Crowd overflows hearing for Duke Energy rate hike: more coal and nuclear at stake

Citizens wait to speak at Duke Energy rate-hike hearing in Charlotte

Last night, Duke Energy held a public hearing on its proposed 17% rate hike. The room was packed with irate citizens, but many were turned away for lack of space. Most who did speak passionately opposed the rate hike, citing the health and environmental effects of coal pollution, or the economic hardship of such a big rate increase. The speaking continued for more than 4 hours.

The Charlotte Observer published an article at the top of page 1A on the hearing's events, "Crowd jams hearing on Duke rate hike." The Business Journal also published an account of the hearing.

The hearing was preceded by street theater and a press conference with local organizers protesting Duke's persistent reliance on dangerous and expensive energy sources - coal and nuclear. Greenpeace, Rainforest Action Network, Carolinas Clean Air Coalition, and NC WARN were among organizations with Charlotte chapters that were active in preparing for the hearing.

Ken and I were among the speakers. Below in blue flont is the short speech I made to the Utilities Commission members at the hearing (who will decide whether to approve the rate hike), to Duke attorneys and employees, and to the roomful of concerned citizens and activists. I talked about the long range effects of climate change (due to coal) and the unfairness of Duke's overcharging ratepayers in order to lure fearful investors. Investors should be afraid of high-risk and expensive nuclear and coal plants.

Some of my remarks were quoted in the Charlotte Observer and in the Business Journal today (October 12).

What I said at the hearing:

"I am a biologist, Ph.D., and author of 11 books on science topics. I’m going to comment on the global effect of adding more coal plants, and on the risk to investors, which is being passed on to ratepayers.

"First of all, I personally would not mind paying any rate hike if the money were going toward developing clean and renewable energy, or energy efficiency.

"I do object to any rate hike that goes toward building new coal plants, nuclear plants, and natural-gas plants.

"As a biologist, I care deeply about all life on the planet, human life and wildlife. We are at an unprecedented turning point on the planet, for people and for wild things. Coal is one of the biggest contributors to greenhouse gases. If our generation doesn’t act right now, much of the biosphere as we know it will be destroyed by the effects of climate change. More than 80% of biologists believe we will experience mass extinctions of wildlife this century. So our descendants will live on a planet with maybe half of the wildlife species that we knew as children. As far as human life: you’re all aware, I’m sure, of how climate change will affect agriculture worldwide, creating floods and droughts that will cause widespread famine. Close to half of all humans live near coastlines that will be permanently flooded.

"This climate emergency means we need to adopt drastic energy-efficiency programs and safe, renewable energy sources. But instead, Duke is building more fossil fuel and nuclear plants, at huge risk and expense.

"Why? I don’t know why. It doesn’t make sense for the planet or financially. Investors know it too, which is why we’re being asked to pay more. Investors don’t like risk. They must be lured by a higher rate of return to invest in such risky energies. Financial risks to investors in coal and nuclear include probable EPA regulations regarding mercury, coal-ash waste, air toxins, a possible carbon tax, the cost of scrubbers, and Fukishima related nuclear-regulations.

"Investors SHOULD be worried that Duke’s dangerous power plants will face expensive regulations to make them less dangerous. It’s not fair to make consumers pay more so Duke can use our money to attract investors to these dangerous energy sources.

"Energy efficiency is by far the cheapest energy source. Wind and solar are both plummeting in price, while the costs of coal and nuclear plants and fuels keep going up. Once wind and solar resources are built, they have no fuel costs at all. Most importantly, energy-efficiency and renewable energy would preserve the climate and water on which all species, including the human species, depend."

Sally Kneidel

Most speakers opposed the rate hike and Duke's reliance on coal and nuclear

Keywords: Duke Energy rate hike hearing Charlotte North Carolina Greenpeace Rainforest Action Network NC Warn Carolina Clean Air Coalition coal global warming climate change asthma air pollution Sally Kneidel

We took a stand against Duke Energy's nukes and coal



A demonstrator outside Duke Energy. Photo: Sally Kneidel

Dozens of protesters demonstrated outside Duke Energy headquarters in Charlotte on Thursday (5/5/11), prior to a meeting of shareholders.  The demonstration included speakers, picketers with signs, and street theater - the actors portrayed utility customers whose money winds up in the hands of legislators.  The demonstrators protested the use of coal from mountaintop removal and the construction of two new nuclear units in Cherokee County, S.C.

The most eloquent speaker I heard was Mickey McCoy (above), a Kentucky native who grew up in a town devastated by mountaintop removal. Jim Rogers said Duke tries to avoid buying coal extracted by mountaintop removal, but only when they can find other coal sources that are equally cheap (unlikely since mountaintop removal is the cheapest method). Photo: Sally Kneidel

A banner held by protesters outside Duke Energy on Thursday. Photo: Sally Kneidel

At the shareholders meeting indoors, 20-30 people lined up microphones in the aisles of the auditorium to pose questions to Duke Energy CEO and President, Jim Rogers. I was one of those people - my purpose was to point out to Rogers and the shareholders the risk involved in building new nuclear units in South Carolina, on a river whose flow is inadequate to provide consistent cooling of the units.

My comments to CEO Jim Rogers at the meeting:
"I'm concerned about the consumption of water by the proposed nuclear units on the Broad River. Duke Energy and its shareholders face serious financial and public relations risks from Duke’s use of so much water.

"Already, NC’s electric-production sector has one of the largest rates of water withdrawals in the nation, over 9 billion gallons every day – about 80% of our state’s total water withdrawals.

"I understand that some of the water withdrawn by nuclear power plants is returned to the lakes it’s drawn from. But much of the water withdrawn to cool the reactors is 'consumed' or lost by evaporation. The proposed units on the Broad River will have a consumptive loss of 35-40 million gallons per day.

"Right now, most people are unaware of how nuclear plants impact our state's water - including loss of aquatic habitat, releases of radioactivity, and the huge evaporative losses. As you [Jim Rogers] said yourself, 'water is the new oil' – because of growing water shortages due to population growth and climate change.

"Soon the people of NC will find these losses of water and habitat unacceptable. Duke will be taking a huge risk to squander even more water at new nuclear plants. Likewise, with 70% of biologists predicting mass extinctions this century, the loss of aquatic wildlife due to dams and thermal pollution will become increasingly objectionable to the public.

"The increasing water shortage also creates a high financial risk for Duke. Because of coming droughts and periods when water is too warm to cool the plants,the proposed plants are likely to be idle at times or operate at reduced power - a public annoyance and a loss of revenue.  As the Broad River diminishes over the years, the useful lifespan of the $11 billion units is also likely to be cut short. So the ratepayers [not the shareholders] will wind up paying for nonfunctional nuclear plants.

"Do you, Mr. Rogers, believe the Broad River will have enough water to support these plants?

"In other states Duke is investing more aggressively in energy efficiency, wind, and solar, which require no water. Why doesn’t Duke invest more in efficiency, wind, and solar here in its home state, thereby minimizing the risks to Duke and to all North Carolinians of our dwindling water supplies?"

Rogers' response
Jim Rogers answered my question about the Broad River by saying "That's a good question." He went on to say that Duke is studying the issue and they plan to create a reservoir (by damming the Broad River). Which was no answer, really. Every nuclear plant has a reservoir of some kind. The question about solar, wind, and efficiency was posed by several people. He said wind turbines take up too much room. The real answer to the efficiency question is that Duke makes more money when customers consume more energy, because then they pay more money to Duke. Duke had strong 2010 earnings, and this past week had first-quarter growth that moved its stock to the highest price in 3 years.

Street theater outside Duke Energy.  Seated "rate payers" hand over money to the "legislator" dressed in black. Photo: Sally Kneidel

Keywords: Duke Energy nuclear coal mountaintop removal water shortage demonstration Mickey McCoy Jim Rogers



Duke Energy fuels the extreme weather that drives up our bills

 Coal emissions are a big contributor to climate change

Printed in the Charlotte Observer on Feb. 21, 2011

This letter to the editor was written in response to "Scientists connect global warming to extreme rain" (Feb.17) and "Duke earnings up 23% in 2010" (Feb. 18)

"Thursday the Observer reported that 'telltale fingerprints' in scientific data confirm that manmade climate change is fueling extreme weather events such as massive snowstorms and rainstorms. Friday we learned that Duke Energy's 2010 earnings were up 23 percent, in large part because of extreme weather.

"Now, Duke Energy wants to raise rates to pay for new coal-fired power plants. Burning coal is a huge cause of the climate crisis. Climate change is not a "victimless crime." Extreme weather hurts people. But it's great for Duke Energy.

"Let's call on Duke Energy to stop fueling the extreme weather that's driving up our electric bills and Duke's profits. Duke should shut down some coal plants and promote drastic conservation and energy efficiency."
 Keywords: Duke Energy coal emissions climate change energy efficiency Duke Energy drives up energy bills Duke Energy drives up coal emissions Duke Energy fuels climate change Duke Energy fuels extreme weather coal fuels extreme weather coal fuels climate change

Activists Succeed in Blocking One New Coal Plant

Dear Global Warming Activists,

You’ve probably heard the news by now that the NC Utilities Commission yesterday approved only ONE 800-megawatt unit for Cliffside. Thanks to all of you for attending the hearing, providing public and written comments, getting friends and family to submit comments, writing letters to the editor, talking to people about the importance of moving away from fossil fuels and toward clean energy and energy efficiency, and all the other ways you contributed to making sure the Utilities Commission heard the public’s concerns. I am convinced that without the large turnout at the hearing in Charlotte and the many comments sent in, that the Commission would have no doubt approved both proposed units. So thank you for your part in this critical campaign to fight global warming pollution here in North Carolina!

There are several silver linings in this decision:

1) Duke stated under testimony that it would be cost-prohibitive to build just one unit. In the paper this morning Duke Carolinas President Ellen Ruff, stated that “We have to look at where we are.” She said they could choose to build more natural gas plants. So we will keep you posted on the latest developments.

2) Duke still needs to get an air quality permit from the state Division of Air Quality. In terms of concerns over air quality and global warming, we have better legal standing with the DAQ than with the UC on these issues. There may be a public hearing on this.

3) We now have the Charlotte Observer, the Raleigh News and Observer and the Winston-Salem and Durham papers on record as opposing Cliffside.

4) We also have the attention of the state legislature which is considering legislation that NC adopt a RENEWABLE ENERGY PORTFOLIO STANDARD that would require utilities to have a certain percentage of their energy portfolio met through energy efficiency and renewable energy sources.

ACTION: We need folks to thank Rep. Becky Carney, Rep. Martha Alexander and Rep. Drew Saunders for co-sponsoring House Bill 77 which would ensure that at least 20% of North Carolina’s energy demand is met through efficiency measures and clean, renewable sources by the year 2020. Contact your specific legislator in the house and ask them to support this bill.

To find out your legislators and their contact info, follow this link from our website: http://www.clean-air-coalition.org/action_center.htm

FOR YOUR READING: You should know that Susan Tompkins of Charlotte is a member of the N.C. Legislative Commission on Global Climate Change. She is a wonderful advocate on our behalf. I’ve attached a Summary of Proceedings from their meeting on February 22. Please read over these and get familiar with the types of policy changes we need to support to reduce our carbon emissions in North Carolina and thank Susan when you see her!

CALENDAR ITEM: Mark your calendars for Thursday, March 22 to attend a presentation on climate change at Davidson College by Dr. Tim Flannery, Scientist and author of The Weather Makers: The History and Future Impact of Climate Change, 7:00 p .m, Duke Auditorium, http://www.theweathermakers.com

Thanks again for using your voice to help the Carolinas Clean Air Coalition restore clean and safe air to the Charlotte region!

Best regards,

June Blotnick
Executive Director
Carolinas Clean Air Coalition
402 W. Trade Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28202
(704) 342-9161
www.clean-air-coalition.org

Keywords: coal plant coal plants coal-fired power plants activism activists clean air coalition cliffside victory North Carolina Utilities Commission Duke Energy global warming public hearing Duke Power activist success air quality asthma air pollution mercury Tim Flannery weather makers

North Carolina is not alone in our struggle to block the construction of new coal-fired power plants. Far from it. The Illinois chapter of the Sierra Club recently posted the article below about the "Midwest coal rush." The article explains why coal is making a comeback in spite of considerable health and environmental costs. To find the original article go to the Illinois Sierra Club Home Page, then scroll down and click on "Clean Air", then click on "Midwest Coal Rush". Or read it right here:

Midwest Coal Rush

Dirty coal is making a comeback...

For three decades the devastating pollution costs associated with burning coal for energy has prevented the construction of new coal power plants. American innovation has helped clean the air while meeting US energy demands with clean energy choices such as energy efficiency, wind, solar and clean-burning natural gas.

All that progress is now at risk. With a sympathetic White House, relaxed environmental protections, and large state and federal subsidies, dirty coal is staging its most serious resurgence in thirty years. 114 new coal-burning power plants are in various stages of planning and permitting in the US today. Most of the plants are proposing outdated coal combustion technology which would create the largest new source of global warming pollution in the US.

Almost one half of the new coal plants are proposed in the Upper Midwest – with a record 12 plants in Illinois! These new coal plants, some of which are already being permitted and funded with taxpayer subsidies, will not replace the old existing coal plants but instead will compound our existing pollution woes. These “new” coal plants emit essentially as much carbon dioxide – the principal cause of global warming -- as a 1950s-era coal plant.

What Is At Stake?

Our Health: Coal-burning power plants are the single largest source of mercury, a potent neurotoxin contaminating our nation’s waterways. The Illinois Department of Health has issued a fish consumption advisory due to dangerous levels of mercury in every waterway in the state. US EPA estimates that one in six women in America has levels of mercury in their bodies that presents a risk of permanent brain damage to her child in utero.

Coal-burning power plants also cause the fine soot pollution that blankets our cities. This fine soot bypasses the lung’s natural defenses and becomes lodged deep in the lungs where it causes asthma attacks, lung cancer, heart attacks, and even premature death. The Midwest already has its share of air quality alert days – more coal plants will only mean more dirty air days.

Our Economy: Investing in dirty old coal technology closes the market to expanding clean energy opportunities in the Midwest. Modern clean energy technologies, such as energy efficiency and wind power, are viable solutions to meet future energy needs in the US. The Midwest has an exciting opportunity, with its abundant wind and biomass resources, to become a leader in the 21st century energy market. Midwest wind energy alone could meet 25% of America’s electricity needs and create thousands of additional jobs in manufacturing, installation and maintenance of clean energy systems.

Our Future: Leading experts agree that the single largest threat facing our planet and our children’s future is global warming. A 2004 Pentagon-commissioned report states that “ because of potentially devastating consequences, the risk of abrupt climate change … should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern.” The proposed Midwest coal plants would add billions of tons of new carbon dioxide to the air, making them the #1 US threat to global warming, at a time other states and 140 nations are taking action to reduce their global warming pollution.

Stop New Dirty Coal NOW To Build A Clean Energy Future

Building dirty coal-burning power plants is a giant step in the wrong direction, leading us into a future of at least 50 more years of additional air pollution and increased health risks. The Midwest needs to become a leader by banning new dirty coal-fired power plants and instead investing in safe and clean energy technology. Clean energy alternatives should be considered before any other technologies. [end of article]

To learn more about the fight against coal's resurgence, go to the Energy Justice Network. Among other things, they have an interesting map of the nation's coal supply regions. I begin to understand why the Southeast has a hefty proportion of the nation's existing coal-fired power plants.

To register your objection to Duke Energy's proposed new Cliffside coal plants in North Carolina, e-mail the NC Utilities Commission with a brief statement at vance@ncuc.net (Subject heading: Cliffside or Docket E-7, Sub 790). Ask the Utilities Commission to reject Duke's construction request, and include any negative comment about coal. Send it by Weds February 28 if you can, although that decision date may wind up being postponed (at the request of several concerned legislators). You don't have to be a resident of NC to object. We'll all pay the price for the 11 million tons of carbon dioxide that these new NC plants will generate every year.

Thanks for any e-mails. For more about the struggle in NC against the mighty Duke Energy, which has its tendrils deep into local government and local corporations, see previous posts on this blog. More will be forthcoming.

Keywords: coal coal-fired power plants Duke Energy midwest coal rush Illinois Sierra Club map of coal supply largest source of global warming mercury brain damage asthma