we give it to our customers to use less energy," Calcaterra said.

read more

Coal Goes Nuclear

An older article by Alex Gabbard from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory website is a very cogent overview of the little known fact that coal plants are a major source of radioactive materials. Comments along these lines were made at the EIS Scoping Meeting last Thursday in Florence, SC:

[Oak Ridge National Laboratory researchers] concluded that Americans living near coal-fired power plants are exposed to higher radiation doses than those living near nuclear power plants that meet government regulations. This ironic situation remains true today and is addressed in this article.

The fact that coal-fired power plants throughout the world are the major sources of radioactive materials released to the environment has several implications. It suggests that coal combustion is more hazardous to health than nuclear power and that it adds to the background radiation burden even more than does nuclear power. It also suggests that if radiation emissions from coal plants were regulated, their capital and operating costs would increase, making coal-fired power less economically competitive.

read more