Cliffside

Facts

CARBON DIOXIDE

METHANE

NATURAL GAS

WATER VAPOR

COAL

NUCLEAR

OFF-SHORE DRILLING

ETHANOL

ECOSYSTEMS

LOCAL - NORTH CAROLINA

COLLEGES & STUDENTS

Solutions

WIND POWER

SOLAR POWER

WAVE POWER

GEOTHERMAL

CONSERVATION

ELECTRIC VEHICLES

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

International

	AUSTRALIA
	BRITAIN
	CANADA
	DENMARK
	SPAIN
	CHINA

CLIFFSIDE COAL PLANT - NORTH CAROLINA

July 1 2010: State renews Duke's Cliffside air permit for 5 years. The controversial Unit 6 will face further state and federal permitting requirements after it is constructed. Duke Energy is required by state and federal air regulations to submit an application for an operating permit for the sixth unit within 12 months of beginning operation. That permitting process will include an
opportunity for public comments and EPA review of the operating conditions for the unit. link

A Call to Conscience: Cliffside Climate Action - see below for reasons Cliffside opposed
On April 20 2009, Charlotte witnessed the largest ever civil disobedience action against a coal-fired plant in the USA. Approximately 300 people from all over the country and all ages converged on Duke Energy Headquarters. Forty-four people were arrested and of those, ten protesters sought a trial on trespass charges based on a “necessity defense”, which means they felt it essential to break the law to prevent a greater crime. Eventually all charges were dismissed. More than 30 national environmental leaders and groups endorsed this action.
At a later action in Raleigh (October 24 2009) six demonstrators were arrested for a civil disobedience action at the Governor’s mansion - again all charges were dismissed.

_______________________________________________

Below

The argument that Cliffside is needed
The mercury problem
Major to Minor designation
in preparation - coal ash problem
History of Cliffside (see new page)

_____________________________________________

Is Cliffside Needed?

Overview: This latest summary of the legal fight regarding Duke Energy's proposed Cliffside #6 unit under construction in Rutherford County, can be found in this lengthy (16-page) document from the North Carolina Utility Commission (NCUC) dated November 4th 2009 - see: pdf The arguments set forth by NC WARN and others are countered by Duke Energy's arguments for continuing with the building of Cliffside Unit #6 which is one of two 800MW units allowed by the NCUC. Despite a lot of legal language, the complicated nature and history is the quickest way to understand the struggle. The NCUC lays out the arguments and on page 11 the public staff offers a mediator's perspective.

But the legal arguments revolve only about the need for a new coal plant and avoids certain public interest issues such as health concerns and climate change, both of which are essential concerns to the groups opposing Cliffside. It is important to remind ourselves that coal-plant construction is not private development, and while Duke Energy has a monopoly of electricity supply, it is still a public utility.

March 2009: :NC WARN report 'NORTH CAROLINA'S ENERGY FUTURE' states: “Electricity rates for most North Carolina customers will increase dramatically if new coal-fired and nuclear power plants are successfully completed by Duke Energy and Progress Energy.
This report shows that, based on the utilities’ numbers, electricity demand can be reduced by up to 3,700 Megawatts (MW) within 15 years, avoiding the need for any new plants and allowing retirement of 7 to 9 existing coal-fired units. Our analysis of recent filings by both companies shows that even with a growing population, North Carolina can eliminate the need to risk $35-40 billion on new plants. This can be accomplished through modest increases in energy efficiency, cogeneration and renewable power sources, and if necessary, by using a large oversupply of electricity in the Southeast …"Also, every energy plant is required to maintain a reserve capacity of generation. If Duke held to the same lower amount as Progress Energy in NC, the lower amount would eliminate the need for Cliffside. pdf link

Oct. 5 2009 - Legal action filed against Duke Energy deal for new outside customers. NC WARN’s legal intervention filed today with the NC Utilities Commission against Duke’s contract to sell up to 1000 MW of juice to the Central Coops of South Carolina. link

September 28 2009: Secret deal exposed. A secret deal between Duke Energy and Santee Cooper in South Carolina to sell Cliffside's proposed output to new markets in South Carolina has been uncovered. The goal of the secret arrangement would shift the costs and pollution to North Carolina.The North Carolina Utility Commission has already denied sale by Duke to Orangeburg, SC, therefore this creates a very unusual situation for Cliffside being permitted to continue. link

Is Cliffside even needed for Duke's service area?
Despite protests nationally by conservation groups and legal action being taken, Governor Perdue and the Division of Air Quality are permitting construction to proceed, with a 2012 scheduled operating date. However, there are many reasons to oppose this construction and call for an immediate halt. In evidence presented at a hearing (November 2008) Duke officials acknowledge that Cliffside isn't necessary for their service area. Attorneys for consumers, environmentalists and even a rival power company argued that Duke Energy is seeking a major shift in state policy so it can add outside customers and justify building new coal-fired and nuclear power plants. Under cross-examination at a NC Utilities Commission hearing, a Duke official admitted to NC WARN attorney John Runkle that it is soliciting at least nine cities and other large customers outside its service area. Those outside customers electricity usage would far exceed the 800 MW plant. Ironically, in newly filed Duke documents, long-term growth projections inside Duke’s service area have been slashed. link

_____________________________________________

The Mercury Problem

Latest figures show that Cliffside would emit 134 pounds of mercury into the air every year, compared to similar plants in Virginia (Dominion) and Pennsylvania (Reliant) where releases would be 4.5 lbs and 1.5 lbs respectively. Women and children are extremely susceptible to harm from exposure to mercury. Children who are born to women with high mercury levels face an increased risk of cognitive and developmental damage. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency one in six women has enough mercury in their bodies to put a baby at risk. Every year in N.C. more than 13,000 children are born with blood mercury levels that place them at risk for mental retardation, learning disabilities, seizures, lowered IQ, and more: coal-fired power plants are the largest man-made source of mercury. Later in life, new studies suggest a link between mercury pollution and autism. See Sierra Club

Approximately 1100 coal-fired units at more than 450 existing power plants spew 48 tons of mercury into the air each year. Yet only 1/70th of a teaspoon of mercury is needed to contaminate a 25-acre lake to the point where fish are unsafe to eat. Over 40 states have warned their citizens to avoid consuming various fish species due to mercury contamination, with over half of those mercury advisories applying to all water bodies in the state. link

Following a federal Court of Appeals ruling on Feb. 8 2008, all coal-fired power plants permitted after December 2000, such as Cliffside, must identify the most stringent mercury-control technology available and then meet that level of pollution control. The permit issued by NC's Division of Air Quality would allow the Cliffside plant to emit mercury at a rate 10 times higher than the Clean Air Act allows, according to the Southern Environment Law Center.

August 24, 2009: Fish Nationwide Contaminated With Mercury: Scientists found mercury contamination in every fish sampled in 291 streams across the country, reports a new study by the U.S. Geological Survey. link

July 9, 2009: EPA proposing more controls on mercury. Lisa Jackson, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, has begun a rule-making process that could require some power plants to reduce mercury emission by as much as 90%. The GAO report indicates this is not only technologically possible but affordable - refuting industry’s longstanding claim that mercury controls would be too expensive. Preliminary Observations on the Effectiveness and Costs of Mercury Control Technologies at Coal-Fired Power Plants - pdf

_____________________________________________

Major to Minor designation

NC Division of Air Quality suspect. On December 2, 2008, federal Judge Lacy Thornburg ruled against Duke Energy in a lawsuit brought by the Southern Environmental Law Center charging that the Cliffside Power Plant construction permit, issued by DAQ, did not meet requirements mandated in the federal Clean Air Act. Thornburg ruled that the proposed plant at Cliffside will be a major source of hazardous air pollutants and therefore is subject to a complete assessment of Maximum Achievable Control Technologies (MACT) for hydrogen chlorides, hydrogen fluorides, mercury, lead, arsenic, dioxins, barium, cadmium and other toxic chemicals and heavy metals. Incredibly, Duke Energy attorneys reacted by issuing a claim that the company is revising the estimate of hazardous emissions from 217 tons annually to only 24 tons, an 85% reduction - without changing one nut or bolt in the design. For two years during the permit application process Duke has been using the 217 ton estimate. 25 tons is the threshold that separates major from minor sources. As a minor source, Duke would not be subject to the MACT standards. As ingenuous as the 24 ton claim is, DAQ has chosen to go along and begin the process of modifying the construction permit to accommodate Duke Energy. more

A Violation of the Clean Air Act

On January 29, 2008 the NC Division of Air Quality gave Duke Energy the green light to begin constructing a coal-fired power plant at its Cliffside facility, 55 miles west of Charlotte. Skirting Clean Air Act requirements, the permit allows Duke Energy to use outdated, inefficient coal-burning technology that releases more mercury and hazardous emissions over the 50-year lifespan of the unit than if newer, efficient technology was used to safeguard public health for citizens and their children. As proposed, the new plant will emit 5.5 million tons of carbon dioxide annually (the equivalent of one million automobiles), which, when combined with existing emissions, will bring Cliffside's per year output of CO2 to 10 million tons. The emissions contribute to global warming, ozone, smog, soot and toxic pollution. SELC and the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), representing four other environmental groups, filed suit against the state. Cliffside's CO2 emissions will probably never be captured, when or if new technology becomes viable. Most proposals to capture gas involve injecting it deep into the earth. But in North and South Carolina, where Duke operates, the underground rock is too porous to contain any gas. more Cliffside would use conventional, pulverized coal technology. The scrubbers would not capture carbon emissions and would add greenhouse gasses warming the planet for at least 50 years.

In a December 2008 victory for public health, the court found Duke Energy in violation of the law and ordered its compliance with regulations for mercury and other toxic emissions. The decision has national implications because it closes a perceived loophole that power plants around the country exploited to avoid federal pollution controls.

_____________________________________________

A Call to Conscience: Cliffside Climate Action

6 Reasons to cancel Cliffside:

1 A report dated March 31 2009 determines the plant is not needed: (see NC WARN above)
2 None of the 6 million tons of CO2 emissions annually can be captured or prevented.
3 Over 450 Appalachian mountaintops have been removed already: Duke gets 50% of their coal from Appalachian mountaintop removal. (more)
4 Duke is misleading the state government by misrepresenting the plant as a minor source of pollution to avoid regulation (see Major to Minor above).
5 Mercury emissions threaten, for 40 to 50 years operation, child developmental risks caused by mercury emissions (more above).
6 Coal-fired plants around the USA have been cancelled over the past 3 years due to the threat emissions will add to global warming . . .

. . . in a report compiled in early 2007, the U.S. Department of Energy listed 151 coal-fired power plants in the planning stages and talked about a resurgence in coal-fired electricity. But during 2007, 59 proposed U.S. coal-fired power plants were either refused licenses by state governments or quietly abandoned. In addition to the 59 plants that were dropped, close to 50 more coal plants are being contested in the courts, and the remaining plants will likely be challenged as they reach the permitting stage. Details A further 24 plants were cancelled or postponed in 2008, and at least 12 in the first three months of 2009 -according to the Earth Policy Institute. As North Carolinas Blue Ridge mountains do not lie on any coal seams, neighboring states will continue to be subjected to mountaintop removal for decades to come to satisfy this state's energy demands.

Jon Wellinghoff, chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
told reporters at a U.S. Energy Association forum (May 4 2009) that
no new nuclear or coal plants may ever be needed in the United States,
"We may not need any, ever."

Stopping Cliffside is the best thing North Carolina can do to help stop global warming." ~ Dr. James Hansen - NASA

"This plant is a relic before it's even built, a leftover from the days before we realized that coal is filthy in every way. It's hard to imagine that the technologically savvy Tarheel State really wants to get stuck with yesterday's technology." ~ Bill McKibben

Write to Duke CEO Jim Rogers: 526 South Church St. Charlotte, NC 28202 phone (704) 594 6200

Write to Governor Bev Perdue: Office of the Governor, 20301 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 20301 - phone (919) 733 4240