Coalition announces opposition to proposed Pee Dee coal plant

Chapel Hill, NC - An unprecedented coalition of South Carolina public interest groups has come out in strong opposition to Santee Cooper's plans to build a major coal-fired power plant on the Great Pee Dee River near Kingsburg, South Carolina. The plant, whose electricity would be sold to Myrtle Beach and the Grand Strand, would produce large amounts of greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming, as well as soot and smog pollution harmful to people and the environment.

The Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) today sent a letter on behalf of the groups to the state Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) pressing the agency to require Santee Cooper to fully investigate alternative options for meeting the state's energy needs before issuing an air pollution permit for the proposed Pee Dee plant, "one of the most significant major stationary sources [of air pollution] to be proposed in South Carolina in recent history."

The letter is signed by the Southern Environmental Law Center, the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, Environmental Defense, Responsible Economic Development, the South Carolina Chapter of the Sierra Club, the Sierra Club-Pee Dee Group, the Sierra Club-Winyah Group, and the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.

The groups say the proposed power plant would undermine South Carolina's efforts to address global warming, including the Governor's Climate, Energy, and Commerce Advisory Committee; Senator Lindsey Graham's recent meeting with a bipartisan coalition of South Carolina mayors to discuss global warming impacts and solutions; and numerous scientific and policy-related conferences held in recent months across the state. South Carolina's tourism-based economy is at particular risk from the ongoing sea level rise associated with a warming planet. Santee Cooper's proposed two-unit, 1320 megawatt plant would emit about 8.6 million tons of carbon dioxide and thousands of tons of soot- and smog-forming pollutants each year for the next 50 or so years, the likely lifespan of the facility.

"In light of this emerging focus on air quality and climate change issues, it is disappointing to see Santee Cooper, a state-owned utility established 'for the benefit of all the people of the State, [and] for the improvement of their health and welfare and material prosperity,' pursue two conventional coal-burning units to service the coast of South Carolina - a region at the most obvious risk from climate change, the groups say in the letter submitted to South Carolina air regulators today. "Santee Cooper is pursuing these units without a demonstration that 1320 MW of new generation is in fact needed, and without a full consideration of cleaner alternatives, including less-polluting coal technologies."

The coalition says the region's energy needs can be met more safely and affordably through energy efficiency, conservation and renewable energy. Only if Santee Cooper can demonstrate that a new coal plant is unavoidable should the state allow a new power-generating facility. Further, if a plant is built, it should use modern coal gasification technology, which emits fewer soot-and smog- forming pollutants than the traditional "pulverized" coal technology and which, unlike pulverized coal, can capture greenhouse gases. The letter states that if a new facility is deemed necessary, Santee Cooper and DHEC are bound by state and federal law to thoroughly assess the "best available control technology" as defined by federal regulations and the Clean Air Act.

"The new era for air quality in South Carolina demands that DHEC ask tough questions of Santee Cooper, and thoroughly evaluate the stated need for both units along the Pee Dee and less polluting alternatives to them," the groups say. "This new era also demands that citizens and conservation interests in South Carolina become fully engaged in the permitting of this facility, at a level of intensity and sophistication that heretofore has not been seen."

Last month, North Carolina regulators rejected one of two new coal units proposed for Duke Energy's Cliffside power plant near Charlotte. SELC and other public interest groups there played a key role in presenting evidence to the state and the public that Duke had not shown a need for the new units and had not fully investigated cleaner alternatives.

"South Carolinians don't want a yesteryear coal plant from their state-owned utility given the reality of global warming," said Blan Holman, a senior attorney with SELC. "South Carolina has a unique opportunity to be a leader in the Southeast - even nationally - in saying 'no' to more old-style coal plants and 'yes' to advanced energy choices that are better for the environment and the state's economy."

Among other things, the letter notes that the coal gasification process allows capture of carbon dioxide and the opportunity for sequestration, eliminates up to 90-95% mercury and more than 99% of the sulfur dioxide emissions, uses less water, discharges less wastewater, results in less solid waste, and costs only up to 10% more in capital investment than traditional coal-fired power plants. The letter also notes that:

• Santee Cooper's own planning documents indicate that a 1320-megawatt plant is not necessary to meet consumer demand, making reference to only one, approximately 600-megawatt unit.
• Other states, including Illinois, Kentucky and New Mexico, have compelled utility companies to thoroughly analyze coal gasification (also called Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle, or IGCC) as an alternative to their proposed pulverized coal plants; as a result, Peabody Coal Co. switched its plans in New Mexico from a pulverized coal to an IGCC plant.
• Gasification is recognized as a viable, commercially available technology; the letter cites numerous regulatory and industry officials including the U.S. Department of Energy, the Gasification Technologies Council, National Coal Council, and ChevronTexaco.
• Two commercial IGCC units are now operating in the U.S. (Florida and Indiana), two more have been permitted, and at least 15 more are proposed around the country.