Attorneys general oppose coal plant8 top prosecutors want Santee Cooper to be denied permit By Tony Bartelme (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Eight attorneys general want South Carolina to nix Santee Cooper's plan for a new coal-fired power generator in the Pee Dee, saying the plant would pump millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the air and undermine their efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. 
Provided by Santee Cooper This is an artist's rendering of Santee Cooper's proposed coal-fired power plant in Florence County. Dubbed the "Pee Dee Energy Campus," the 600-megawatt plant is at the center of a vigorous debate over the state's future energy needs and sources. Opposition from these top government prosecutors shows how the high-stakes debate over Santee Cooper's Pee Dee project has landed firmly on the national stage. In a letter dated Jan. 22, to the state Department of Health and Environmental Control, the eight attorneys general urged the agency to deny Santee Cooper a permit and focus instead on cleaner technologies to produce electricity. Citing a compact by 10 Northeastern states to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the prosecutors said the Pee Dee plant would release 9 million tons of carbon dioxide into the air every year, effectively canceling reductions planned in their states. Attorneys general from California, New York, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Vermont signed the letter. "I think it's extraordinary that they have written this letter," said Blan Holman, a lawyer with the Southern Environmental Law Center. "It shows the plant doesn't just have significance in the Pee Dee and in South Carolina, but that it's part of a national debate." Related storiesRead previous stories on mercury. Santee Cooper wants to build a $1 billion coal plant on the banks of the Great Pee Dee River in Florence County. The state-owned utility says if it doesn't move forward with the generators, parts of South Carolina could face blackouts and brownouts by 2013. The utility's plan enjoys wide support from the state's manufacturing community. Laura Varn, Santee Cooper vice president of corporate communications, said DHEC doesn't have any legal authority to order the utility to reduce carbon dioxide emissions for the Pee Dee project. Lawmakers are pushing new laws that would tax carbon-based emissions. But Varn said that Santee Cooper has to operate under existing laws, and that its Pee Dee plan meets or does better than current pollution rules require. Attorneys General letterThe letter urging DHEC to deny Santee Cooper a permit for a new coal-powered power generator. In their letter, the attorneys general, including aggressive prosecutors such as Andrew Cuomo of New York and Jerry Brown of California, said that "climate change is the single greatest environmental challenge facing the world today," and that state and federal laws require Santee Cooper to use the "best available technology" to reduce greenhouse gases. The prosecutors said Santee Cooper should consider a plant fueled by natural gas, biomass or gasified coal — technologies that produce less carbon dioxide than traditional plants. Santee Cooper has said that these technologies are either unproven or too expensive, and that it plans to use state-of-the-art technology in the Pee Dee complex. In 2007, 53 coal-fired plants across the nation were canceled or delayed in 2007, according to Global Energy Decisions, a company that tracks power plants for the Department of Energy. As concerns mount about global warming, states are taking aggressive stands on pollution from their neighbors. In recent years, North Carolina's attorney general cited South Carolina and 12 other states as contributing to North Carolina's air pollution. New Jersey sued a utility in Pennsylvania last month over its air emissions. Last year, the eight government prosecutors opposed to Santee Cooper's plant urged Kansas health officials to deny a permit for a new plant there. They did so, citing concerns about global warming. "Those attorneys general letters were very influential in Kansas, and my hope is that they'll be very influential in South Carolina," said Nancy Cave of the Coastal Conservation League. "I hope they won't shrug it off." Engineers with DHEC received more than 700 comments about the plant but have set no timetable for their decision whether to allow its construction. Reach Tony Bartelme at tbartelme@postandcourier.com or 937-5554. |
Article toolsSponsored Links |
|
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 27 comment(s)
Posted by Early on January 29, 2008 at 7:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
President Bush last night, challenged coal plants to come up with the scrubbers necessary to give clean emissions. In other words, where we are now is not where we should be on emissions but, does Santee Electric care,,,,hell no!
Posted by ImplantedYankee on January 29, 2008 at 7:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The same people that complain about emissions from coal-fired power plants are the same people that complain when their electric rates increase. They always see it as some vicious conspiracy by a big company to trample them.
The price per kWh is lowest and least variable for nuclear power (though barely winning out over coal), but a new plant hasn't been built in over 30 years. Why? Challenges from the same breed of green-bloods that are fighting this coal plant.
Natural gas and oil fired plants are more expensive, and are subject to far greater market volatility (yet rates are not permitted to be volatile due to regulation). They also increase our foreign energy dependence and waste valuable resources that are needed elsewhere.
If we won't permit nuclear plants to be built, coal is it. If you want them cleaner, be ready to pay for it.
Posted by MasterandCommander on January 29, 2008 at 8:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We should not doubt go for a nuke plant. I used to work in the industry and despite what Greenpeace and these other uneducated groups think they are very safe. Three mile island was over 20 years ago and we need to get over it. These plants are so much better for the enviroment and would pump money into our economy from the high paying jobs alone, not to mention other sources.
Posted by Oceanlover on January 29, 2008 at 8:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think that what this Huffman fellow is trying to say is the same thing I believe - I believe that God intends us to use coal fired plants. Otherwise He wouldn't have invented fire. He intends us to guard the plants with NRA lobbyists - or He wouldn't have invented the gun. He intends for us to breathe mercury tainted air and eat mercury tainted fish or He wouldn't have invented coal fired, NRA guarded power plants in the first place anyway. Get over it people. Coal is a US fuel. Created later buried in the US by God and countless generations of dinosaurs and trees ten thousand years ago - around the time of Adam and Eve. That means we don't have to worry about terrorists when we build a plant that uses the stuff. Sunlight and wind are not homegrown fuels. The sun shines and the wind blows with equality on the US, Russia, Afghanistan, France, China and Iraq. That makes it not only a communist fuel but a terrorist one as well. As for these other fuels - biomass. What he heck is that if not some kinda pinko plot to keep trash out of landfills? Again. if God had not intended for us to use landfills, He would not have invented land. Y'all need to get a grip and an education. I learned all the truth I need from Fox News, Stephen Colbert and Bob Jones University. You'd all do well to do the same - especially the brainwashed muckrackers at the Post and Scurrilous.
Posted by OldSalt on January 29, 2008 at 9:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"53 coal-fired plants delayed or cancelled" China intends to spend $50 billion to build 32 nuclear plants by 2020 - and 300 more by 2050, (some built by Westinghouse), and we piddle on and dither/dather and then wring our hands about energy independence.
This will become the Chinese, (and Indian), century while we sit on our butts and talk about, "green," energy. We'll be sitting under our windmills, hoping to catch a breeze because we can't afford the a/c.
Posted by ImplantedYankee on January 29, 2008 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Keep their money and let our children be poisoned? Nonsense. They could build the most exotic and clean (but also expensive) kinds of power plant imaginable and make a profit if they were permitted to pass these costs on to the consumer. Rate regulation prohibits it. Even if they could, there'd be a legion of activists complaining about how the increased costs are going to affect the "less fortunate" (usually the same bunch that protests a new power plant). Like I said, if you want it cleaner, be ready to pay for it. Otherwise, the continued interference by government and socialists in what should be free-enterprise will continue to tie the hands of the power companies.
As an aside -- we should consider ourselves lucky so far. A kWh here costs half what it does in NY (where the power is no less polluting).
Posted by toastchee on January 29, 2008 at 10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oceanlover, that is some funny stuff.
People of SC!!! Come on!! This is 2008...let's get behind some alternative energy sources!
My little girl has asthma and I'd hate to see the air get any worse.
Peace!
Posted by Cid95 on January 29, 2008 at 10:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
France gets over 50% of its electricity from nuclear power, and has for years - and we want to build old style coal power plants. Just like China. Nice.
Posted by 512c on January 29, 2008 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mountains are disappearing because of clean coal.
Need I say anything more?
If you say: in ground mining makes up x% of coal, ok, but, still why do we take most coal from mountain top removal?
This is a war against life!
Posted by BulldogTLC on January 29, 2008 at 10:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
France gets over 50% of its electricity from nuclear power, and has for years - and we want to build old style coal power plants. Just like China. Nice.
Actually our plants are NOTHING like the Chinese plants. Over 1/3 of the cost of a new power plant in the US is spent on pollution control. China currently has not Environmental plan in place for emmissions control. The power industry has not done a good job of letting people know that changes that have been made and how much improved the plants of today are verses the ones that were built in the 60's and 70's. Santee Cooper voluntarily upgraded its plants to the best available technology. I am all for protecting the environment, but at some point, we have to look at the overall picture. Delaying the construction of new plants cause old plants to be used past their useful life. Every time you add another regulation, you increase the cost exponentially. This will eventually be passed on to the consumer. This is currently the only plan that will make the needed power availble when it is needed. Are you able to afford a $1000 a month light bill? Are you willing to wait 10-15 years for a Nuclear plant to be built while you sit in the dark?
Posted by pompusmaximus on January 29, 2008 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with you Cid but your numbers are actually an understatement. It has been estimated that France gets 80% not 50% of the total energy from nuclear plants. Coal is a disgusting alternative and shouldn't even be considered. Plus, in order to obtain cleaner burning/effiicent coal they have to blow off the tops of mountains in west virginia. Have you seen what they area looks like afterwards? I have and it is a very sad site. Let China have astronomical cancer rates and polluted countryside. We will be better of in the long run.
Posted by robert8096 on January 29, 2008 at 12:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Let China have astronomical cancer rates and polluted countryside. We will be better of in the long run.
If I understand correctly pollution is a GLOBAL problem. So if we stop building coal power plants and others build them with no pollution control devices then what is being accomplished? Maybe the AGs should be sending the letters to China.
Posted by meow on January 29, 2008 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Reading some of these comments, people have no clue what they are talking about. Nuclear is not going to happen in time to meet the demand. Natural Gas, great if you can afford it. Who wants their power bill to double? How many jobs are going to be lost due to high electric bills. Kiss Nucor and their jobs goodbye. Do you thing the AG in New York gives a crap if your lights go out and you do not have a job? Do you thing he cares if your power bill doubles? Unless you are prepared to cut your energy usage in half, quit your complaining about coal.
Posted by SouthCarolina on January 29, 2008 at 12:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Santee Cooper does have scrubbers on their power plants. Everyone needs to do a little more homework before comments are made about air pollution and the new coal fired plant at Pee Dee. Look back at some article that have been published in the P&C concnering this subject. It's 2008, do you honestly think that Santee Cooper doens't care? Of course they care, about the air, keeping rates low and keeping the lights on.
Posted by toastchee on January 29, 2008 at 1:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bull-hockey. They care about profits.
Posted by Early on January 29, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
SouthCarolina, please man, did you read the articles?
Tons of mercury in the air, polluted fish, infected people.
Nuclear is clean, efficient, cost effective energy
Posted by meow on January 29, 2008 at 2:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Once again nuclear is not available in the time frame needed. Nuclear is clean except for the waste, which is with us for a billion years. They care about profits? They care about keeping power affordable so they do not lose area businesses. Utilities are regulated, they can charge their costs back to customers. Last I checked you do not have choice of electricity providers, so they already earn a profit.
Posted by BulldogTLC on January 29, 2008 at 2:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Early, do you believe everything someone writes in the newspaper? Do you really think the articles they have been writing are to present the truth or to sell newspapers? Do your homework before you come on here talking about something that you have no clue about. I've done mine. The AG from California is definitely who I would listen to concerning energy. When is the last time they made it through the summer without a blackout?
Posted by SouthCarolina on January 29, 2008 at 3:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Santee Cooper-A State Agency-Non Profit
Posted by SouthCarolina on January 29, 2008 at 3:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just in case someone wants to read about Santee Cooper and Nuclear Energy, read the Jan. 25, 2008 issue of
The Charleston Regional Business Journal. "Local Utilities Put Nuclear Plans on Hold". See...Santee Cooper is looking into other options as well as Coal Fired Plants.
Posted by meow on January 29, 2008 at 4:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Santee Cooper earns about 60 to 70 million dollars a year in profit, they turn it over to the state.
Posted by chas_native on January 29, 2008 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
toastchee, santee cooper is a non-profit.
meow, santee cooper doesn't receive taxpayer $, so they pay a certain %age of their revenue to the state in lieu of taxes.
Posted by meow on January 29, 2008 at 5:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bottom line is that other states have no business determning what we need. It is just not the coal fired plants that cause greenhouse gases. Overall they are a small part of the pie. What will you do when California decides SC should have emmissions testing on all cars on the road like they do? I tell right now most cars will fail. Like California is big success story with their energy crisis and air quality. What a ****ing joke.
Posted by jacksmith on January 29, 2008 at 9:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
These reporter jokers think they have uncovered "news." These same AGs send this same comment letter ON EVERY PROPOSED COAL-FIRED PLANT IN THE COUNTRY.
The northeast states who sent the letter and California have instituted CO2 caps to fight "global warming" but have a problem that the rest of the country is not joining them. Because of this self-inflicted problem, they have to stick with very high priced renewable generation and natural gas to meet their targets, their power cost is twice what it is here (I find it funny their plans also include importing a lot of power from out of state, since it won't count towards their caps).
Since businesses and people are leaving this high priced area for the South, they want to equalize energy prices to mitigate this.
This is one way to do it. What equalize energy prices mean to us is higher power bills. Don't fall for it.
Posted by Jameson on January 29, 2008 at 9:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So Meow, you are alright with Georgia and North Carolina taking our water -- we got no business telling them what they can withdraw from rivers we are downstream from? You'd rather die of thirst than compromise your notion of state's rights, eh?
I guess you like accepting radioactive waste from the 50 states and Italy -- its none of our business, right?
If you're fine with that, then I guess you're good to go with your opinion that these states can't ask us to think again when our actions are going to materially affect their ability to protect themselves from sea level rise, more intense hurricanes, etc.
By the way, coal plants account for nearly 50% of net GHG emissions in SC alone -- a small part of the pie?
Jacksmith -- why don't you read the AG's letter? -- they point out that the Southeast is the only region that HASN'T joined them. You probably also aren't aware that South Carolinians have the 4th highest power bills in the nation -- guess whose are the lowest? The same states whose AG's wrote that letter.
Posted by jacksmith on January 29, 2008 at 10:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jameson it says "many" states (page 1). 23 states total (page 2 paragraph 2).That IS NOT all but the SE.
Our electric rates are among the lowest in the country. Our total annual residential electric bills are higher than other states because we heat with heat pumps. We are among the lowest natural gas / oil users (heating). Ask somebody in NJ or NY what their winter oil or gas bill is for heating. You will be shocked. Their total energy use is much higher.
Our low electric rates bring industry which brings jobs. Where are the industry jobs in the NE? They came here when their business moved here. When we raise our electric rates, these jobs are going overseas.
Posted by chas_native on January 30, 2008 at 8:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Jameson, those high power bills in SC certainly aren't from Santee Cooper. Their customers enjoy some of the lowest rates in the nation. YOu wanna talk about high power bills look to the SCANA and Duke customers.