Further proof that NC could quickly turn to energy efficiency: Please urge your regular news source to investigate these issues as explained in this NC WARN-CCAC letter, which The News & Observer’s editorial page ran on August 15th.
To the Editor:
Your Aug. 6 article “Duke Energy aims for new territories” begs a vital question: Why are both Duke and Progress Energy aggressively soliciting thousands of new customers outside their service areas while insisting they must build huge, risky power plants to handle growing demand?
If approved by the Utilities Commission, Duke will have stolen S.C. Electric’s largest customer, the city of Orangeburg. This single contract represents nearly one-quarter of the capacity Duke is building at its controversial Cliffside plant.
Last summer, Duke, Progress and their legislative allies shifted the enormous financial risks for multibillion-dollar coal and nuclear plants onto the backs of ratepayers. But a wealth of industry data, and now your story, support our contention that Southeastern utilities are proposing to grossly overbuild generation capacity — with customers paying up front — so they can sell power outside the region where rates are higher (for now).
Moreover, recent studies for the North Carolina legislature and Duke Energy, and testimony by numerous experts, all prove that feasible energy efficiency programs could negate the need to gamble on new plants. But Duke and Progress are proposing programs with big profits, little efficiency.
North Carolina needs an independent energy efficiency administrator, a proven approach that reduces power bills and greenhouse gases.
June Blotnick
Executive Director, Carolinas Clean Air Coalition – Charlotte
Jim Warren
Executive Director, NC WARN – Durham
