Coal plant threatens state's economic future

By Barbara Zia and Peggy Brown- Guest Columnists

The State

September 19, 2008

What will it take for South Carolina to decide to reap the rewards that come from clean energy initiatives, rather than paying the price incurred by using dirty fossil fuels?

The League of Women Voters supports a moratorium on new coal-fired electric power plants. Burning more coal is just too risky for too many people. Coal is the single largest source of global warming pollution in the United States, with power plants responsible for 33 percent of carbon dioxide emissions. If left unchecked, the effects will be catastrophic to our state and our planet. Instead of coal, we must look to clean energy alternatives.

Before deciding to support Santee Cooper’s plan to build a coal-fired power plant in the lower coastal plain, local and state governmental officials should have anticipated changes in air quality standards that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would make. Florence County, along with the other sizable cities and counties in our state, may have one foot in the door in failing to meet the new standards.

According to the pollution monitoring Web site www.scorecard.org, in 2002, six of South Carolina’s largest areas — Spartanburg, Florence, Richland, Charleston, North Charleston and Berkeley — ranked among the nation’s worst 10 percent for total environmental releases. But by the time air pollution can be seen or smelled, it is toxic. Unless you suffer from asthma or other respiratory illnesses, as increasing numbers of children in our state do, appreciating the importance of clean air is not always easy.

Despite Santee Cooper’s claims, the coal plant it proposes for Florence County does not use the best available environmental technology. As currently planned, annual emissions for that county would amount to 900 tons of lung-damaging particulate matter, 3,500 tons of ozone-forming nitrous oxide and 7,500 tons of soot-forming sulfur dioxide.

Leaving aside the public health risks, what would the economic consequences be for our state? Santee Cooper claims that this plant will provide cheap power to new industries that may locate here. But if South Carolina's counties fail to meet the EPA’s national air quality standards, any new sources of ozone will have to be offset by decreases from other sectors. According to the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control, to be in compliance for air quality we must read at 0.075 parts per million or lower. Today, on average, air quality in South Carolina’s largest cities and counties registers 0.076 parts per million and higher.

In short, if we fall out of compliance with the new EPA air regulations, the Santee Cooper plant may threaten our state’s economic growth. And if Santee Cooper continues to market dirty coal as the No. 1 choice for cheap energy in South Carolina, our state’s prospects for economic growth may be dim.

Do policymakers fully understand what will happen to economic growth in South Carolina if our air quality fails to meet national standards? A memo of agreement recently adopted by DHEC to amend the S.C. Air Quality Implementation Plan will affect federal transportation projects directed by the S.C. Department of Transportation and local planning groups. If we do not meet air quality attainment in our largest cities and counties, we may be in jeopardy of losing federal highway and transit funds.

How much are we willing to sacrifice for “cheap” electricity? What impact will this rash solution have on the health and economic future of our children and our children’s children? Let’s look first at investing in energy efficiency and renewable energy, before betting our state’s economic future on dirty, outdated technology.

We the people of South Carolina can look forward to a much brighter future by investing in healthy, clean alternatives that create more jobs than automated plants, save taxpayer money and reduce our dependency on fossil fuel and foreign interests.

Ms. Zia is president and Ms. Brown is co-director for natural resources of the League of Women Voters of South Carolina.