Before another coal plant arises
By DANA BEACH - Guest columnist

One year ago Santee Cooper, South Carolina’s publicly owned electric utility, decided to build a massive coal-fired power plant on the banks of the Pee Dee River. We at the Coastal Conservation League believe that decision was made without a full understanding of the risks this plant poses to coastal residents. Neither did utility executives adequately analyze the financial implications of a decades-long commitment to burning coal — the dirtiest, most-polluting fuel available for power production.

Santee Cooper’s decision, made with virtually no public oversight, illustrates a critical and counterintuitive distinction between utilities in South Carolina. It reveals that our publicly owned power producer is actually less responsive and less accountable to the broader needs of the state than such private “investor-owned” companies as SCANA, Duke Power or Progress Energy.

The reason is simple: Private utilities are regulated by the South Carolina Public Service Commission. The commission is charged with ensuring that such major decisions as rate increases and the construction of new power plants are in the best interests of their customers. In contrast, Santee Cooper’s management decisions are made with virtually no oversight or public involvement. The only public review comes long after these decisions have been made, when environmental agencies seek comments for air and water pollution permits.

Burning coal for power production is enormously harmful to the environment and public health. 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 emissions with global warming, which is predicted to raise sea levels, increase the frequency and intensity of hurricanes and spawn more frequent droughts. Santee Cooper is seeking permits for plant that will release 8.7 million tons of CO2 every year.

Citizens and conservation groups have urged the utility to evaluate other ways to meet its projected energy needs. Since South Carolina is one of the least energy-efficient states in the nation, conservation and energy efficiency measures could reduce or eliminate the need for this plant. Just last month, Duke Power announced a new efficiency and conservation initiative that will allow the utility to avoid building a plant far larger than the Santee Cooper project. At a recent conference sponsored by Santee Cooper, the keynote speaker, Kateri Callahan, explained that efficiency is the “cheapest, cleanest, quickest way to expand America’s energy supply.”

In spite of the pollution, in spite of climate change concerns and in spite of other options for energy production, Santee Cooper is pushing forward with this coal plant. Officials justify it by stating that their “public mandate” is to provide the cheapest energy possible to their customers.

In fact, 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, bipartisan 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 likely to end of being one of the more expensive fuel types. This cost must and will be passed on to Santee Cooper’s customers.

We have asked Santee Cooper officials to agree to two modest changes of course. First, we have asked them to withdraw their air pollution permit request until the environmental impact statement is completed. The impact statement, as Santee Cooper recognized, will be a comprehensive study of options that could reduce pollution. Seeking an air pollution permit before the study even starts means DHEC’s air permit process has not being taken seriously.

We have also asked Santee Cooper to initiate a “stakeholder” process, in which its customers, local citizens and other affected parties collaboratively evaluate all of the alternatives to meet the company’s energy needs. These include conservation and efficiency, renewable sources of energy such as solar, wind and biofuels, and nuclear and cleaner coal technologies.

We hope that Santee Cooper will rise to the challenge and exercise leadership in exploring new and better energy alternatives. Even if it chooses not to, Santee Cooper does not have final word on the air permit. The Department of Health and Environmental Control will decide whether to issue this permit in the next few months.

DHEC and Santee Cooper should take the higher and quicker route. They should involve the state’s citizens and businesses in a discussion about South Carolina’s energy future.

Mr. Beach is the executive director of the S.C. Coastal Conservation League.

Published on June 3, 2007, Page A15, State, The (Columbia, SC)