New coal power plant won't help Pee Dee's economy

And Santee Cooper's customers could get stuck with high bills

Published: Saturday, January 5, 2008 - 2:00 am
The Greenville News


By Nancy Cave

Economic development and jobs are needed for the people of the Pee Dee. Unfortunately, a new coal plant will not make good on promises to deliver prosperity to this region.

Recently, Santee Cooper touted the release of an economic study of the utility's proposed billion-dollar coal plant. Conducted by Francis Marion University economists, the report highlighted the claim that the coal-burner would create more than 9,000 jobs.

Is this claim true?

Santee Cooper's own assessment of the project, completed a little more than a year ago, stated that construction of the plant will create only about 1,000 temporary construction jobs, at least 10 percent of which are expected to be sourced outside of the Pee Dee region. The utility estimated only 100 full-time jobs, at least 20 percent of which will be sourced outside of the Pee Dee.

Why the discrepancy in the job numbers? Surprisingly, the answer comes from Santee Cooper's own press release, in which it acknowledges collapsing the timetable into one year; the result multiplies the reported impacts by as much as a factor of five.

Suppose you started a new business this year and you hired five people. If over the next five years you kept these same five people on your staff and didn't hire any new employees, how many people have you employed? If you are honest, you would say five. Based on the method used in the economic study on Santee Cooper, on the other hand, you could insist you have employed 25 people!

Why must Santee Cooper resort to this kind of accounting to justify the construction of its proposed coal plant?

The truth is that this is not a project that will revitalize a region. For a billion-dollar investment, we ought to do better than 80 long-term jobs for the Pee Dee.

There are at least three reasons why Santee Cooper's coal plant will not deliver significant economic benefits to the Pee Dee or the state.

First, a true accounting of the coal plant would show that its costs outweigh its benefits. Second, rather than increasing the state's prosperity, this coal plant would merely transfer wealth across regions; and third, by building the plant, South Carolina misses the opportunity to invest in projects that would do more for the wealth of the Pee Dee and the state.

Any consideration of the benefits of the proposed coal plant is only half the story. Costs must be considered too. As it turns out, the costs of building a coal plant are high. According to a study conducted by the government of Ontario, when the adverse health and environmental impacts of coal are considered, a coal plant's cost can increase by as much as five times, making nearly any other means of generating electricity a better idea.

Another cost that should not be ignored is the cost of carbon. Polluters do not have to pay for their carbon dioxide emissions today, but most observers agree that the federal government will require them to very soon. When that happens, it could increase the cost of Santee Cooper's coal plant by anywhere from $20 million to $40 million annually, according to the utility's own estimates.

Guess who will get stuck with these steep bills? The answer is the residents of the Pee Dee and Santee Cooper's own electricity customers. Residents of the Pee Dee will pay in the form of higher health-care bills and reduced land values, for example, while Santee Cooper's customers will face rising bills.

Indeed, instead of generating economic benefits, a new coal plant would really just move money from the pockets of some South Carolinians to others. Excluding the cost of carbon, double-digit rate increases have been projected in other states where coal is being considered. This state needs real economic development, not a transfer of wealth.

Finally, committing to a coal plant skips over alternatives that could both meet our need for power and provide greater economic growth. For instance, a recent study conducted by the Renewable Energy Policy Project, in partnership with United Steelworkers, indicated that a 10-year effort to generate electricity from renewable resources could create more than 20,000 long-term manufacturing jobs in our state, nearly 2,000 of which would be sourced in the Pee Dee.

So let's not pretend a coal plant is a tool for economic development -- it's a dirty way of generating electricity, and not much else.

Coal's Bad Year

As we start a new year, it always good to look back on the year that has passed us by – and it’s been a bad year for coal!

Here’s hoping 2008 is even worse and that Santee Cooper abandons its ill-considered plan to move forward with a massive coal-burning facility.

Meanwhile, take a look at the list of proposed coal plants that were stopped last year (from grist.org):

• Sunflower Electric Power Corporation (Kansas) - proposed 1,400 megawatt (MW) coal plant denied air permit by Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) due to concerns about global warming. The Director of KDHE stated that it would be "irresponsible" to ignore global warming concerns when evaluating whether to build a new plant. October 2007.

• Southwestern Power Group’s Bowie Power Station (Arizona) - proposed 600 MW IGCC coal plant canceled by company in favor of pursuing a natural gas fired plant, in part because of market economics and regulatory uncertainty. September 2007.

• Florida Power & Light’s Glades Power Plant (Florida) - proposed 1,960 MW power plant rejected by Florida Public Service Commission due, in part, to the uncertainty over the cost of future carbon regulations. July 2007.

• American Electric Power and Oklahoma Gas & Electric’s Red Rock Generating Station (Oklahoma) - proposed 950 MW plant rejected by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission for failure to evaluate alternatives such as natural gas. September 2007.

• Tenaska’s Sallisaw Electric Generating Plant (Oklahoma) - company cancelled its plans to build a 660-880 MW plant on the grounds that it is not economically viable. July 2007.

• Peabody Coal Company’s Thoroughbred Generating Station (Kentucky) - air permit for 1500 MW plant reversed by Franklin Circuit Court due to inadequate air pollution control analysis. August 2007.

• Seminole Electric Power Cooperative’s Seminole 3 Generating Station (Florida) - proposed 750 MW plant rejected by Florida Department of Environmental Protection on the grounds that the plant would not minimize environmental and public health impacts, and would not serve the public interest. August 2007.

• Great Northern Power Development’s South Heart Power Project (North Dakota) - applicant withdrew air permit application for 500 MW plant. August 2007.

• Florida Municipal Power Agency’s Taylor Energy Center (Florida) - proposed 800 MW plant withdrawn by applicant shortly after Florida PSC denied application for Glades Power Plant. July 2007.

• TXU Corporation (Texas) (March 2007) - as part of a buyout of TXU Corporation by private equity firms, TXU announced that it would abandon plans for eight out of eleven proposed plants in Texas. July 2007.

• Duke Energy’s Cliffside Steam Station Modernization (North Carolina) - proposal for one of two 800 MW coal-fired plants rejected by North Carolina Utilities Commission, due to increase in estimated construction costs. March 2007.

• Westar Energy’s Coal Plant Project (Kansas) - company deferred plan for new 600 MW plant because of significant increase in estimated construction costs. December 2006.14 Westar later launched a 300 MW wind power project, Kansas’ largest. Wind project is expected to be producing energy by the end of 2008, with possibility of an additional 200 MW available by year end 2010. October 2007.

• Idaho Power (Idaho) - company canceled plans produce 250 MW from coal-fired plants by 2013; adopted new plans to develop a natural gas turbine in Idaho by 2012, and to add 101 MW of wind power and 45.5 MW of geothermal power by 2011. November 2007.

• Avista Utilities (Washington) - company plans to sell more electricity generated by natural gas plants and wind turbines, and not invest in new coal power plants. Avista’s twenty-year plan, as submitted to the state government, includes the sale of some 275 MW available from a natural-gas power plant in Lancaster, WA. September 2007.

• Xcel Energy (Colorado) - company agreed to obtain 775 MW of wind power to supplement power from 750 MW coal plant it is building near Pueblo, CO. July 2007.

• Xcel Energy (Colorado) - company plans to roughly double its renewable generation capacity by 2015 and close two coal-burning plants in the state, the Araphoe Generating Station in Denver and the Cameo Generating Station east of Grand Junction.

DHEC to Consider Human Testing for Mercury

From yesterday's edition of The State

State health officials will discuss testing mercury levels in people as concerns about growing levels of the pollutant in state waters has led to warning signs at boat landings in South Carolina.

The state Department of Health and Environmental Control has warned people not to eat certain species of fish found in parts of South Carolina’s rivers, mostly along the coast, because of contamination with mercury, a byproduct of coal-fired power plants, factories and natural sources.

The neurotoxin that has been linked to birth defects, heart failure and other health problems ends up in rivers, lakes and streams where it builds up in fish over time. Mercury is particularly dangerous for expectant mothers and young children.

A recent series of stories by The (Charleston) Post and Courier identified people who eat fish from several South Carolina rivers who also have high levels of mercury in their bodies. The newspaper ran tests on the people through hair samples.

Read more in the Post and Courier and the Myrtle Beach Sun News. If DHEC is coming around to the idea that mercury pollution is so bad in South Carolina that people need testing, maybe its not such a good idea to add a bunch more mercury to our lives by building a coal plant...

Resolutions

A few weeks ago we acquainted you with the coal fight going on in Wise County, Virginia. Folks there are fighting a 585 megawatt coal plant tooth and nail, just like folks are here in South Carolina.

As the saying goes, “the truth will out.” Now the Bristol Herald Courier, a local newspaper in the region, is on to it. Initially assured by utility company propaganda about jobs and economic benefits, the paper supported the plant. But a little research was enough to convince it that what the Wise Energy for Virginia folks were saying all along was the real truth: coal is bad for health, bad for the environment, bad for economic development. Now they oppose the plants construction. Read about it here.

Now the same might be happening in South Carolina. On January 1st, a time for new year’s resolutions, the Myrtle Beach Sun News, formerly a supporter of Santee Cooper’s proposed coal plant, printed this:

We … are considering whether to continue our early support of the Santee Cooper coal-fired power plants proposed for the banks of the Pee Dee River in Florence County. Support for atmospheric carbon reduction makes no sense unless you're willing to act locally on the problem - especially when other alternatives may ensure local ratepayers a power supply adequate to their lifestyles.

Just like Dominion Power's proposed coal-burner up in Wise County, Virginia, the Pee Dee coal plant is not a boon to the Pee Dee. We’ve been pointed that out for a while now; and we’re resolved to continue doing so in the new year. Now it looks like others are coming along. The truth will out.

Friends II

Another week, another group of Southerners fighting the good fight against the national push to saddle folks with dirty coal plants.

This time we return to Georgia, where drought is forcing the state to become more efficient. But I don't have to tell you that the right hand is not always aware of what the left is up to. In this case, http://www.friendsofthechattahoochee.org/">Friends of the Chattahoochee, Environment Georgia, GreenLaw and the Georgia Sierra Club are trying to stop the Georgia Environmental Protection Division from issuing its final permit for the "Longleaf Energy Station," a friendly-sounding euphemism for two profoundly dirty 600 MW coal units planned for southwest Georgia, near the Florida border and the Great Okefenokee swamp . A summary of recent developments in this fight is available from an 11/30/07 article in the Albany Herald.

From the No New Coal for Georgia website:

The project will consume 20 million gallons of water from the Chattahoochee River annually, emit tons of toxic pollutants such as mercury, nitrogen oxice and sulfur into our air, and only employ 100-150 people in the county.

Its the same everywhere, isn't it? Utilities that think they're doing the right thing by building out-dated plants in economically depressed areas, while ignoring new technologies, alternative techniques, and changing times. They're not doing the right thing, and groups like No New Coal for Georgia are working hard to point that out for the benefit of the Peach State.

A Santee Cooper Christmas

Does a lump of coal in your stocking sound good to you?

American's for Balanced Energy Choices continue their merry meddling in South Carolina, reportedly going so far as to mail SC press contacts a stocking full of coal-shaped chocolates. This shameless (and frankly, gross) stunt suggests ABEC is hoping "you are what you eat," but fortunately, the integrity of the SC media is thus far intact, and there is indication that they are becoming wise to ABEC's dirty (and factually impoverished) hustle. After all, is this where you want your utility bill dollars going? You might tell, Duke Energy, for example, that you don't. Or you might ask Santee Cooper what their connection is to ABEC. Witness the below piece from the SC Statehouse report. I'm faithful that the vast majority of South Carolinians still don't want to find coal in their stocking on Christmas Day (much less in Florence County), either the chocolate-flavored or mercury-spiked varieties.

Oxymoronic?
Use of term "clean coal" is new war of words

Bill Davis

DEC. 14, 2007 -- Conservationists across the state are treating a "clean coal" advertising campaign being waged in South Carolina with the same disdain comedian George Carlin has for the terms "jumbo shrimp" and "military intelligence."

Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC), an out-of-state lobbying group representing a host of power companies from around the country, has signed up to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in South Carolina on a public relations campaign to recycle coal's image between now and the presidential primaries.

Part of ABEC's mission is to get South Carolinians, as well as residents of other states where its messages are airing and showing up in print ads, to think of coal as an inexpensive substitute to foreign oil. They also want to replace visions of brown-lunged coal miners with those of modern plants producing energy with very little toxins escaping into the environment.

But has the use of the term "clean coal" become a war of words -- a linguistic dodge like a federal "clear skies" initiative that would allow more pollutants into the air than is currently allowed?

Industry says coal much cleaner these days

Not according to ABEC executive director Joe Lucas.

"Since the 1970s, coal plants have become between 70 and 80 percent cleaner per unit of energy produced," he told Statehouse Report. "And that has come despite a tripling of coal use in this country during that same time."

Lucas said new coal processing technologies have already been retrofitted to existing plants across the country, and new, future technologies can be retrofitted to a proposed plant in Florence that Santee Cooper is going through the permitting process for.

It's the combination of the amount of extra pollution that a new Florence plant would produce combined with "disingenuous" language that has concerned Ann Timberlake, executive director of the Conservation Voters of South Carolina.

"This is just out-of-state dirty coal lobbyists trying to sell South Carolina a false bill of goods," said Timberlake. "There is no coal in South Carolina; we don't get to see mountaintops removed so companies can get at the coal."

Timberlake said many of Lucas' arguments, like most mercury in the atmosphere is naturally produced, are merely "distractions" from bigger issues.

Those issues are, according to Timberlake and other conservation groups, increased health costs from a new coal plant. She added that conservation and efficiency programs provide cheaper and quicker solutions to the state's growing energy needs, and with federal "carbon taxation" in the offing, building more coal-burning plants was an unwise business choice.

Conservationists say plant would be least clean type

Dana Beach, executive director of the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, agreed, but went on to attack the actual technology the proposed plant would employ.

He explained there are two basic ways to introduce coal into the "furnace" of a coal-powered energy plant. In a gasification plant, the dirty black rock is cooked down and processed into a liquid form and fed into the fires. This is considered the cleanest way to burn coal because it allows impurities and other potentially lethal toxins to be more easily removed.

The second way is the tried-and-true method of busting coal up into small pieces and stoking the fires with the aggregate. Pulverized coal is tougher to purify and many plants rely on additional technologies to clean the smoke generated.

Beach pointed out the latter was the greater of two evils, in that pulverized coal, the method slated for the proposed Florence plant, is the least clean. He went on to say that within the pulverized coal category, there were two sets of cleaning technologies -- super-clean and ultra-clean.

The Florence plant being permitted would be a "super-clean" plant, not an ultra-clean one. While much cleaner than past technologies, even ABEC's Lucas admitted that super-clean plants produces many pounds of mercury and large amounts of sulfur dioxide.

"To say coal is clean would be, at best, naïve," Beach said.

Santee Cooper defends proposed plant

Santee Cooper spokesperson Laura Varn defended her company's decision by pointing out that a 1-percent increase in pollution reduction was "a big deal" and that the new Florence plant would be 2.3 percent cleaner.

FEEDBACK POLICY

Varn said thanks to changes in state health and environmental regulations, the proposed plant would produce 69 pounds of mercury a year, a 46-pound drop over what had been allowed. Considering a single drop of mercury is said to be able to contaminate a 20-acre lake, that is also a big deal, she said.

Varn reiterated an argument she's made before in defending the proposed plant: that efficiency and conservation programs cannot supply the state's future energy needs and that the other "cleaner" coal technologies, while tempting, are too expensive and have proven unreliable.

In this war of words, Sen. Phil Leventis (R-Sumter), fresh from stumping in Iowa for pro-carbon tax Democratic presidential candidate Christopher Dodd, has got some pretty good ones to share:

"If coal companies and energy companies spent as much money on cleaner and alternative energy sources as they do on advertising, we could all breath easier."

ABEC's Lucas argued that "there is no perfect energy source" as he talked with Statehouse Report by phone while standing outside in Nevada. With the sun beating down. From above. For free.

Crystal ball: "Clean coal" is an oxymoron. It's dirty. Florence, smack dab in the middle of what some call the "Mercury Triangle, may get a "super" clean pulverized coal plant. And that would mean it would get more methyl-mercury, the really bad stuff that gets into fish and eventually people, will turn up in South Carolina. Until alternative fuel technologies and research gets real funding, like House Speaker Bobby Harrell (R-Charleston) has fought for, South Carolina's environment will continue to be threatened.

Bill Davis can be reached at: billdavis@statehousereport.com.

Coal Plant Taints S.C. Fish

Below is an editorial by South Carolina Wildlife Federation Executive Director, Ben Gregg. It appeared in the Tuesday edition of the Myrtle Beach Sun News.

Not only do fishermen like to fish, most like to eat what they catch. For many S.C. families, fish are a staple of their diets. But mercury pollution in South Carolina's rivers and streams is making it dangerous to eat these fish. What gives?

When you consider that a recent U.S. Fish and Wildlife study found that more than 800,000 people in South Carolina fish, it seems decision-makers should be addressing this danger.

Along many of South Carolina's waterways - on some 1,747 miles of state rivers and streams - the stories are much the same: Either you shouldn't eat the fish or you shouldn't eat them regularly.

Why? Mercury, one of the most toxic elements on Earth.

Thanks to recent scrutiny from concerned citizens and the media, a dirty little secret about state waters is out: Mercury pollution is bad in South Carolina - so bad, in fact, that the black water rivers and streams in the Pee Dee and Lowcountry are a national hot spot for high levels of mercury in the environment.

Some mercury pollution is naturally occurring. But scientists say the amount of mercury now being spewed into the air is three times what it was 200 years ago. The main culprit is pollution from manmade sources. At the top of that list are coal-burning power plants, which are responsible for 40 percent of mercury emissions in the United States.

Once toxic mercury gets into the air, it is absorbed in precipitation and then deposited back into rivers and lakes. Micro-organisms then convert mercury into methyl mercury, which becomes part of the food chain as the micro-organisms are consumed: tiny fish eat tiny organisms; bigger fish eat the tiny fish; then the biggest fish, such as largemouth bass, eat the bigger fish. Mercury concentrations increase at every step in the chain, until they end up in the biggest fishers of all - me and you.

Studies have linked methyl mercury to low birth weight, small head circumference, severe mental retardation, cerebral palsy, deafness, blindness and seizures. Adults exposed to methyl mercury experience loss of motor coordination, loss of or decreased sensation, impaired speech and hearing, and mental disturbances. They are also at higher risk for cardiovascular disease and death.

From its existing dirty coal plants, Santee Cooper already emits about a third of all the mercury pollution in South Carolina. Now this state-owned power company is proposing to build yet another old-style dirty coal plant right near the confluence of the Lynches, the Little and the Great Pee Dee Rivers.

This vulnerable area has been labeled as the "Mercury Triangle." Toxin levels in this region already violate federal law and are some of the highest in the state. People fish these waters for subsistence. Just one pound of methyl mercury is enough to contaminate 500,000 pounds of fish tissue. What impact will this plant have on communities that rely on fishing for subsistence? We don't know. Neither the Department of Health and Environmental Control nor Santee Cooper has addressed these concerns.

Instead, DHEC has hastily issued a draft air permit allowing Santee Cooper to emit 138 pounds of toxic mercury into the air every year. This plant will be operational for 50 years. What will be the cumulative impact of these mercury emissions over the next 50 years? Nobody knows.

It's time to remind decision-makers, including state senators, House members and agency officials, about a few things. Our 800,000 S.C. anglers are putting over $1 billion annually into the state's economy, and a considerable part of that money is spent in strapped rural areas. It's also a good time to remember that our air, our water, our wildlife and our fish are owned by the state's citizens, not by elected officials, not by Santee Cooper and not by DHEC.

Fishermen want to be able to catch - and eat - largemouth bass, catfish and a host of other species in South Carolina's waters. But until we stand up and say it's time to clean up our rivers - including not licensing dirty coal-fired power plants - South Carolina's anglers will spend more time dreaming about the good ol' days of fishing than living them.

The writer is executive director of the S.C. Wildlife Federation. Many of the federation's 8,000 members fish in the waters of South Carolina.

A Thirst for Efficiency in Georgia

Georgia, the state famous for questioning the fact of global warming in an era when the majority of states (including our own) are striving to act to prevent and/or cope with it, is moving forward on energy efficiency.

South Carolina should pay attention. The reason is drought -- a reason our state certainly shares with our southern neighbor.

A recent opinion in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution spelled it out:

Flicking a light switch or turning on the bathroom faucet are daily routines that most Georgians perform without a second thought. But this year's drought is making clear the inextricable relationship between water usage and energy consumption, and why it's so important.

Georgia, like every other state, gets most of its electricity from coal-fired and nuclear power plants that require massive amounts of water to prevent them from overheating.

Most of those plants are owned and operated by Southern Company, an Atlanta-based holding company. In addition to Georgia Power, which is the state's largest utility, Southern Company has subsidiaries in Florida and Alabama, where state officials have been feuding with Gov. Sonny Perdue over water.

The company's power plants draw water — averaging about 3.3 billion gallons a day in 2000 — from Georgia rivers including the Chattahoochee, which is also the principal source of drinking water for millions of homes and businesses. The total amount of water withdrawn for electricity generation comprises more than half of the surface and ground water usage for the entire state.

Utility officials contend they've been responsible stewards of the state's liquid resources. In older plants, they say, water is returned directly to the Chattahoochee and elsewhere, while newer plants are designed to use less water throughout the process.

But the facts are somewhat different. Regardless of the technology used, a considerable amount of water is lost either through evaporation or leakage. In both cases, the water returned to the watershed by power plants isn't always available when and where it's needed most.

Southern Company, like every other business in the state, should be put on notice that wasting water will be met with stiff fines. However, smugly pointing the finger at Southern Company or other water guzzlers won't fix the problem.

While praying for rain to refill our parched reservoirs, the more effective and realistic approach is for state officials to get serious about making Georgia more energy efficient, which will also have the salutary effect of reducing our overall water consumption.

Because of our hot and humid climate, Georgia has historically had a higher per capita energy use than other parts of the country. The hotter it gets, the more energy we use — and the more water we waste.

To break that unsustainable cycle in the short term, our leaders could mandate installation of high-efficiency appliances and lights — in addition to low-flow plumbing fixtures — in all new construction.

In the years and decades ahead, Georgia should also take the lead in developing renewable sources of energy, such as solar power, that are less dependent on already overburdened water supplies.

Georgia may not be able to conserve its way out of the current water crisis. But ignoring the connection between saving water and saving energy is no longer an option.

— Lyle V. Harris, for the editorial board

It really doesn't need to be pointed out, but South Carolina is also experiencing a terrible drought and South Carolina also gets its its electricity from water-guzzling coal and nuclear plants.

Now one of those utilities, who like the Southern Company, claims to be a good steward of the State's resources, will be adding to the problem if their proposed coal plant project is allowed to go forward. Will Santee Cooper use the water of the Great Pee River, where it plans to build another huge coal plant, responsibly? Not if its behavior with respect to pending legislation that would require permits for large water withdrawls in South Carolina is any indication. Santee Cooper has successfully lobbied for an exemption from this legislative proposal that will allow them to withdraw water without restriction.

Like the author of this editorial opines, our state should be focusing on energy efficiency and renewables -- not coal plants. You've heard this before on this blog, that's because efficiency and renewables are better for our health, better for our environment, better for our economy than coal. But now theres another reason: its better for our state's stressed water supplies.

Utility Sees the Error of its Ways

Some utilities blindly stumble forward with plans to build new coal plants, hoping promises and exaggerated claims and a little luck will allow them to continue outmoded operations well into the 21st century. Others get wise and change with the times.

One such utility is the northwestern utility, PacifiCorp.

From the Oregonian:

PacifiCorp has backed away from plans to build any new coal plants within the next 10 years, conceding that coal no longer can overcome tightening regulations and environmental opposition.

In recent filings and communications with regulators in Utah and Oregon, the Portland-based company said three coal plants included earlier this year in long-range resource plans and subsequent requests for proposals were "no longer viable options."

PacifiCorp cited as reasons for its decision: The likelihood of national carbon emissions legislation, which it said makes accurate cost projections and risk assessment for coal plants "futile," and the fact that most of the coal plants proposed around the United States recently have been canceled, denied permits or been involved in protracted litigation.

In a filing with the Utah Public Service Commission, the company said it wasn't excluding coal from its 20-year planning options. But "absent some change in conditions, it cannot be determined at this time whether new coal generation ownership will satisfy the least-cost, least-risk standards that would enable us to consider it as a viable option in our 10 year plans."

Ratepayer advocates and environmentalists called the utility's decision a victory.

"We're encouraged that they seem to be moving away from coal," said Bob Jenks, executive director of the Citizen's Utility Board. "It's a good sign. I also think it's a sign of the reality that they're not going to get approval for it."

The move away from coal is an about-face for a company that generates nearly 65 percent of its electricity from coal.

Until recently, there was a distinct difference in receptivity to new coal plants on the two sides of the company's service territory. In Utah, where customers make up more than 40 percent of the company's total electricity consumption, regulators and state authorities have been far more willing to consider coal plants.

By contrast, regulators and lawmakers in Oregon, Washington and California have sent a clear signal that they don't want any more.

Earlier this year, Oregon passed a law requiring utilities to serve 25 percent of customer demand with renewable resources such as wind and geothermal by 2025, with interim targets. California and Washington have their own standards in place.

PacifiCorp's decision to drop coal from its near-term resource plans came after that legislation passed. It also came after Utah's decision to join the Western Climate Initiative, a group of Western states working on a regional plan to curb carbon emissions, said Marc Krasnowsky, a NW Energy Coalition spokesman.

David Eskelsen, a PacifiCorp spokesman, said there was no connection between Utah's action and its decision, though the company is certainly aware of increasing state pressures to go green. The question now, he said, is "if not coal, then what?"

The cost factor

Coal-fueled electricity, he said, has been less expensive, and the company's decision to invest in it allowed it to become one of the nation's lowest cost providers of electricity. Uncertainty around coal will push the company toward more gas-fired generators and as much wind power as it can round up, he said.

"If policies change, we'll comply," Eskelsen said, "but we want policymakers to be informed about the consequences on reliability and price. The price impact is unescapable."

Consumers advocates disagree. They contend that climate legislation will dramatically increase the cost of coal power. Moreover, they say, the capital costs for adding a gas plant are low compared with coal, so if a utility is forced to back off using a gas plant or shut it down, it doesn't cost ratepayers as much. By contrast, once utilities sink capital into a coal plant with a 60-year useful life, they want to use it.

Steve Weiss, an analyst with the NW Energy Coalition, also points out that gas-fired power plants, which can be cycled up and down rapidly, are more compatible with the intermittent renewable resources such as wind and solar, which are becoming a larger part of utilities' generation mix.

Natural gas emissions

Burning gas to make electricity still creates carbon dioxide, but at about half the level of an equivalent amount of electricity from a coal-powered plant, Weiss said.

PacifiCorp forecast in May that its overall customer demand would grow by 2.4 percent per year between 2007 and 2016. Most of that growth was skewed toward the east side of its six-state territory, particularly Utah and Wyoming.

By 2012, the company is projecting the need for an additional 1,700 megawatts of generation capacity. Consequently, it is hoping state regulators will expedite their review of a new request for a proposal it hopes to issue to suppliers in January. That call for bids will exclude coal.

Why doesn't Santee Cooper follow this prudent utility's lead. Coal isn't a viable option in our state either.

Dollars and Sense

Since Santee Cooper recently became a patron of the economic impact business, Clean Energy for South Carolina thought it would be timely to point out a study conducted by the government of Ontario. In that Canadian province, the government is responsible for both providing power and health care. So when it came time for the government to find out if continued reliance on coal-fired electricity generation made financial sense, they didn't just rely on inflated jobs numbers, they included the environmental and health costs of coal in their study and compared it against other alternatives.

What did they find? They found that the levelized cost of coal is $37/MWh (presumably in Canadian dollars) if environmental and health damages are not included. But when health and environmental costs are included, the cost of coal inflates to $164/Mwh -- that's right, the cost more than quadrupled. In fact, health and environmental costs make up over three quarters of the true cost of coal.

But here's the rub. Unlike Ontario, Canada, where the government provides both power and health care, in South Carolina Santee Cooper doesn't have to pay the environmental and health costs of coal. But YOU DO. Oh and by the way, if you are a Santee Cooper customer, you'll also end up paying for that new coal plant too, through higher rates.

Still think coal is cheap? Still think its a good investment for South Carolina?

Ontario has taken this data and decided it's in its financial best interest to shut down its coal plants. One has already been demolished.

We're a long way from that in South Carolina; the least we could do it stop a new coal plant from being built.

If you support that, you're not necessary an environmentalist, or a someone concerned about your childrens' health -- you could just be someone interested in fiscal responsibility and sound economics for our state.

Making Plans

According to the Post and Courier Santee Cooper has more up its sleeve than just 4 new coal plants (i.e. two at Cross, two in the Pee Dee).

Last week it announced plans to build a new natural gas-burning plant, while characteristically failing to offer any specific details about the project.

It appears that the plant would generate over 100 MW of electricity and come online in 2008. Natural gas plants, while still significant sources of carbon dioxide, the anthropogenic emissions of which are largely responsible for global warming, are far less polluting and costly than coal. Construction of this plant makes it even more feasible for Santee Cooper to meet the rest of its growth with energy efficiency and renewable energy.



Indeed, the article reported that Santee Cooper has boosted its expenditures on renewable energy to 1.6%. Of course, a 21st century utility, especially a state-sanctioned utility, should be spending far more than 1.6% of its budget on the energy supply of the future. It should also be spending more on efficiency, the energy supply of the present. Santee Cooper doesn' t spend enough on either.

And it still claims it must build two coal burning units on the Pee Dee. But Santee Cooper should be cautiously applauded for its actions (not its words), which suggest that it is beginning to plan for a world in which its proposed Pee Dee plants are NOT a reality.

Exaggerated Claims

Both the Florence Morning News, and less surprisingly, the Charleston Business Journal, were recently duped by a misleading Santee Cooper press event, while the Post and Courier faired somewhat better.

The event, held at Francis Marion University, touted the release of an economic impact study of the utility’s proposed coal plant. In the past, Santee Cooper has stated that construction of the plant will create about 1,000 temporary construction jobs and less than 100 full-time jobs, at least a quarter of which will be upper-management jobs sourced outside of the Pee Dee region.

At the event, Santee Cooper claimed that the plant will create over 9,000 jobs. Attendees, including the press, were understandably impressed. However, those who took the time to read Santee Cooper’s own press release – or the report, for that matter (which Santee Cooper has not made available to the public) – have reason for chagrin. From the press release:

It is important to note that for purposes of this study, the timetable was collapsed into one year. Therefore, if one worker was working on a job for five years, it is counted as five jobs for the analysis of this study.

So, the 9,000 figure is the product of double (or even quintuple counting). If you run a small business and you employ 5 people in 2006, and you end up keeping them on in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010, how many people have you employed? If you are honest, you’d answer FIVE; if you are Santee Cooper, you would answer 25!

Why must they resort to this kind of funky accounting to justify this unpopular project?

Some more tough questions:

What happens to the economy when those 1,000 or so temporary workers finish building the plant and lose their jobs? Will the remaining 100 or so permanent employees still have a large impact on the Pee Dee’s fortunes? Wouldn’t it be better to use the 1 to 2 billion dollars this coal plant will cost for direct investment in economic development, job training, and incentives that will lead to permanent employment in the Pee Dee, instead of a coal plant?

And where will the money come from to pay all these workers? Will it come from revenues generated from products sold around the nation or the world, brining new wealth to South Carolina? Unfortunately, the answer is no. Of course it will come from Santee Cooper’s South Carolina customers, who will end up paying for the plant via increases in their electric bills. That’s like taking money out of one pocket and putting it into another. No net gain to the community or South Carolina.

Finally, who will calculate the negative costs that will result from building this plant? The lost tourism from mercury polluted waters and fish? The lost work days from mercury poisoned people? The emergency room bills from increased acute asthma? The decrease in local property values due to the pollution and unsightliness of the coal plant? The lost economic development because of restrictions on future growth in the Pee Dee (due to EPA regulations that limit growth in areas that fail to comply with air quality standards)? The increased risk from climate change to the state’s water supplies, agricultural output, and quality of life?

It won’t surprise you to hear that no one has a good answer for these questions.

Let’s not pretend a coal plant is a tool for economic development – it’s a dirty way of generating electricity, and not much else.

Latest News Posted

See our "Pee Dee Plant News Coverage" section for updated news coverage of Santee Cooper's proposed coal plant, including local Physicians and newspaper editors calling on DHEC to test South Carolinians for mercury poisoning and an exaggerated economic development study on the coal plants completed by Francis Marion University. Read all about it!

Physicians Call on DHEC for Mercury Tests

Florence Morning News
Thursday, Dec 06, 2007

By Jamie Durant

Local doctors and environmentalists gathered Thursday in front of S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control’s Florence office to ask the agency to test residents living in the area of the proposed Santee Cooper coal plant for mercury levels.

John Mathes, a local family practice physician at McLeod Family Medicine, said he attended the protest to voice his concerns about mercury contamination from the proposed plant.“My concern is that high mercury levels could have profound impacts on the health of our community,” he said. “I’m concerned that this hasn’t been fully researched, and we haven’t been told all we should have been told about this.”

He said he thinks DHEC should investigate the mercury levels among people who fish and eat their catch from the Great Pee Dee River in the area around the proposed plant site.

Mike King, an environmentalist and member of the Pee Dee River Watchers, lives in the area where the proposed plant would be built. The Pee Dee River Watchers is an informal group of local citizens concerned with the environmental state of the Great Pee Dee River. King said he thinks DHEC isn’t doing all it can to protect people from industry giants.

“I would like to say DHEC has a checkered past in protecting people in South Carolina from mercury poisoning,” he said.

He said DHEC does not have a policy in place for testing mercury contamination among citizens beyond telling people to see their family physician.

“It shouldn’t be like that,” he said. “It should be done on a voluntary basis. It’s very easy to do with a hair sample.”

Dr. Tim Dancy, a family medicine practitioner at McLeod Family/Sports Medicine, said he feels the DHEC policy concerning testing for mercury contamination is nothing more than a roadblock to what he thinks needs to be done.

“We need, as a public health policy, to find out how bad the health contamination is in our citizens, so that we can make an appropriate reaction to it,” he said. “I think it is irresponsible to continue in that vein.”

He said he feels DHEC should be taking proactive steps to learn more about the state of contamination in the Pee Dee, such as making mercury testing readily available to anyone with a legitimate concern.

Friends

Taking on an unbridled rogue agency like Santee Cooper, or the full P.R. weight of the coal industry, can be a wearying task at times for the growing grass-roots collective of South Carolina residents opposed to the Pee Dee coal plant.

At such times, its nice to remember we are not alone.

Big Coal is attempting to dupe hard-working Americans all over the county with costly coal projects that will harm their health, threaten their natural heritage, and raise their bills. Luckily, in most of these places, folks are fighting back and increasingly beating the Big Boys.

So, this might be the beginning of a series featuring grassroots efforts to fight coal plants all over the country. A utility in nearby Viriginia, tellingly titled Dominion Power, is attempting to exercise the authority implied in its name to build a 585 MW circulating fluidized bed coal plant (incidentally, a technology marginally cleaner than that proposed by Santee Cooper) in Wise County, Virginia.

However, a coalition of concerned citizens and groups including Appalachian Voices, Chesapeake Climate Action Network, and Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards have come together in opposition to the proposal. They've created a website cleverly titled "Wise Energy for Virginia." Check it out to see how folks in a fellow southern state are endeavoring to beat Big Coal. It won't surprise you to learn that much of their message is the same as the one in South Carolina, i.e. new coal is unnecessary, coal will hurt our state, and clean energy is the alternative. It's nice to compare notes. While visiting Virginia's coalition, consider signing their petition in opposition to Dominion's coal plant.

It's the golden rule, right? Show 'em South Carolina cares!

Coal: You Lose Again

Regulators in Washington state have followed the example set by Kansas and sent a utility eager to build a new coal plant back to the drawing board. Regulators are requiring the utility, Energy Northwest, to figure out what it is going to do with its proposed plant's greenhouse gas emissions before they will consider the utility's application. From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

State energy regulators have stopped the permit application for a coal-fueled power plant in southwest Washington until the builder meets requirements of a new climate change law.

In an order issued Tuesday, the state Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council has suspended the application from Energy Northwest until the public power consortium addresses how it will sequester carbon emissions.

There are a few parallels to South Carolina and Santee Cooper's proposed coal plant: Energy Northwest is essentially a consortium of public utilities in Washington State and the proposed plant represents an unprecedented power-plant building spree for the utility. Santee Cooper is also a public utility, supplying power to a consortium of electric cooperatives. Its also on a mission to double its CO2 emissions via a crash-course of coal plant construction projects.

But the similarities end there. The Washington plant was stopped by the Washington Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, a regulatory agency charged with "specifying the conditions of construction and operation; [issuing] permits in lieu of any other individual state or local agency authority; and [managing] an environmental and safety oversight program of facility and site operations." Boy could we use one of those here. That's because Santee Cooper is subject to ZERO regulatory oversight.

Moreoever, Washington State has passed a climate change law that limits utilities ability to build new coal plants that would emit greenhouse gases willy-nilly into the already warming atmosphere!

Of course, we South Carolinians don't have to just sit by and watch in awe. We can let Santee Cooper know we don't want this plant, we can also let our elected officials know.

Read more about this victory for good government and climate stewardship here.

Feds to Santee Cooper: Don't Build that Plant!

The U.S Department of Interior wants Santee Cooper's proposed "coal campus" put on hold, according to a report in today's Post and Courier. Apparently even the Federal government feels that Santee Cooper (and DHEC, for that matter) has yet to perform an adequate analysis of the impact of this massive coal-burning project. From the article:

The Fish and Wildlife Service expressed its concerns about the plant in two letters obtained this week by The Post and Courier.

In a letter dated Sept. 11, Fish and Wildlife urged DHEC to make no decisions permitting any aspect of the plant until "a comprehensive and adequate review of the project and its affects to the environment, the atmosphere, and the quality of human life is conducted."

In a second letter, dated Oct. 3, the service said the project's air pollution emissions, particularly mercury and sulfur dioxide, pose threats to several state and federal wildlife sanctuaries, including the Cape Romain and Waccamaw national wildlife refuges.

The letter said much of South Carolina's coastal forest and the dune and marsh grasses in the Cape Romain refuge could be damaged by increased levels of acid rain due to the sulfur releases.

In addition, the letter urges DHEC to fully analyze the effects of increased mercury fallout from the plant into rivers already contaminated with enough mercury that the state warns people not to eat fish caught in some of the waters.

Read the rest of the article here. The Fish and Wildlife's service's concerns have been echoed by local residents in the Pee Dee. Will DHEC and Santee Cooper ignore them now in addition to the Feds?

Pee Dee Area Physicians Call On DHEC to Test Humans for Mercury

Florence, SC – In light of mercury threats to the Pee Dee region, area physicians and concerned citizens gathered outside the Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) Florence offices at 12:15 p.m. today to request formally that DHEC begin testing human populations in the Pee Dee region for mercury contamination. Citizens living near the proposed site of Santee Cooper's coal plant also spoke, asking that they be tested.

A recent investigative series in the Charleston Post & Courier documented alarming and dangerous levels of mercury in South Carolina citizens who eat fish from the state's mercury contaminated rivers, including the Pee Dee. State utility Santee Cooper plans to build a pulverized coal plant in the midst of a "Mercury Triangle"; mercury levels there violate state and federal laws and are among the highest in the state.

According to Dr. Bernetha George, one of the physicians requesting DHEC conduct testing, "DHEC has an historic opportunity to live up to their mission by looking into this issue. First we have to get the data. Until then, put the plant on hold."

DHEC has stated that the agency will not begin testing without a request from a physician. At today's conference, two physicians in addition to Dr. George requested testing, Dr. John Mattheis, and Dr. Timonthy Dancy. Both practice at Mcleod Hospital. A fourth physician, Dr. Ken Kammer, was detained by surgery, but asked that a statement be read in his name.

Dr. Kammer's statement reads: "The agency has known for years of the threat posed to the environment: mercury fish consumption advisories are in effect for every major watershed in the coastal plain, most major lakes and for the entire coast. The agency now knows, thanks to publicized laboratory findings, that citizens in this state have dangerously high levels of mercury in their bodies. Given mercury's toxic effects, this is a clear health problem."

In addition, members of the community who live near the proposed plant site or who have been active hunters and fishers, spoke to reporters, volunteering to be tested.

"I have been a fish eater all my life, fishing on the Pee Dee river," said Mike King, whose home is just five miles from the proposed site. "From 1985 to 1995 I ate fish from Black Creek every week. I cooked my fish right on the bank, so I feel I need to be tested."

Terry Cook, who lives within a half mile of the proposed site, said: "My husband and I have hunted and fished along the Pee Dee and Lynches rivers all our lives. I have raised five children on these rivers. It's a shame my grandchildren will not know the same joy and peace."

Terry Cook also pointed out that the proposed site is within five miles of a grammar school and a high school. "I think they [DHEC] need to test us all before going forward with any permits," she concluded.

Present also was Reverend Leo Woodberry, who directs the Eastern Carolina Community Development Corporation: "With this coal plant, we need to be very careful before putting up yet another plant that may be a risk to our community." Of the fourteen major industries in Florence County, seven emit between 6,900 and 4,271,543 pounds of pollutants annually, according to a toxic releases inventory that is tracked nationally. Citing the website scorecard.org, which tracks emissions by county, Reverend Woodberry noted, "We already have a lot of toxic emissions in this county."

Close to 600 people, many of them in the Kingsburg and Pamplico area, have signed a petition opposing the plant.

Two weeks ago Dr. Ken Kammer submitted a formal letter to DHEC requesting that a draft air permit that would allow Santee Cooper to emit up to 138 pounds of toxic mercury be suspended and that the agency undertake an extensive campaign to test human populations for mercury.

On December 4, DHEC extended until January 22 the comment period for the draft air permit.

Moore's Better

A recent interview in the Business and Economic Review published by the Moore School of Business at USC exposes one of the coal lobby's greatest myths, i.e. that coal is cheap.

Santee Cooper can often be heard making this argument when trying to justify its multi-billion pet project -- the massive, coal-burning "Pee Dee Energy Campus." Of course, coal is far from cheap. In fact its rather expensive -- and its cost will only increase.

Since those who are trying to foist coal on South Carolinians aren't being straight with us on this point, its refreshing to find one the country's top business schools weighing in on this important topic.

The subject of the interview, Stephen Smith (Executive Director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy) sums up his case nicely:

...the presentation of coal as a cheap source of energy is, in fact, misleading and incredibly short-sighted because that analysis ignores the human health and environmental costs as well as future changes to the market place.

Mr. Smith does a good job pointing out that coal only seems cheap because much of its true cost goes unaccounted for -- the companies that mine it and the utilities that burn it don't pay, instead regular folks do, e.g. through damaged health, degraded environments, and higher utility bills.

He also points out why Santee Cooper's proposed coal plant will be extremely costly for South Carolina.

Read the rest of the interview here. Curious as to how even the market price (e.g. the price of coal minus its health and environmental impact) of coal has trended recently? Click here (hint: its going up). There has also been a good discussion on the cost of coal going on here and here. Here's to truth in advertising!

The Mercury Message

South Carolina physicians are calling on DHEC to test citizens for mercury poisoning according to a story in today's Post and Courier. As others have pointed out on this blog, coal plants (and Santee Cooper in particular) are the main source of mercury pollution in our state and evidence suggests that this problem is getting out of control. From the P&C:

In a letter sent Nov. 14 to Earl Hunter, commissioner of the Department of Health and Environmental Control, neurosurgeon Ken Kammer called mercury a "pressing public health threat" and urged the department to respond "by undertaking testing of citizens."

Two other physicians, Tim Dancy and Bernetha George, are joining in Kammer's request, according to Nancy Cave of the Coastal Conservation League.

In his letter, Kammer cited a recent Post and Courier series that showed some people who eat fish from mercury-contaminated sections of the state's rivers have elevated levels of mercury in their bodies. High levels can cause brain damage and other health problems.

State officials have issued warnings about mercury-tainted fish in more than 1,700 miles of rivers, mostly on the coastal plain.

The newspaper's series, "The Mercury Connection," found that coal-fired power plants are among the biggest sources of mercury contamination. The newspaper identified especially high areas of contamination in a triangular shaped area near the site of Santee Cooper's proposed $1 billion coal-fired power plant.

To read The Post and Courier's previous stories on mercury, click here.

Not sure what to do about GHG emissions? Hire a consultant!

McKinsey, perhaps the most esteemed management consulting firm around, is well known for the good advice it gives to the world's leading corporations. It seems doing something about climate change is part of that sage counsel -- and it strikes me that organizations that are interested in being successful should pay attention.

From McKinsey's website, here is the "central conclusion" of their recent study on the cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in America:

The United States could reduce GHG emissions in 2030 by 3.0 to 4.5 gigatons of CO₂e using tested approaches and high-potential emerging technologies. These reductions would involve pursuing a wide array of abatement options with marginal costs less than $50 per ton, with the average net cost to the economy being far lower if the nation can capture sizable gains from energy efficiency. Achieving these reductions at the lowest cost to the economy, however, will require strong, coordinated, economy-wide action that begins in the near future.

There are a number of notable other conclusions in McKinsey's report, which you can download here. I'll share a few, but encourage you to at least browse the executive summary of the report:

• 40% of the greenhouse gas reduction opportunities identified by McKinsey can be had at a net savings to the economy, i.e. they will make use richer.
  
• The fast-growing Southeast has the greatest potential for GHG reductions -- don't believe the hype that growth mandates dirty patterns of development.
  
• 30% of the greenhouse gas reduction potential resides in the power generation sector. That means the Santee Coopers of the world have both an extraordinary responsibility as well as an unrivaled opportunity to do something about the global warming problem they've had a large part in creating. This is just another reason we can't allow Santee Cooper to hold back progress by building a coal plant that will emit nearly 9 million tons of CO2 annually.
  

For climate deniers and coal-partisans, a blog like this is an easy target. So its always nice when you can refer folks to McKinsey & Co. Its hard to argue with the market economy's best and brightest.

Mercury Alert

Pee Dee Area Physicians Call On DHEC to Test Humans for Mercury

In light of mercury threats to the Pee Dee region, area physicians will gather outside DHEC's Florence offices at 12:15 p.m. on Thursday, December 6 to request formally that DHEC begin testing human populations in the Pee Dee region for mercury contamination.

A recent investigative series in the Charleston Post & Courier documented alarming and dangerous levels of mercury in South Carolina citizens who eat fish from the state's mercury contaminated rivers, including the Pee Dee.

DHEC has stated that the agency will not begin testing without a formal request from a physician.

Two weeks ago, Florence resident and neurosurgeon Dr. Ken Kammer submitted a request, and since that time two other physicians, Dr. Tim Dancy and Dr. Bernetha George, have submitted supporting letters calling for DHEC to test humans for mercury.

Physicians will address the human health risks of mercury and ask that DHEC rescind the draft air permit it granted Santee Cooper allowing the utility to emit 138 pounds of toxic mercury a year. One pound of methyl mercury is enough to contaminate 500,000 pounds of fish tissue.

Please join us on your lunch hour as we meet outside the DHEC offices for our press event.

WHAT: Physicians request DHEC to test humans for mercury
WHERE: DHEC offices, 145 E Cheves St, Florence, SC 29506
WHEN: Thursday, 6 December, 12:15 PM

No Balance; One Choice

D.C. based front-group for Big Coal, the so-called "American's for Balanced Energy Choices" have begun a full court press in South Carolina. Any connections between ABEC's interference in South Carolina and Santee Cooper's increasing desperation with respect to the ill-advised coal plant it wants to build in Pee Dee? Well, ABEC says no, and Santee Cooper has cleverly maintained its distance from ABEC -- those who believe there isn't a connection should be sure to leave some cookies and milk by the fireplace before they go to bed on December 24th.

The Post & Courier reporter responsible for the excellent series on Mercury recently wrote a brief piece exposing the hypocrisy of this shameless industry group. According to the piece, they'll be spending $200,000 in South Carolina to convince you that Santee Cooper's coal plant is GREAT for our state.

Using the slogan "clean coal, America's power," the group's [Americans for Balanced Energy Choices] goal is to persuade voters and the presidential candidates about the benefits of using new technology to "keep coal in the mix," according to one official with the group....

The group plans to crisscross the state in a decorated "Flex Fuel" van and buy newspaper, online, television and radio ads. She said the group wants to raise the issue's profile as presidential campaigning picks up before South Carolina's primary. The national campaign's budget is $8 million to $10 million.

Dana Beach, executive director of the Coastal Conservation League, took issue with the group's name and goals. "This campaign is neither balanced nor about energy choices," he said. "I'm confident the public will see it for what it really is: a shameless greenwashing scheme funded by the coal industry designed to disguise the reality that coal is the dirtiest, most polluting energy source available."

ABEC also appeared on the NPR/ETV program The Big Picture on the Radio and in the Florence Morning News. More on ABEC here.

Its absurd to think we need a pro-coal group espousing "balance" and "choices" in our state when we already get nearly 50% of our power from coal (how's that for balance) and utilities like Santee Cooper are only offering one choice: more coal. These D.C. special-interest lobbyists clearly think we are a bunch of witless hicks. Not so. Its especially a shame since what South Carolina DOES need is more dialogue on fuel diversity, including more renewable energy and efficiency.

Kansas Has the Right Idea!

Why Kansas killed a coal plant proposal
Environmental and economic concerns made proposal too risky

By: GOV. KATHLEEN SEBELIUS

Kansas City Star
Nov. 1, 2007

Of all the duties and responsibilities entrusted to me as governor, none is greater than my obligation to protect the health and well-being of the people of Kansas.

That is why, after months of careful study and consideration, I support the recent decision of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment regarding Kansas' energy future.

This decision will not only preserve Kansans' health and uphold our moral obligation to be good stewards of this beautiful land, but will also enhance our prospects for strong and sustainable economic growth throughout our state. Instead of building two new coal plants, which would produce 11 million new tons of carbon dioxide each year, I support pursuing other, more promising energy and economic development alternatives. Kansas has great opportunities in clean energy and alternative fuels.

Clean coal is not a reality

Throughout the nation, about 50 percent of electric power is provided by coal. In Kansas, almost 75 percent of our electricity comes from coal, and we are 10th in the country for per capita production of greenhouse gas from electric plants. Right now, "clean coal" is a goal but not a reality. While there is a lot of research under way to capture carbon, or to find ways to clean carbon from the atmosphere, none has yet proved to be successful.We now know that carbon has a huge impact on the atmosphere, and global warming is very real. In a state like Kansas, where more than 20 percent of our jobs and economy involves agriculture and the land, changes in the climate and atmosphere can be devastating. Less water and hotter temperatures will result in fewer crops and less production, and that affects our state, the country and the world.

Our economy also depends on reliable, affordable electricity for all Kansans. We have solid Kansas utility companies, including Sunflower, that have provided affordable electricity to customers for decades. Recently these utilities agreed to be partners on developing alternative energy production, maximizing our wind assets. And they will be leaders in energy efficiency and conservation efforts, so we can lower our energy consumption without sacrificing economic growth.

In 2001 Sunflower Electric Cooperative applied for an air quality permit for a single 600-megawatt coal-fired power plant. The previous administration granted the permit, but the company chose to delay its building plans and the permit expired.

Then, in 2006, a new application was filed for a far larger project. Sunflower proposed to build three new coal plants, far exceeding the needs of Kansas customers. During the process, Sunflower withdrew the application for one of the plants.

Still, only 15 percent of the energy produced in the remaining two plants would be used in Kansas; the remaining 85 percent would be sold to Colorado and Texas. So Kansans would have 15 percent of the energy and 100 percent of the pollution and environmental impact of 11 million new tons of carbon dioxide each year. That is the equivalent of putting nearly 2 million new cars on Kansas roads in one year.

Following other states' lead

Throughout the nation, there is a growing recognition of the harm caused by carbon. In April, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the EPA to determine the effects of carbon, and stated that the agency had the authority to impose regulations. Internationally renowned scientists produced further evidence this spring of the connection between global warming and carbon in the atmosphere. More than a dozen states, including Oklahoma, Florida and Texas, have decided in the last 18 months not to build new coal plants.

The other issue looming on the horizon is the probability that coal will become a lot more expensive in the next few years. There is a growing pressure for the federal government to develop national standards for carbon emissions, like countries throughout Europe and South America. Many states have already begun that process.

Carbon may become costly

Legislation has been recently introduced in Congress to tax the production of carbon. If that policy is adopted, utility companies and their customers will pay far more for energy that produces carbon and will spend billions on equipment to clean the atmosphere as thoroughly as possible. Building additional coal plants now is likely to create a significant economic liability for Kansas in the future.

Renewable energy developed and produced here in Kansas uses far less water, a precious natural resource, and produces permanent jobs for Kansans.

It is critical that our efforts with energy production protect the safety and security of Kansans while pursuing economic opportunities, wherever they may be.

Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat, is governor of Kansas.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Governor Sanford can take a stand for a cleaner, healthier, and more responsible South Carolina too. Contact him and let him know how you feel about Santee Cooper's proposed dirty coal plant.

Governor Mark Sanford

Office of the Governor

P.O. Box 12267

Columbia, SC 29211

Phone: 803-734-2100

Fax: 803-734-5167

Somewhere in SC...

This image recently came to my attention. I'm not sure where it comes from, but I did look up the Bible verse and it's scary...



[Editor's Note: Though the sentiments are well worth considering, readers have pointed out that this is NOT a real image. In fact, you can create your own "church sign image" at this website. So, make your own and share it with us!]

"Another sixteen tons on the coal pile"

I thought y'all might enjoy this funny (in a serious way) video put together by the folks over at the Coastal Conservation League -- "Global Warming Guy." The tune is infectious and the message is right on. Enjoy!

"Knowledge is Power"

Check the "Pee Dee News Coverage" section of the blog for the latest stuff on this dirty coal plant -- a bunch of recent articles have been posted. Read and decide for yourself!

Mercury Op Ed in The Sun News

Mercury pollution neglected by state agency
By Ann Timberlake
Mon, Nov. 26, 2007

Perhaps the most amazing tidbit that came out of the Charleston Post and Courier's recent series on mercury pollution in the Palmetto State was that the Department of Health and Environmental Control owns a sophisticated $250,000 blood scanner that has been taken off the shelf, plugged in and used to test someone for mercury contamination once in the three years DHEC has owned it.

South Carolina is considered one of the mercury pollution "hotspots" of the country, where 17 of 41 people who regularly eat freshwater fish were found to have high levels of methyl mercury. The element, a pollutant from dirty coal smokestacks, is absorbed by micro-organisms and fish. Today, along more than 1,700 miles of state waterways, you can't eat some species of fish for health reasons. And you are warned to limit significantly your intake of others.

So you would think this high-tech machine bought with Homeland Security money would be in the field on some kind of "Mobile Mercury Testing Van" to check people's blood. Nope. It just sits in a lab in Columbia, according to the newspaper, along with another one that hasn't yet been assembled.

These idle machines symbolize the inept job being done by DHEC in working to combat the risks of mercury in people across the state. For those who have been following DHEC's passive approach to protecting the public's health, it's not a surprise.

It's time for the agency to consider some proactive solutions:

Test people for mercury poisoning. DHEC should get at least one of those machines out on the road to S.C. communities and known mercury hotspots. If DHEC regulators test fish, why can't they test humans?

Post warnings on our waterways. Fish consumption advisories for mercury are posted on DHEC's Web site but not at boat landings and popular fishing holes. DHEC has a responsibility to warn folks in reasonable ways, and the first step toward reducing mercury is informing the public of the danger. Warnings also need to be posted for all the locations where water pollution, mainly high fecal coliform levels, makes swimming unsafe.

Enforce the law. Instead of handing out a draft air permit allowing Santee Cooper to pump 138 pounds of toxic mercury into the air each year (and just one pound of methyl mercury is enough to contaminate 500,000 pounds of fish tissue), DHEC should enforce last year's Supreme Court ruling that classifies carbon dioxide as a pollutant. This plant will emit 8.7 million tons of carbon dioxide a year into the atmosphere, posing a threat not only to our planet, but to Santee Cooper's rate payers. Federal carbon legislation is on the way and will significantly raise the cost of coal. There is no indication that Santee Cooper took these costs into account when submitting their proposal. But DHEC can and should require Santee Cooper to do a true cost analysis of the plant.

In South Carolina, our low rates belie huge and hidden costs, including higher bills than the national average and human health costs in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Despite their claims, Santee Cooper is not using the best available control technology. As they should have done originally, DHEC needs to suspend the draft air permit until after the Army Corps of Engineers has completed its environmental impact statement.

This may seem like a push for more government regulation, but it's not. DHEC is our state agency, and Santee Cooper is our public utility. Both are owned and paid for by the people of this state, and both are failing their mission to improve and protect the lives of South Carolinians.

The writer is executive director of Conservation Voters of South Carolina, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that serves as the political voice of the conservation community .

Morning News Coverage of Proposed Dirty Coal Plant

"Both sides ready for next step"
Comment period will end Dec. 7, then agency will decide which issues valid

By Jamie Durant
Saturday, Nov 24, 2007

Although the public comment period for the proposed Santee Cooper coal plant doesn’t end until Dec. 7, many people are gearing up for the next stage in the battle on both sides of the issue.

According to S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control spokesman Thom Berry, the next step in the process will be for DHEC to review the comments gathered during the public comment period and determine which ones raise valid issues that still need to be considered before moving forward with their decision.

He said at that point, any issues deemed unresolved or unaddressed will be sent to Santee Cooper officials for a chance to be reviewed and rectified by the company.

“We will then sit down and begin the deliberative process internally to decide whether to approve or deny the permit application,” Berry said.

He said he does expect there to be litigation, regardless of the decision DHEC’s governing board recommends. He said there also is a process for appealing the decision.

“Once we publish the agency decision, that will begin an appeal time table. Anyone who wishes to appeal the agency’s decision may do so,” Berry said. “(They) will go before the DHEC governing board first, (then) the state administrative law court, the state court of appeals and (finally) the state Supreme Court.”

But some people aren’t happy with the way the process currently is laid out.

“We don’t believe that they are going to do anything more than they have done for 40 years, and that is pander to big government and big industry,” said Mike King, spokesman for the Pee Dee River Watchers, an environmental group focused primarily on the Great Pee Dee River.

King said he is convinced the organization isn’t looking out for the interests of the people living in the area.“We, frankly, believe that they are a rubber-stamp outfit,” he said.

But Florence County Councilman Ken Ard said he supports the coal plant, and he thinks DHEC will do what is best for the people of Pamplico and Johnsonville, two towns that will be directly affected by the addition of a 600 megawatt coal-fired generation facility to be located along the Great Pee Dee River.

“I am supportive of it, understanding there are a lot of questions that need to be answered,” he said. “I live there, I grew up there, I represent that area on council, so I guess my job is to support policy and things that would benefit that district and to not support things that would not benefit that district.”

He said he’s understanding of the many environmental groups that have been protesting the coal plant. But, he said, he feels the plant would be the best thing for the community.

“I would never be supportive of anything — I don’t care if it was 10,000 jobs — that would harm my constituency, the environment or the river,” Ard said. “I’ve had a lot of questions for Santee Cooper. I’ve had a lot of interaction with people that I trust and respect that don’t even have anything to do with Santee Cooper, and they have given me satisfactory answers, and I don’t have any problem supporting the plant.”

Ard said he agreed the environmentalists do have some valid questions regarding the issues surrounding the coal plant, but he hopes they refrain from using fear to get people to side with them against the coal plant.

Recently, in the town of Pamplico, there has been a dispute regarding the signatures on a petition in favor of the coal plant presented to DHEC officials at the public hearing earlier this month. Some members of the community who oppose the coal plant said they feel the signatures presented on the petition could not have been from the area they were said to have been collected from, since many of the people living in a five mile radius of the plant’s proposed site are opposed to the facility.

Local environmentalists have requested to see a copy of the petition through the Freedom of Information Act. King said the petition — which has 569 names of people opposing the plant on another petition — already is available for public viewing.

“We are not happy with the lack of transparency of this so-called petition that (Pamplico) Mayor (Gene) Gainey presented at the last draft air public hearing,” King said. “It is simply not true, because our people who live at the plant site went around on their bikes and collected signatures (for the anti-plant petition).”

Greater York County, Part II

World-renowned climate scientist Dr. James Hansen was in the Charlotte area last week. He was there to make the connection between new coal plants and global warming, suggesting that we can't afford to gamble on this old-fashioned technology that is incapable of controlling its CO2 emissions. Dr. Hansen has spoken out against Duke Energy's proposed 800 MW supercritical coal plant in Cliffside, North Carolina (near the SC border in the Upstate).

Dr. Hansen heads the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA and is also a professor at the Earth and Environmental Sciences School at Columbia University. He has been warning folks about the threat of global warming since way back in the 1980s -- unfortunately for the earth's climate time has only vindicated his research and projections.

From the Charlotte Observer:

At 66, one of the nation's most prominent climate-change scientists says he's more interested in finding solutions than placing blame for a warming planet.

One key solution, physicist James Hansen said Friday: No more coal-fired power plants like the one Duke Energy plans to expand 50 miles west of Charlotte....

Duke estimates Cliffside will release 9.7 million tons of carbon dioxide a year once a new 800-megawatt boiler is added. Hansen argues that energy efficiency could replace the need to expand the plant....

The problem with coal is that there's so much of it, Hansen said. That means plants like Cliffside could spew carbon dioxide for decades once oil and natural gas are depleted.

"The physics of the problem tells us that we cannot put the carbon from all that coal into the atmosphere," he said. "It just hasn't sunk into policy makers."

...

"We can spread the blame around," he said, "but the people who are going to suffer are our children and grandchildren."

Read more about Hansen's comments in the other Carolina's paper. What Hansen says about Cliffside is also true for the Pee Dee plant.

Happy Thanksgiving to all CleanEnergySC.com Readers!

Here's a list devised by Climate Progress. I'm sure we could generate our own list (that's what the comments are for). For Christmas, I'm asking DHEC & Santee Cooper to go back to the drawing board! Will I get a lump of coal in my stocking instead?

Five Climate Change Events To Be Thankful For
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 11.21.07

Climate Progress notes: "Let this Thanksgiving be a time for reflection, as there are several events within the past year worth reminiscing. These five occurrences have increased awareness on climate change and moved the U.S. closer to achieving targeted greenhouse gas reductions."

1. Al Gore and the IPCC won the Nobel Prize.
2. The 1st CAFE standard in 22 years was passed in the Senate. (This is perhaps premature)
3. All the democratic presidential frontrunners have proposed a comprehensive energy plan, asking for large carbon dioxide emission reductions. (but some still love coal)
4. The 4th IPCC Synthesis report was a blunt and urgent call for action. (Though Its not pretty)
5. Public Opinion is shifting. (3/4 of Americans would make lifestyle changes or pay energy and carbon taxes? Gotta be a rogue poll)

Climate Progress