The Sierra Club continues to oppose Duke Energy’s expansion of it’s Cliffside facility in Rutherford County, NC. Expansion avoids requirements set forth in the Clean Air Act, and what’s more, the 800-megawatt Cliffside Unit 6 will use outdated, inefficient toxic control measures that will see more mercury and hazardous air pollutants enter our state’s air.
On April 30, 2009, the EPA questioned the decision by NC regulator’s to award Duke Energy a “minor” source permit on one of the larger proposed coal boilers in the nation.
A history of Cliffside: In March of 2007, the NC Utilities Commission denied Duke Energy’s original request to build twin 800 mega-watt coal-fired power plants at the Cliffside location, saying that the utility had failed to prove that both plants were needed. Instead, the state commission gave approval for one plant. The debate over Duke Energy’s proposal to build two new plants was characterized by an outpour of public opposition to the facility and rapidly escalating costs. Originally estimated at $2 billion, the price tag for the twin plants had risen to $3 billion before the Utilities Commission made its ruling.
On January 29, 2008 the NC Division of Air Quality gave Duke Energy the final go-ahead to begin constructing a coal-fired power plant at its Cliffside facility, 55 miles west of Charlotte on the South Carolina border. The new plant would emit 5.5 million tons of carbon dioxide annually (the equivalent of one million automobiles), which, when combined with the emissions of an existing boiler, would bring Cliffside’s per year output of carbon dioxide to 10 million tons. Along with several other environmental organizations, the Sierra Club filed suit against Duke Energy in federal district court on July 16, 2008, in order to halt construction of the new Cliffside coal plant.
On December 2, 2008, the Sierra Club notched another coal victory in its belt when U.S. Circuit Judge Lacy Thornburg ruled that Duke Energy violated the Clean Air Act for starting construction of its new Cliffside Unit 6 coal plant in Rutherford County, North Carolina, without making adequate provisions to regulate toxic air pollution. The court ruling did not halt construction. Nevertheless, the decision effectively close a perceived loophole exploited by utilities and coal plants nationwide to avoid federal pollution standards.
In March of 2009, the NC Division of Air Quality issued a revised and less exacting air permit for the proposed coal boiler based solely on revised emissions projections submitted by Duke. For three years prior to the revised permit, the utility stated it’s new boiler would be a “major” source of pollution. The controversial minor source designation came in light of a federal court ruling that sided with conservation groups who challenged Duke Energy’s failure to use the maximum available control technologies.
The new plant is not designed to capture and sequester carbon emissions. Thus, in light of widespread expectations that Congress will act to limit global warming emissions, the new facility is outdated and obsolete before it is built. What’s more, the Division of Air Quality allowed Duke Energy to move forward despite unanswered questions about the impact of Cliffside on the Great Smoky Mountains and other wilderness areas in western North Carolina. Considering recent federal court ruling points, NC Sierra Club continues to urge regulators to reopen the air quality permit and require more stringent controls on toxic mercury emissions.
Bruce Nilles, director of Sierra Club’s National Coal Campaign, has called Cliffside a significant factor in the national effort to move beyond coal. Nilles: “Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers has gained national prominence with his repeated calls for action on global warming. But his green rhetoric doesn’t match Duke’s actions. The nation needs businesses and industry to take a leadership role in fighting global warming, but Cliffside shows that Duke is not yet ready to take on that role.”













Discussion
Comments for “Cliffside, A History”