Clean Air and Energy: North Carolina became a national leader in sustainable energy when in 2007 it established a renewable energy portfolio standard, which requires electric utilities to switch over 12.5% of their output to renewable sources by 2021. Also, the Clean Smokestacks Act, signed in 2002 by Gov. Mike Easley, required power companies to reduce their smog- and haze-forming emissions by approximately three-fourths over the next decade.

Global Warming and Cliffside: Dr James Hansen, a world-renowned climate change expert of the Columbia Earth Institute in New York, sent a letter to Jim Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy, on March 25, 2008. Citing the lack of carbon sequestering technologies in the Cliffside plans, he warns Rogers that the coal-plant, “…will have to be shut down… [it's] a terrible, foreseeable waste of money.” He also criticizes Rogers claim that in the case of Cliffside, near-term energy needs trump future considerations. Those near-term needs, Hansen retorts, can be met with, “massive but feasible conservation and efficiency programs, cogeneration, solar, wind, and biomass generation.” He also lists several other benefits of energy diversification.

‘Captains of Industry’ will be pivotal in shifting the world’s energy sources away from dangerous, carbon-emitting sources to sustainable and responsible sources. And Duke CEO Jim Rogers has been an outspoken advocate of the need to control global warming emissions. But Duke Energy was part of a consortioum of coal and utility interests backing a group called Americans for Balanced Energy Choices. According to the Washington Post, ABEC spent $35 million in primary and caucus states to promote electricity generated from coal and to rally opposition to Congressional action to address climate change.

Public Health: In 2000, the North Carolina General Assembly lead the Southeast in voluntarily acting to curb emissions from the state’s 14 grandfathered-in coal burning plants. The “Clean Smokestacks Act” is on tract to significantly reduce ozone-forming and sulfur dioxide (acid rain) emissions.

But mercury, a particularly dangerous neurotoxin that affects developing children, remains a significant threat in North Carolina. Our state’s 14 coal plants account for about 70% of mercury emissions in the state. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia ruled that the EPA erred in not forcing utilities to use the best available technologies to suppress mercury emissions. Duke plans to remove only 90% of the mercury from its Cliffside emissions when available technologies can scrub 98% of the mercury from a coal plant’s emissions. Furthermore, the air permit allows Duke to ignore nearly 60 other hazardous chemicals – dioxins, chromium, arsenic, cadmium, etc.

Coal-fired power plants have already gained notoriety in North Carolina for their contributions to bad air days. Emissions include ozone-forming NOx, which is the pollutant of concern for “bad air” days in which children and people with respiratory problems are urged to restrict activities. Coal-fired plants also are a primary source of acid rain forming SOx emissions, which harms surface waters and aquatic populations.

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.”

——————-

There’s some recent converage in the Charlotte paper about the Queen City and ozone, mainly on the EPA’s ozone rules and how Charlotte has massaged its planning numbers to get federal road monies.

From a recent Charlotte editorial on ozone non-attainment:

Why should anyone take seriously the Environmental Protection Agency’s ozone rules if the rules let cities such as Charlotte use questionable projections in order to keep federal road money flowing?

As the Observer’s Steve Harrison reported Wednesday, local transportation planners, in following the complex EPA rules about transportation and emissions modeling, have over the years included projections that look just plain silly.

Opponents of Duke Energy’s increase for North Carolina customers are peeved about not only the amount—13.5 percent, on top of 4.5 percent already levied for fuel costs—but also about its purpose: Part of the money will go toward paying the financing costs for Cliffside, a $2.4 billion, 800-megawatt, coal-fired power plant in Rutherford County near Charlotte. Skeptics have long contended that if state policymakers and utilities focused on energy efficiency, conservation and renewable energy, Cliffside would be unnecessary; the N.C. Utilities Commission agreed, in part, when in 2007 it denied Duke Energy’s request to build two Cliffside plants.

Jim Rogers, Duke Energy’s CEO, told FAST COMPANY he’s a fan of putting solar panels on his customers’ homes and businesses — he just thinks Duke should own them. “I believe at the end of the day, we’ll be able to do it cheaper and better than everybody else.” But Urlaub says, “We know that’s not true,” pointing out that Duke recently submitted a public bid for a utility-owned 20-megawatt rooftop-solar program and came in higher than several independent, nonutility solar companies.”

Endangered and threatened turtles often mistake the bags for jellyfish.

The bill carried an exemption for bags used for storing unpackaged goods like meat or produce, which was one of the larger hang ups towards passing the legislation. Customers who bring sustainable options will also receive reimbursement (the cost of the plastic bags, usually around 9 cents a bag).

There are plenty of other reasons why this is a good idea:

1. Single use plastic bags are produced with virgin petroleum that could be used to heat homes, power cars and decrease our dependency on foreign oil.
2. Plastic bags are lightweight and non-biodegradable. Those that are not recycled or disposed of properly have little trouble finding their way to our beaches and coastal waters. According to the Wall Street Journal, of the 100 billion plastic bags used yearly by Americans, less than 1% ever make it to a recycling bin.
3. Plastic bags are remarkably detrimental to endangered and threatened animal life. Aquatic animals often mistake floating plastic bags for a food source like jellyfish.
4. The measure would only affect retail spaces larger than 5,000 square feet and chain retailers.

S1018 called attention to these problems by banning single use plastic bags in chain stores and large retail spaces. Instead, retailers would be required to offer recyclable paper bags, reusable plastic bags or encourage consumers to provide their own sustainable solution.

Dare, Hyde and Currituck counties will hopefully serve as ideal pilot counties for future expansion in the state. The Outer Banks also has a vested interest in maintaining the area’s natural beauty, both for residents and visiting tourists that sustain the local economy.

Our National Political Director speaking to a packed tea house in Chapel Hill.

Cathy Duvall, Sierra Club’s National Political Director, spoke last night in Chapel Hill about the future of climate legislation on Capitol Hill and the role North Carolina might play in the vital debate. A sizable crowd filled 3 Cups to the brim to hear how Sierran can play a major role in strengthening what eventually emerges from Congress.

Her talk covered:

1. Energy Inefficiency. The Southeast is the least energy efficient region of the nation, with cheap and abundant energy available to the detriment of Appalachia. Thus, a conservation/efficiency ethic has yet to take hold in the Southeast.
2. The need for a southern success story in order to overcome the argument that the South can’t succeed in a clean energy economy. North Carolina is the only Southern state with a renewable energy portfolio standard; we also have a governor who ran on a clean energy platform.
3. US Senate. Prospects for proactive and responsible legislation on the Senate side of Congress are intricately hitched to other “prime time” legislation like the movement for health care reform, economic recovery, etc.
4. Ways NC can influence the debate. With Congress back from its August recess, debate on Waxman-Markey and Barbara Boxer’s (D-CA) expected companion legislation in the Senate will head towards resolution. Senators from the South – Kay Hagan in particular – will play a key role in the success or failure of any bill that emerges.

The end result of a destructive process.

Representative Pricey Harrison (D-Guilford) tried to remedy North Carolina’s dirty secret in the past legislative session, introducing the Appalachian Mountains Preservation Act, which gained 27 co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle and companion legislation in the state Senate. But the Act didn’t pass the 2009 session. Looking back at some of the more responsible stories coming out at the time the legislation was introduced, a few key misperceptions about cost, efficiency, etc., were even then easily dispatched by capable reporters.

The Institute for Southern Studies reports that the price difference from mountaintop coal vs. underground is not all that noticeable:

But Matthew Wasson, a mining expert with Appalachian Voices, pointed out that the average price difference between underground and surface-mined coal from central Appalachia was only about $3 per ton, or about 5 percent. By the time the costs of transporting the coal to a power plant, converting it to electricity and transmitting the power are factored in, the cost difference amounts to a small fraction of the 9 cents per kilowatt hour that North Carolina residents pay for electricity, he said.

Meanwhile, Appalachian coal is already some of the most expensive in the world, selling for $70 to $140 per ton over the past six months compared to $12 to $14 per ton for coal from Wyoming’s Powder River Basin.

Last year, Raleigh, N.C.-based Progress Energy raised their rates by 16 percent almost entirely as a result of the rising price of Central Appalachian coal. And in 2007, the company was accused of “failures of management” and required to return $13.8 million to its Florida ratepayers for continuing to use expensive Appalachian coal rather than switching to lower-cost western coal, the Raleigh News & Observer reported.

One senses a sort of willful ignorance on the impacts of MTR practices on local communities. The argument that MTR coal is cheaper isn’t true everywhere you look; and the begrudging approval that the devastation isn’t in North Carolina is ethically dubious and irresponsible.