> Home
> Our Issues
> Cliffside, Coal and Global Warming
Cliffside, Coal and Global Warming
Cliffside
Along with several other environmental organizations, the Sierra Club filed suit against Duke Energy in federal district court on 07.16.08 in order to halt construction of the new Cliffside coal plant.
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. 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 the emissions of an existing boiler, will bring Cliffside's per year output of carbon dioxide to 10 million tons.
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Thus, in light of widespread expectations that Congress will act to limit global warming emissions, the new facility is outdated and obsolete before it is built.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 urges regulators to reopen the air quality permit and require more stringent controls on toxic mercury emissions.
Around the country, more than 100 new coal plants have been proposed as power companies seek to grandfather-in new facilities before anticipated federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. Sierra Club has been deeply involved in fighting the "coal rush" at the national level. Here in North Carolina, Sierra Club volunteers and staff have fought to clean up coal-fired power plants since the 1990s. Sierra Club is committed to moving North Carolina toward clean air and a clean energy future.
Further Background
The Easley administration recently (June 2nd, 2008) notified Duke Energy Carolinas that it intends to reexamine the air quality permit issued to the utility earlier this year. Duke has been asked to notify the Department of Air Quality whether it will comply with this request by June 13th, 2008.
On May 6th, 2008, the Sierra Club - along with three other environmental groups - gave Duke Energy Carolinas notice that it is violating federal law by constructing a new coal unit at its Cliffside power plant. The notice warns that continuing construction could result in a lawsuit, since Duke Energy is not complying with Clean Air Act standards for mercury and other hazardous air pollutants.
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.
Air Quality Permit
On March 27th, 2008 the Sierra Club filed suit to contend the air quality permit given to Duke Energy for the construction of an 800-Megawatt coal-plant at its Cliffside facility in Western North Carolina. The Sierra Club will be represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center and will be joined in the suit by three other environmental organizations.
"Cliffside is a nationally significant coal fight," said Bruce Nilles, director of Sierra Club's National Coal Campaign. "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."
Environmental Impact
Drought
According to published reports, for cooling purposes the Cliffside facility pulls in 280 million gallons from the Broad River in Rutherford County, while also evaporating 8.5 million gallons. Little water makes it back to the river. The water that returns is 20 degrees warmer than the natural temperature, and thus endangers fish populations and the overall ecosystem of Broad River. For the proposed coal plant, the cooling intake will be significantly less than 280 million. However, it will evaporate 19 million gallons a day, double the current amount.
Alternative technologies exist - for example 'dry cooling.' Though more expensive, such technologies transfer heat to the air with significantly less water use. Duke declined water conserving technologies in its plans for the Cliffside coal-plant. In March, Duke Energy shuttered some of its hydro-power stations, claiming this would be their biggest impact on the drought.
It is clear, however, that dry cooling would conserve water.
Wilderness
State regulators have yet to force Duke to examine the impact of Cliffside on air quality in the state's wild areas. The plant could have adverse effects on the air quality of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Shining Rock Wilderness Area, Linville Gorges and other so-called "Class 1" air sheds. Regarding the Smokies, the National Park Service warned of "severe impacts" in ecosystem health and visibility in its comment letter to the NC Division of Air Quality.
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 and energy efficiency 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
'Captains of Industry' will be pivotal in shifting the world's energy sources away from dangerous, carbon-emitting sources to sustainable and responsible sources. Jim 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.
Jim Rogers has been an outspoken advocate of the need to control global warming emissions. But Duke Energy is part of a consortioum of coal and utility interests backing a group called Americans for Balanced Energy Choices. According to the Washington Post, ABEC is spending $35 million in primary and caucus states to promote electricity generated from coal and to rally opposition to Congressional action to address climate change.
Greenhouse gases are not currently regulated by the EPA. This February Rogers claimed in a full-page ad taken out in state newspapers that Cliffside will reduce regulated emissions. However, this statement did not refer to Duke's contribution of carbon dioxide: a (if not the) leading cause of global warming. Duke is one of the largest emittors of greenhouse gases in the US.
At the Emerging Issues Forum at NC State University in February, Rogers claimed the plant: "is just a step, a transition...to a low carbon world." But by handcuffing North Carolina's energy to a coal-plant improperly designed to catch and sequester carbon, Duke Energy is not transitioning.
Public Health and Coal
Mercury is a neurotoxin particularly dangerous to developing children. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia recently 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 emerging 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 acquatic populations.
North Carolina has 14 coal plants. 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.
