Dear Dr. Hansen:
I am happy to meet with you as you suggest in your letter dated March 25, and will work with my staff to find a time that is mutually convenient to discuss climate change. I am in New York City on a regular basis and also open to scheduling a special trip to meet with you. I look forward to spending some time together to discuss climate change and explore ways we can work together on this critical issue.
I enjoyed attending your presentation on climate change at Queens University last fall. I have admired your work and leadership on climate change over the past several decades. Your contributions to this issue have been extraordinary.
I was pleased to read in your letter that you support coal projects that can capture and store carbon dioxide underground. As you know, this technology is not yet commercially available for large coal plants, and the federal EPA has not yet prepared the permits for this technology for large-scale coal plant demonstration sites.
I was surprised to see that you do not want us to proceed with our Edwardsport IGCC plant in Indiana. This plant will be one of the largest IGCC plants in the world and has received $460 million in local, state, and federal clean coal and economic development incentives. The project is located in an area with excellent geology to demonstrate carbon sequestration. It is one of the best -- if not the best -- site in the nation to advance and commercialize this technology. We intend to work with the federal government and other partners to offer the site to demonstrate carbon capture and sequestration as soon as it is technically feasible.
I was also concerned that you apparently continue to be against our Cliffside project. Since your visit to Queens University, we have worked extensively with the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources on our air permit, which we received last January.
The following is from a column by Keith Overcash, Director of the North Carolina Division of Air Quality, that was published in the Winston-Salem Journal 14 Feb. 2008. Keith provides an overview of the permit and the innovative approach used to make the Cliffside project carbon-neutral by requiring the retirement of 1,000 megawatts of older unit
The new permit requires Duke to shut down four older, less efficient boilers that lack modern pollution controls before operating the new boiler. Duke must install the "best available" or state-of-the art pollution controls on the new boiler (Unit 6) as well as additional controls on an existing boiler (Unit 5) that will continue to operate. Actual emissions at Cliffside should decline by 26,000 tons per year for sulfur dioxide (an 80 percent reduction), 3,500 tons per year for nitrogen oxides (50 percent reduction) and 79 pounds per year for mercury (50 percent reduction) after the new unit goes into operation.
Duke also agreed to mitigate or offset carbon-dioxide emissions from the new Cliffside unit, even though no state or federal regulations currently require controls of such greenhouse-gas emissions. This agreement, which is enforceable through the plant's air-quality permit, is groundbreaking. I am not aware of any other power plant in the United States that is required by its permit to offset its carbon dioxide emissions.
The mitigation of Cliffside's carbon-dioxide emissions will begin with the closure of the four older units at Cliffside. Between 2015 and 2018, Duke also must shut down an additional 800 megawatts of coal-fired generating units at other North Carolina plants that lack modern pollution controls. These closures will offset about two-thirds of the carbon-dioxide emissions expected from the new Cliffside unit. Duke has further committed to offset the remaining one-third through other measures -- such as energy conservation and renewable sources -- and those reductions will be enforceable through its permit.
The new electric-generating capacity at Cliffside will be among the most efficient in the nation. That is, the new unit will be able to generate much more electricity per unit of coal burned than the older units it is replacing. If we had denied the new Cliffside permit, Duke would have been forced to generate more electricity from older, less efficient units that lack modern pollution controls in order to supply increasing demands for power. Thus, a permit denial could have led to greater emissions of air pollution.
The N.C. Utilities Commission, in approving the certificate of need for the new Cliffside unit, determined that North Carolina has increasing needs for electric power generation. The new Cliffside unit will help supply those power needs while reducing air pollution.
I hope you will agree to take a second look at our Cliffside project and acknowledge its innovative approach in reducing all emissions categories -- including carbon dioxide. This project will receive $125 million in federal clean coal tax incentives, based on the efficiency of the unit and its emission reduction systems.
I have enclosed our just-released 2007 summary annual report (PDF), which we devoted to this pressing issue. It is entitled, "Building Bridges to a Low-Carbon Future," and it provides further details on how our Duke Energy team is working to address climate change.
Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to continuing this discussion in New York shortly.
Lawsuit accuses Virginia power company of poisoning Dominican community with toxic coal ash
New nukes? A fair shot, not a free ride
Comments
View as Threaded
bw Posted 3:00 am
02 Apr 2008
He barely addressed any of the points brought up in the original letter.
The new Cliffside unit will help supply those power needs while reducing air pollution.
Anyone happen to have the numbers on net reduction in air pollution? They are conspicuously absent from Overcash's column. I can't imagine that opening this new plant will actually reduce air pollution.
It's going to take more than letters. Thank you to all the NC activists who chained themselves to bulldozers in protest of this atrocity.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 3:21 am
02 Apr 2008
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:35 am
02 Apr 2008
The mitigation of Cliffside's carbon-dioxide emissions will begin with the closure of the four older units at Cliffside. Between 2015 and 2018, Duke also must shut down an additional 800 megawatts of coal-fired generating units at other North Carolina plants that lack modern pollution controls. These closures will offset about two-thirds of the carbon-dioxide emissions expected from the new Cliffside unit
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 4:56 am
02 Apr 2008
You might not think that this is your job as a utility but since the alternative is the destruction of the entire planetary ecosystems status quo I think some of us would have to disagree. Some utilities too like the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) which has managed to close a nuclear power plant early, maintain one of the lowest utility carbon profiles in the nation and offer cheaper electric rates to it's customers than neighboring PG&E. One of the ways they do it is by promoting and even financing energy conservation projects and solar panels; and they don't burn a single pound of coal to get there.
So please quit with the big clean coal lie because even if every wisp of GHGs were immediately swooped away from your plants and pumped deep underground without any risk of leakage you would still be tearing the tops off of mountains and destroying ecosystems to get the coal. Then after the coal is burned there is the leftover slag and ash that is loaded with heavy metals like mercury, uranium and thorium. I'm pretty sure that none of this coal ash ends up in the gardens of your family but it certainly ends up in everybody's food supply.
There are those that consider burning coal a crime against humanity. Considering that global warming is forcing changes on us faster than expected you might consider moving to Patagonia with George Bush. After all even if nature bats last there's always extra innings in politics.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 5:05 am
02 Apr 2008
The 1,700 megawatts Duke Energy plans to generate in four years through energy efficiency will play a key role in meeting the company's expected customer demand growth.
The energy efficiency filing follows the NCUC's recent approval of one 800-megawatt, state-of-the-art coal unit for Duke Energy Carolinas' Cliffside Power Plant Modernization Project. In its Cliffside order, the commission accepted Duke Energy Carolinas' commitment to invest 1 percent of its annual retail revenues from North Carolina electricity sales in energy efficiency programs. This is currently approximately $35 million annually. As the results from new energy efficiency programs are realized, the company will retire up to 800 megawatts of older coal plants, significantly reducing emissions.
The concept to invest 1 percent of revenues in new energy efficiency programs and retire older coal units as power demand is reduced was recommended to the commission by Duke Energy Carolinas in November 2006.
Spending on the energy efficiency programs will be based on results, and the $35 million Duke Energy pledged to invest in new programs last November is just a starting point.
Duke Energy Carolinas' existing demand side management programs can reduce energy demand by up to 666 megawatts in the summer. Duke Energy Carolinas is requesting that the NCUC allow the company to replace these programs, most of which are closed to new customers, with a new portfolio of improved energy efficiency programs so that more customers can benefit.
The following are the save-a-watt energy efficiency programs Duke Energy Carolinas is proposing:
* Residential Assessments - to help residential customers identify opportunities to use energy more efficiently through a mail-in analysis, on-line analysis and on-site energy audit. Participating customers will receive either an energy efficiency kit or compact fluorescent light bulbs at the time of the audit to begin their energy savings immediately.
* Non-Residential Energy Assessments - to help commercial and industrial customers identify opportunities to use energy more efficiently through an on-line analysis, telephone interviews and on-site energy audits.
* Smart $aver® - to provide residential customers with incentive payments to install more energy-efficient equipment, such as compact fluorescent light bulbs and high-efficiency air conditioners and heat pumps. The commercial and industrial customer program will provide incentives to install high-efficiency lighting, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment, motors and pumps.
* Low Income Service - to assist low income residential customers with energy efficiency measures using kits or assistance in purchasing equipment and weatherizing homes.
* Power Manager - to enable residential customers to receive a monthly credit from July to October in exchange for allowing Duke Energy to cycle their central air conditioning in times of peak power demand.
* PowerShare® - to enable commercial and industrial customers to receive a credit on their bills in exchange for reducing their electric use in times of peak power demand.
* Residential Bill Check Pilot - to evaluate the use of new technology to provide customers with a monthly report analyzing their energy use and comparing it to weather patterns and other issues that relate to energy use. The pilot will initially test new technologies in up to 200 homes in the Charlotte area.
* Efficiency Savings Plan Pilot - to evaluate allowing residential, commercial and industrial customers to install energy efficiency products with no up-front payment, allowing customers to save money by reducing their energy use. Customer would pay for these products through an added charge to their power bill.
* Advanced Power Manager Pilot - to evaluate new technologies and advanced metering to study the feasibility of an energy management system that enables customers to participate in energy efficiency without disrupting their lifestyle or normal business practices.
Maybe it's not enough, but in the utility space, at least, it's better than the industry standard.
grist.org
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 5:30 am
02 Apr 2008
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
sunflower Posted 5:47 am
02 Apr 2008
Why spoil green goodwill with Cliffside coal?
Why not natural gas? Are coal margins worth the risk? It doesn't make sense.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 6:26 am
02 Apr 2008
Oh yeah, but how pleased? Pleased enough to fund the Hansen institute for clean coal studies? Hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 6:48 am
02 Apr 2008
The first way is to help their customers invest in efficiency. This is, in large scale what the Save A Watt program does. Better lightbulbs, motors, meters, etc. A cynic might reasonably argue that the utilities really don't pay for those programs, but simply administer the system benefits charges collected from their customer's bills. A cynic with a sense of history might also argue that investor owned utilities were downright hostile to all energy efficiency activities until state legislatures started instituting said system benefit programs. And said cynic would have a point, but it's an argumentative one that doesn't get us anywhere. In the grand scheme of things, those load-sited demand-side-management programs spent somewhere north of $3.5 billion last year, and that's nothing to sneeze at. We can quibble about how much credit utility execs ought to get for that, but I rather like Truman's aphorism that you can get a lot done if you don't care who gets the credit. If Rogers or his peers want to take credit, that's fine - let's just get it done. (And, to be fair, Rogers does deserve credit for paying for out of Duke's revenues rather than system benefit charges if the agreement struck with the PUC doesn't allow them to then rate-base that 1% cost.)
The second way is a different story, and that is to increase their own energy efficiency. The utility industry in this country spends some $38 billion per year on fuel, and hasn't increased their energy efficiency in 50 years, in spite of the fact that lots of independent producers regularly beat the pants of the 30 - 33% delivered efficiencies that the regulated folks manage. No investor-owned utility I'm aware of has made any significant effort to fix this, since the problem is at core in the way that utilities are regulated and utility execs are - perhaps understandably - reluctant to start poking the regulatory dragon, fearing unpredictable results. But the total savings that they could deliver (in terms of dollars, fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions) are massively larger than that which they can deliver through (comparatively) paltry sums being thrown at DSM. It's why I'm still waiting for a utility exec to say this.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 8:24 am
02 Apr 2008
In addition enough natural gas demand could be taken off line to feed a few peaker plants that could back up the hundreds (thousands?) of acres of commercial rooftops and parking lots that could be covered in solar panels. Those really big WalMart superstore parking lots are probably big enough to feed a solar thermal tower here and there if heliostats shade the cars.
Here's the deal; I don't care who makes the profit off these intallations as long as a) the service needs are met (heating, cooling, lighting, motive power) and b) The end user gets a fair share of cost savings (because geoexhcange does save $$). I am quite happy with that profit collector being a utility because I think we need well-regulated utilities.
Where the frustration comes in is the completely transparent greenwashing that comes out of these operations when examples of actual green projects are readily available. I know it's greenwashing on the face of it because a properly managed program would be projecting demand destruction, load shifting to renewables and smart grid management as growth areas.
Duke's building more coal capacity. Doesn't that ring a few bells in there? I'll tell you SMUD's not projecting any new coal plants even though there is projected expansion of population. How could that be? Somebody in the kitchen has got their fingers in more than one pie is how.
Once again the "market" in legislators and corporate board members looks to be trumping any projected "carbon market." We know this because right now conservation is cheaper than new plant capacity. Legislatures are willing to let utilities get paid for legitimate conservation projects; but the multi-billion dollar investment is in plant capacity.
Follow the money. Somebody's got a hand in the wrong pocket.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
mountaingirl Posted 12:56 pm
02 Apr 2008
Here's the problem. Dupe Energy is a corporation. And their current goal is to make a profit. Of course they don't want their customers to USE LESS ELECTRICITY. Where is the incentive in that?
All of the solutions to this crisis.....conservation, efficiency, use of renewables and net metering would all cut into Dupe's bottomline. Is decentralization an option? Would decentralization be a more secure and sustainable model?
Dupe is wrong in that they do not take into account the externalities associated with the burning of coal. The entire lifecycle of coal MUST be considered, especially since the coal Dupe burns comes from mountain top removal in Appalachia. Dupe needs to factor in all the other costs:
-headwater streams poisoned with mercury, arsenic, and lead
-increased asthma, disease, and therefore health costs from smog, ozone, black lung and particulate matter
-ecological destruction of the very land that gives us life
-the cost of emitting CO2 in the very near future. (if this coal plant extension goes thru, can Dupe guarantee that rates will not go up once CO2 is regulated and utilites have to pay per ton of CO2 released? Otherwise, the ratepayers are insane for allowing this project to move forward!)
-CLIMATE FREAKING CHANGE
Cliffside must be abandoned. As well as all other new coal projects on the drawing board at this point. If China is supposedly building one coal plant a week, and we continue to do the same, why would China willingly stop their plans? International cooperation anyone?? Are these climate summits really working toward something or just an illusion of cooperation?
If we abandon new coal and embrace renewables, a market would emerge and other countries would follow suit. In fact, other countries in Europe are much further along the clean energy transition than we are. Perhaps we could observe and get a clue from them, and get off our high horses here in America thinking that we know it all.
(And, yes, I know that I think I know it all. I'm an American.)
Permalink
GreenMom Posted 3:00 pm
02 Apr 2008
But I will say that the personal attacks are gratuitous and unnecessary. I know Keith Overcash, and he's a good, honest guy. He has to answer for some tough decisions, and if you're sitting where he's sitting, it's a delicate balancing act. Give him a break.
I'm not saying he made the right decision (though I have sympathy for his point of view). I'm not saying you need to agree with him. But don't smear him. He doesn't deserve that.
Permalink
lorna salzman Posted 3:14 am
03 Apr 2008
Permalink