SCHotline Press Releases

In the wake of a recent study by South Carolina’s electric cooperatives showing that the state has the capacity to generate over 1700 megawatts of electricity through efficiency and renewable energy programs, South Carolina’s leading conservation groups today challenged the basic need for Santee Cooper to build a 1300-megawatt dirty coal plant in rural Florence County.

The two studies commissioned by the Central Electric Power Cooperative come in the wake of major efficiency announcements by investor-owned utilities like Duke and Progress Energy.  Duke plans to generate 1700 megawatts through efficiency investments in the next four years.  Progress has declared a two-year moratorium on coal plants until they realize 2,000 megawatts in savings through efficiency and demand-side management

“This is the homework Santee Cooper should have done before proposing a multi-billion dollar coal plant,” said Blan Holman, senior attorney with Southern Environmental Law Center.  “These studies confirm that efficiency investments and renewables are the quickest, cleanest, and cheapest ways to generate more juice.  Efficiency is the first fuel.”

Conservation groups oppose Santee Cooper’s proposed plant as a “worst-choice” alternative.  Each year the facility would emit thousands of tons air pollution in an area with already high asthma rates.  It would require hundreds of acres of landfills and mile-long coal trains.  The plant would consume nearly three millions of gallons of water each day and emit over a hundred pounds of mercury annually next to the Great Pee Dee River, which has existing health advisories due to dangerous mercury levels in fish.

Studies show that efficiency and renewable investments cost considerably less, and produce more employment, than an automated plant fueled by out-of-state coal.  Moreover, conservationists point out that the plant will have even higher costs when federal carbon limits come into effect.

At a recent Board meeting, Santee Cooper’s head executive acknowledged that carbon regulation presents the agency, which is already heavily dependent on coal, with significant risks.  The proposed Pee Dee plant would produce nearly nine million tons of carbon dioxide every year.

“That balloon payment could cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars.  It is all trick and no treat,” stated Conservation Voters of South Carolina Executive Director Ann Timberlake.  “Santee Cooper has given us a false bill of sale.  What are the true costs of this plant measured against these viable alternatives?”

Santee Cooper already faces litigation for wrongly imposing a rate increase on its residential and commercial customers.  On October 13, plaintiffs represented by Charleston attorney Gedney Howe filed a suit accusing Santee Cooper of illegally overcharging residential customers.

A state-owned utility, Santee Cooper is not subject to oversight from the Public Service Commission, so does not have to justify building new plants or instituting rate changes.

“The Pee Dee coal plant is obviously a dinosaur proposal and the people of South Carolina are tired of cleaning up after dinosaurs,” said Ben Gregg, Executive Director of South Carolina Wildlife Federation.  “Santee Cooper was wrong when they say they couldn’t meet demand through efficiency and renewables.  They simply didn’t try.”

Groups represented at the news conference included the Coastal Conservation League, Environmental Defense, Conservation Voters of South Carolina, South Carolina Sierra Club, South Carolina Wildlife Federation, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, and Southern Environmental Law Center.
Conservation groups plant to submit comments at DHEC air permit hearing in Pamplico on Nov 8, 2007.  The public hearing will begin at 6:00 p.m. in the gymnasium of Hannah-Pamplico High School in Pamplico, South Carolina.  Please call the school at (843) 493-5781 for directions.