It's time to decide on coal, letter says

Legislators are vocal about Duke Energy's request to build two plants, which comes before a panel today

Two dozen state lawmakers urged the N.C. Utilities Commission on Tuesday not to bow to political pressure by delaying a decision scheduled today on a proposal to build two coal-fired power plant units west of Charlotte.

Their efforts are the most recent salvo in a debate that's likely to continue for months, regardless of what the commission rules. A denial would require Duke Energy to come up with an alternative plan to meet the state's growing energy needs, resulting in more hearings.

A go-ahead would advance the case to the next stage of public comment and opposition on environmental permits required to build the power plants. And any approval could be conditioned on Duke Energy adopting energy efficiency programs that would require separate public hearings to work out details.

Tuesday's plea to the commission was in response to a letter sent last week by 18 state lawmakers, urging the commission to put off the ruling for three months. They wanted the commission to weigh alternatives to building the state's first major power plant project in a quarter-century.

The cost of the proposed Cliffside power plant, which critics say will come to $4 billion, will be paid by customers through their electricity bills. Duke Energy says the plants will cost about $3 billion plus several hundred million dollars in financing costs.

The legislators writing Tuesday -- including Sen. Neal Hunt, a Wake County Republican, and Rep. Drew Saunders, a Mecklenburg County Democrat -- dismissed the notion that more information is necessary on the two-year-old Duke Energy case.

"This has been the most thorough proceeding of its kind in our state in over twenty years," the 23 lawmakers wrote, citing six public hearings and two evidentiary hearings involving hundreds of residents since 2005.

Democratic Sen. Daniel Clodfelter of Mecklenburg County wrote his own letter saying he had been asked to sign on with both factions and urging the commissioners to resist political influence.

The utilities commission, an independent agency, hasn't responded to the political pleas from either side.

If the commission grants Duke Energy's request, some opponents in the legislature will continue pushing for energy alternatives.

"We are going to the grass roots, to the local governments and to the citizens' groups across the state," said Rep. Paul Luebke, a Durham Democrat who co-signed the letter by opponents asking for a delay. "It is our position that most people in this state want energy efficiency first."

If the utilities commission were to reject Duke Energy's application to build two 800-megawatt units, the Charlotte utility has said one alternative would be to build power plants fired by natural gas. The company has said that while initially cheaper to build, natural gas power plants may not be a good long-term choice because of volatile fuel prices.

The utilities commission could issue the ruling requested last year by the state Attorney General to allow Duke Energy to build just one of the 800-megawatt units. Duke officials contend that option would not be economical.

If the commission approves both coal-fired units, opponents plan to challenge the company during the permitting process for air emissions. Public comment and public hearings would be held by the Division of Air Quality in the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

"There's probably six months of litigation about that," predicted Stephen Smith, executive director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy in Asheville.

The Cliffside project has been recommended by the Public Staff, the consumer advocacy arm of the utilities commission, but with two conditions. Public Staff recommendations are often adopted.

One condition would require Duke Energy to spend at least $50 million a year in North Carolina on energy efficiency programs to help customers cut energy use. Such programs might include low-interest loans or rebates to encourage customers to buy energy-efficient appliances, insulation, water heater blankets or programmable thermostats.

Another condition would require Duke Energy to mothball existing coal plants as less energy is used as customers adopt energy conservation programs. The company plans to propose an energy efficiency program this summer.

With pressure mounting statewide for energy efficiency and renewable energy, the conditions for building the Cliffside coal-fired units would have to go beyond the usual bill inserts and other forms of customer education.

"We certainly don't envision them spending $50 million to pass out brochures," said James McLawhorn, the director of the Public Staff's Electric Division. "They would lose tremendous credibility if they did that."