Powerful issue

Candidates for governor opposed to a new coal-burning power plant should outline their plans for the state's energy future

Will coal become a burning issue in the governor's race? It could, following rapid-fire announcements last week by the two leading Democratic candidates that they oppose Duke Energy's plan to build a big coal-fired power plant.

So far, the four Republican candidates haven't weighed in, but new coal-burning plants have become an issue elsewhere, one directly linked to climate change.

The power plant in question is Cliffside, west of Charlotte along the South Carolina border. Five coal-burning units at the site, some dating to the early 1940s, produce electricity for Duke's service area, which covers much of western and central North Carolina. The utility wants to add an 800 megawatt unit, costing $2.4 billion, and awaits the final go-ahead from state air-quality regulators.

In separate statements Wednesday, Democrats Richard Moore and Beverly Perdue both said the state Division of Air Quality should "wait" before issuing the final permit. Moore called for a focus on "new, efficient energy choices and conservation rather than building more high polluting, coal fired power plants." Perdue said "North Carolina's priority must be on creating long-range goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, with a focus on increasing energy efficiency and conservation."

The candidates clearly have environment-minded Democratic primary voters in mind, but surely they're sincere in favoring cleaner air. And no doubt they oppose global warming, to which coal plants' carbon dioxide emissions are thought to contribute. Still, neither Perdue nor Moore took the opportunity to offer a forecast of future demand for electric power in a fast-growing state. Neither explored whether an increase in demand could realistically be met by alternate means, or avoided by conservation.

Neither addressed costs associated with alternate energy sources, or their feasibility -- our state is not notable for solar energy potential or readily usable wind power -- or mentioned those sources' inability to handle the "baseload" (everyday) demand that the planned unit is designed for.

Nor did they say anything about a key point in the new plant's favor -- that it would allow the utility to close four of the old, inefficient units at Cliffside. Would the candidates simply wish those plants' pollution away?

More fundamentally, while nodding toward conservation and energy efficiency, neither candidate has broken ranks with state government's pro-growth stance, geared to attract newcomers and new industries. Neither is on record, for example, as opposing Google's electricity-guzzling "server farm" in Lenoir, which is in Duke's service area.

Ultimately, Moore and Perdue may be right about the Cliffside permit. Perhaps we should never again build a conventional coal-fired plant (as opposed to those using coal gasification and/or carbon sequestering). The National Park Service's warnings about air quality threats from the new Cliffside facility to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park have to be carefully weighed.

But the need for reliable, affordable electric power won't go away just because a permit is denied. The next governor's term extends to 2013 -- past Cliffside's planned start-up date. If the plant isn't built, the governor will need to have put in place a serious, realistic plan for an alternate energy future. We'd like to see it.