A Few Clouds and 89° F

South Carolina has historically marched to a different drummer. That's not always a bad thing. But in the critical case of energy, we are on the verge of branding ourselves as the least progressive, least responsible state in the nation.

Santee Cooper is South Carolina's only publicly-owned power company.

Other utilities like Scana, Duke and Progress Energy are private, investor-owned companies. Presumably, a utility whose owners are literally the citizens of the state would be more accountable to the public good than investor-owned company. So it may seem strange that Santee Cooper is virtually the only utility in the Southeast, public or private, to persist in exclusively embracing coal-based power production.

Santee Cooper is seeking permits to build a massive 1,200-megawatt plant on the banks of the Pee Dee River. Citizens and conservation groups have argued that they should fully evaluate and aggressively promote less-polluting energy production capacity.

There is no question that conservation and efficiency programs, combined with non-carbon-based fuels, can reduce our state's reliance on coal.

South Carolina is one of the least energy-efficient states in the nation. We consume more electricity per capita than all but a few states and roughly twice as much as California. Efficiency and conservation are truly "low-hanging fruit" for our state. Other utilities recognize this and are taking bold steps to avoid the construction of new plants by promoting conservation.

Last month Duke Power announced a new conservation initiative that will allow the utility of avoid building a plant far larger than the Santee Cooper project. Similarly, Progress Energy announced a moratorium on new coal power plants on the grounds that efficiency measures could substantially extend their capacity to meet growing energy needs.

Earlier this year, David Ratcliffe, CEO of the Southern Co., a private utility conglomerate that provides power in Georgia, Florida, Alabama and Mississippi, acknowledged the need for significant carbon dioxide reductions, which he asserted could be obtained through energy conservation and efficiency measures. At a recent conference sponsored by Santee Cooper and others, keynote speaker Kateri Callahan explained that efficiency is the "cheapest, cleanest, quickest way to expand America's energy supply."

Most people understand the benefits of reducing energy use through efficiency, especially where coal is involved. Coal is the dirtiest, most polluting source of energy available. For example, coal-burning power plants are the primary source of mercury pollution. Every coastal river in South Carolina has such high levels of mercury contamination that fish are unsafe for human consumption. Coal also produces compounds of nitrogen and sulfur that cause respiratory and cardiac disease.

Over the past few years literally hundreds of reports from around the world link carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions with global warming, which is predicted to raise sea levels, increase the frequency and intensity of hurricanes, and spawn more frequent droughts.

In spite of the pollution, in spite of climate change concerns, and in spite of other alternatives for energy production, Santee-Cooper is pushing forward with this coal plant, which will release approximately 8.7 million tons of CO2 every year. They justify it by stating that their "public mandate" is to provide the cheapest energy possible to their customers.

Even excluding the environmental problems, a billion dollar coal plant is not the cheapest option. As Ms. Callahan stated, efficiency is less expensive than building new generation capacity, even at today's coal prices. Second, there is broad, bi-partisan support in Congress for a policy that will increase the cost of carbon-based fuels. The question is not whether such a law will pass, but when. Per unit of energy, coal produces more CO2 than any other fuel. That means that Santee Cooper's "low cost" fuel of choice is almost certain to become one of the most expensive fuel types. This cost must and will be passed on to Santee Cooper's customers.

Federal permitting agencies have required Santee Cooper to produce an Environmental Impact Statement on the plant. The EIS, as Santee Cooper recognized, will be a comprehensive study of alternatives that could reduce pollution. However, they are pressing the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control to issue an air permit this summer, before the study even starts. By doing so, they are setting the stage for protracted conflicts between concerned citizens, conservation groups and others who are concerned about the Pee Dee facility.

Santee Cooper should take a higher road by engaging in a comprehensive and open discussion about energy options, including conservation and efficiency, renewable sources of energy like solar, wind and bio-fuels, and nuclear and cleaner coal technologies. Now is the time for our publicly owned utility to play a leadership role in charting South Carolina's energy future.



Dana Beach is director of the S.C. Coastal Conservation League.

You must be logged in to comment.