Utility moves on power plant planCritics say it's a gamble without approval By Tony Bartelme (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Friday, April 11, 2008
The Post and Courier On the WebRead The Post and Courier's previous stories on Mercury. Santee Cooper is busy importing and staging $146 million in building materials near the site of its proposed Pee Dee coal-fired power plant, even though state and federal regulators have yet to sign off on the controversial project. Santee Cooper says that it wants to get the plant online as soon as possible and that buying and storing building materials will speed the construction process if regulators give the project a green light. But critics say it's a $146 million gamble, given concerns about global warming, rising costs for coal, a possible tax on carbon and the project's potential to worsen mercury pollution. Buying materials now means the utility locks in prices at 2008 levels, "and that could save ratepayers money if they get a permit, but I think they're taking an enormous risk," said Nancy Cave of the Coastal Conservation League. A resident near the plant, Terry Cook, had stronger words. "I'm disgusted down the line. Santee Cooper has continued to do what they darn well please. You don't spend $146 million on something unless you're sure it's going through." Santee Cooper is seeking government permits to build two 600-megawatt generators along the Great Pee Dee River near the tiny town of Pamplico. The $1.25 billion project has strong support in business and manufacturing circles but faces vigorous opposition from citizens and environmental groups. In 2006, Santee Cooper's board set 2012 as its target for the Pee Dee plant to go online, said Laura Varn, vice president of corporate communications. The utility then began making arrangements to acquire building materials and began seeking state and federal permits. But because of delays in the permitting process, the materials are arriving now, even though Santee Cooper can't use them. The utility plans to spend $146 million, mainly for several thousand tons of structural steel, Varn said. The steel is being imported from South Korea and other countries, moved through the port of Georgetown and then transported to a company in Johnsonville, a few miles from the Pee Dee site. Varn said Santee Cooper won't do anything with the materials until the utility gets all its permits, adding that "should something change with the permit, we are confident we can sell the material and recoup the money. China, for example, is having a new power plant come online (every) week." Varn said none of the materials will be stored on the grounds of the Pee Dee site. Santee Cooper and many other utilities have long depended on coal to provide low-cost, year-round power. But amid rising construction costs and concerns about global warming and mercury pollution, utilities canceled or postponed more than 45 projects in 2007, a new analysis by the U.S. Energy Department found. In light of these cancelation, "I think it's a $146 million gamble," said Blan Holman of the Southern Environmental Law Center. State and federal regulators are still debating how to meet the region's energy needs, he said, "and their decision may be that it's not a coal-fired power plant. So I think they're putting the cart before the horse." Reach Tony Bartelme at 37-5554 or tbartelme@postand courier.com. |
Article tools |
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 9 comment(s)
Posted by moonpie on April 11, 2008 at 5:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Spending our money on a maybe, what if ?
They must know something the rest of us don't??
Posted by ImplantedYankee on April 11, 2008 at 7:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Anyone want to spend twice what we do on electricity and STILL not be able to count on the lights staying on? Anyone want rolling blackouts a la California? I sure don't. I hope they get it working as quickly as possible. As for the carbon tax, I hope our power companies stand up to such nonsense and just throw the switch to 'off' instead of paying it.
Posted by majorjohnson on April 11, 2008 at 7:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's structural steel and the prices are going no where but up. They'll get their money back if the plant can't be built.
If the plant can't be built I hope it's the people who stopped it that get their juice cut first. It's incredible that people want low cost never run out electricity and at the same time won't allow the power company to build a generation plant, or insist that they use the most expensive means of production and sell it for less than it costs to produce. Guess they're the same people who want low cost high tech medical care and pharmaceuticals but don't think they should have to pay for it.
Posted by bigwhip on April 11, 2008 at 9:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Maybe there is business being conducted where no one can see.
Posted by Early on April 11, 2008 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
They have already bought the politicians, it just formalities at this point.
Posted by joesmuck on April 12, 2008 at 12:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mark Sanford has been trying to sell off that white elephant for years. From experience I can tell you they do what they want, look into there environmental fines over the years they have a history of doing first and paying later. Pompous ass jack booted thugs. The whole lot should be disposed of.
Posted by angryinjun on April 12, 2008 at 1:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm beginning to wonder what planet some of the people posting here are from. Early, since you're firing off implications, can you back them up, or should we assume you're talking out of your rectal region? joesmuck, last time I checked, Santee Cooper was providing power to the co-ops in the state, and the co-ops have lower rates than SCE&G, Duke, and Progress. So you're saying SC govermment should get rid of an electric utility that has been providing low cost power to the rural, more impoverished areas of the state? From what I can tell, majorjohnson and implanted yankee are the only ones living on planet earth. BTW, I'm with majorjohnson. I think they should cut the power first to the people that complain about where their power comes from.
Posted by newbattleaxe on April 12, 2008 at 10:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you, Angryinjun.
I've often wondered how many of the people who whine about Santee Cooper have ever used any of the recreational facilities around Lakes Marion and Moultrie?
Posted by 512c on April 15, 2008 at 4:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
i HAVE to wonder what planet the coal people think they are going to get their coal from... and who they are going to poison getting it (google mountain top removal!).
It sickens me to see what we are doing to this planet.
I am steadily changing my own ways, I walk to work, am looking into buying LED lights that fit into normal sockets (lasting 30 years, only using 1/50th the power)... I could power a house's lights with a small amount of power...
Also, I am designing cities that rely on centralization. I also am designing communities that focus people back into logical groups, that use wind, sunlight, community layout, to transform the world... while the gov poisons all these efforts... oh well...