GREEN-SCAM ALERT

Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers claims a giant coal-fired power plant would
be “good for the environment.”  Here are the facts:

For more than a year, Duke Energy has tried to sell the idea that building a large coal-fired power plant near Charlotte would somehow be “good for the environment.”  Following the January 29^th state approval for construction to begin, the deception increased.  By masking the new unit’s pollution behind upgrades already required by state law at an existing Cliffside furnace – and the retirement of four very small units that sit idle most of the time – Duke has misled the public, media and elected leaders into thinking that building a new unit will reduce a range of harmful emissions.

DUKE ENERGY:  “Our company is concerned about global warming … we are taking actions to help stop global warming.”  (Open ltr by CEO Jim Rogers, as a full-page ad in multiple papers, Feb. 2008) FACT:  Duke Energy is about to
begin construction of an 800 megawatt coal-burning plant that would emit 6 million tons per year of uncontrolled CO₂ –roughly equal to a million cars.

DUKE ENERGY:  CEO Jim Rogers has gained national acclaim by publicly calling for strict regulation of greenhouse gases:  “We support a phased-in ‘cap’ approach.”  (Oped 2/12/07 Charlotte Observer)
FACT:  At a January 19^th, 2007 hearing before the NC Utilities Commission, Rogers said he wants Cliffside to get special treatment regarding expensive, upcoming carbon regulations.  If he loses that gamble, electricity rates will rise even higher for the high-risk $2.4 billion plant.

DUKE ENERGY:  “New generation like Cliffside, with advanced clean-coal technology, would enhance the efficiency of our fleet and reduce sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury emissions.” (3/25/07 ltr to Charlotte Observer)
FACT:  If completed, the new unit would discharge over 12 times more CO₂ than the small Cliffside units to be retired; 5 to 10 times more mercury, and 13 to 50 times more toxic metals such as arsenic and cadmium (Duke Construction Permit Application Additional, 3/31/07, and NC DAQ air pollution permit 1/29/03).  As for sulfur and nitrogen, Duke’s claims are invalidated by an ongoing lawsuit by the U.S. EPA against Duke for failing to evaluate the cumulative impacts on regional air quality.  The National Parks Service criticized Duke for the same reason.  “Clean coal” exists only as corporate PR.

DUKE ENERGY:  In the February ad running in newspapers across Duke’s service area, Rogers makes nine references to “global warming” and related terms, plus a statement that Cliffside will “eliminate 90% of regulated emissions.” 
FACT:  Since no other pollutant is mentioned in the letter, readers are led to believe the reduction refers to greenhouse gases, which would not be controlled at all.   

DUKE ENERGY:  “We are designing [Cliffside] so we can add [carbon capture] technologies when they become available.  (Oped by CEO Rogers 2/12/07, Charlotte Observer) 
FACT:  During the January 2007 hearings, Rogers told the NC Utilities Commission he believes a carbon dioxide “scrubber” will be invented in 15 to 20 years.  A spokesman for the US Energy Information Agency recently confirmed that developing technology for removing and storing CO₂ is an enormous challenge:  “We have no experience with pumping CO₂ into the ground and storing it forever.”  (WUNC Radio’s State of Things, 2/5/08)

DUKE ENERGY:  “… the Cliffside modernization enables us to retire the smaller coal plants that are not economical to scrub.”  (Oped by President Ellen Ruff, 1/23/08 Charlotte Observer)
FACT:  This claim is debatable.  Duke’s older units use the same pulverized coal-burning technology as would the new unit (which is only slightly more efficient).  But the old ones are fully depreciated and therefore unavailable for boosting the basis for power bills.  Due to North Carolina’s perverse rate system, if Duke can successfully construct a new plant, the higher the cost, the more Duke can charge customers. 

DUKE ENERGY:  “We’re adding up to 60,000 customers each year in the Carolinas.”
FACT:  Duke spends millions each year recruiting new customers, fueling urban sprawl.  Duke has a history of over-projecting energy demand; in the 1980s, this resulted in cancellation of six nuclear plants underway.  Ongoing energy, regulatory and economic instability could lead to Cliffside’s termination and Duke would seek to have customers pay for the failed project. 

DUKE ENERGY:  For over a year, CEO Rogers has boasted that he plans to spend 1% of gross revenue on energy efficiency, and now says doing so will offset up to 800 MW of generation.
FACT:  At the January 2007 NC Utilities Commission hearings, a Duke official insisted that 101 megawatts (one-eighth of the Cliffside expansion) is the total potential for energy efficiency over the next 35 years.  A highly acclaimed national energy efficiency taskforce co-chaired by Rogers in 2006 called for 3-5% utility investments in efficiency, and for power-saving programs to be ramped up by 2010.  But Rogers told the Commission his own company cannot be expected to comply with that initiative.

DUKE ENERGY:  “During the four-year construction period, building the unit will create 1,600 new jobs and an annual $100 million payroll in North Carolina.” (1/29 press release)
FACT:  As with all construction projects, various contractors would come to Cliffside for periods ranging from days to months.  Few would be there for the entire four years, and few new jobs would be created.  Once built, Cliffside would employ only about 30 workers.  (Jan.  2007 NCUC hearings)

As NASA’s James Hansen, the nation’s foremost climate expert emphasizes, the best thing North Carolina can do to tackle accelerating climate change is to cancel this veritable global warming machine.  Instead of wasting years and billions on big power plants, we must ramp up the efficient, renewable energy alternatives proving highly successful in the free marketplace.

We don’t have time to wait for Duke’s vague and probably unenforceable promise to become carbon neutral in a decade or so.  Emissions from the new $2.4 billion plant alone would counterbalance most statewide efforts to reduce CO₂.  

Recognizing the gravity of our climate crisis, a growing statewide coalition of environmental, campus, faith-based and other citizen groups cannot afford to rest until Cliffside is cancelled.

People across North Carolina will continue calling on CEO Jim Rogers to be straight with the public, and walk his green talk by cancelling this unnecessary plant.  We will demand that our elected leaders stand up to the giant power companies that have long used their financial influence and deceptive public relations to stifle rational and democratic decision-making.   

rev. February 15, 2008

       PO Box 61051, Durham, NC 27715-1051
       919-416-5077     ncwarn@ncwarn.org     www.ncwarn.org