What’s At Stake
Santee Cooper’s proposed Pee Dee coal plant has met
opposition on two fronts: concerns about its impacts on the
long-term health and economic wellbeing of South Carolina
and the lack of a verified demonstration of need. Despite
claims by the utility, the multi-billion dollar proposed
plant would not use the best available pollution control
technology. In its own environmental assessment, Santee Cooper
admits rejecting more advanced coal-burning technologies,
such as “ultracritical” and “Integrated
Gasification Combined Cycle” (IGCC) coal plants.
The proposed coal plant will emit 3,500 tons of ozone-forming
nitrous oxide, 7,500 tons of soot-forming sulfur dioxide,
and 900 tons of lung-damaging particulate matter each year.
In addition, last fall DHEC issued a draft air permit allowing
the plant to emit 138 pounds of toxic mercury annually. The
plant will have a total footprint of 1,245 acres and will
alter approximately 94 acres of wetlands and convert hundreds
of acres into landfills and ash ponds. The Corps of Engineers
is conducting an Environmental Impact Study scheduled to
be released in 2009.
|
Challenges
As a public utility, Santee Cooper does not have to answer
to the Public Service Commission to justify rate changes
or new base load generation. Consequently, there has been
a disturbing absence of discussion about the fundamental
need and true costs of the plant, already estimated to be
over a billion dollars.
An independent assessment of the
project is needed to consider the full costs of the plant – the
threats to human health and to the environment and the potential
rising costs of coal in the wake of federal regulation designed
to cap and/or tax carbon. This study should also examine
the full range of alternatives to the plant, including efficiency
and renewables.
In light of the recent federal court ruling that the Environmental
Protection Agency violated the Clean Air Act when it exempted
coal-fired power plants from the Act’s most stringent
air pollution controls, DHEC should withdraw its draft air
permit for the Pee Dee plant.
In addition, Attorney Generals
from eight states have urged DHEC to deny a final permit
since the plant would undermine those state’s efforts
to reduce greenhouse gases.The uncertainty of coal economics
and growing concerns about global climate change are causing
Wall Street to question the wisdom of investing in conventional
coal plants like the one proposed by Santee Cooper. |
|
Next Steps
- Support a moratorium on all new coal-fired power plants
until all avenues of energy efficiency and clean energy
alternatives have been fully explored.
- Support a national price on carbon that would internalize
the costs of CO2 pollution and create incentives for alternative
energy development.
- The EPA estimated in 2002 that it would cost power plants
less than 1% of their annual revenue to reduce mercury
emissions by 80-90%.
Fast Facts
In 2007, over 50 coal-fired plants across the nation were
either canceled or delayed, including proposed plants in
Florida, North Carolina and Texas.
A MIT analysis conservatively estimated carbon dioxide at $7/ton rising to $40/ton
during the lifetime of a power plant. At $10/ton, the costs of the Pee Dee plant
would rise by $87 million a year.
IGCC plants have operated for about 10 years but the capture
and sequestration of CO2 is not yet available on a utility
scale.
For more information, contact:
- Nancy
Cave, Coastal Conservation League, 843-545-0403
- Ben
Moore, Coastal Conservation League, 843-725-2063
- Peggy
Brown, League of Women Voters, 843-667-4365
|
