OPINION: Board's decision on coal plant is the most sensible one

Santee Cooper cited the economy, uncertainty over the cost of possible cap-and-trade legislation and reduced power load requirements as reasons for its board’s decision Monday to suspend permitting for the Pee Dee Energy Campus, its proposed coal-fired power generation facility in Kingsburg.

Regardless of the reason, the state-owned utility’s board has done the sensible thing.

The Pee Dee Energy Campus was to be a 600-megawatt coal-fired generation facility that would be located on a 2,709-acre tract. It was scheduled to become operational sometime after 2012 at a cost of about $1.25 billion to build.

Santee Cooper insisted it was pursuing the construction of the Pee Dee Energy Campus not because it wanted to, but because it had to.

The utility maintained that building the plant was necessary to meet growing electricity demand in the absence of viable and more environmentally-friendly alternative energy sources, such as wind energy, that also would have a significant negative impact on the environment.

Now, however, Santee Cooper’s power load reduction would result from another board vote to allow Central Electric Power Cooperative Inc. to remove 1,000 megawatts from Santee Cooper’s system over seven years beginning in 2013. Central Electric is negotiating with Duke Energy to buy power for five of its cooperatives in upstate South Carolina. If several of Santee Cooper’s cooperatives are looking to buy power from Duke Energy, the need for the new source of power is gone for the time being.

Suspension of plans for the Pee Dee Energy Campus will result in the loss of potential jobs in the area, but that number varies depending on who you ask.

In December 2007, a group of Francis Marion University professors conducted an in-depth look into the economic benefits of the proposed coal plant. Based on information provided to them by Santee Cooper, the professors determined $900 million in economic output and 9,300 jobs would be brought to the region as a result of the Pee Dee Energy Campus.

Later, in April 2008, Eastern Carolina Development Corp. and the Coastal Conservation League contracted an outside data firm to review the economic data of the Pee Dee Energy Campus. The data from the report, using public information, showed markedly different results than the one conducted by FMU professors in December, with only 228 jobs coming to the region as a result of the plant.

While Santee Cooper President and CEO Lonnie Carter said the proposed facility had “overwhelming support” in the community, it certainly did not have the backing of those who raised concerns about the environmental impact the plant would have.

The Army Corps of Engineers’ Environmental Impact Statement, which would determine if Santee Cooper could continue making progress in the permitting process, was expected sometime this summer. Carter said Santee Cooper asked the Corps, as part of the suspension of permitting, not to submit the statement for public comment.

It’s fair to believe the cost of building and maintaining the facility would have increased as more data emerged showing the harm coal-fired plants can cause, possibly prompting even more stringent regulations for Santee Cooper to pay to meet. Though Santee Cooper throughout this process has promised the Pee Dee Energy Campus would be the cleanest of its kind, it would be an expensive battle for the utility — and its customers — to keep fighting.

Opponents of the proposed Kingsburg plant said they applauded Santee Cooper’s board for its decision and hope the Pee Dee Energy Campus is never built.

They may yet get their wish. Carter said if the circumstances continue as expected, he thinks the project will ultimately be canceled.

“We’re not in the business of building power plants,” he said after the meeting. “We’re in the business of providing low-cost, reliable power.”

Now that this controversial project is on hold for the time being, we hope Santee Cooper will be able to concentrate fully on that business. Its board’s decision not to pursue the construction of the Pee Dee Energy Campus, we feel, is a win for all involved.

— Unsigned editorials represent the views of this newspaper. Editorial Board members are Mark Laskowski (regional publisher), James Bennett (regional editor), Sam Bundy (sports editor), Kimberly Ginfrida (news editor), David Johnson (regional circulation director), Charles Tomlinson (Lake City News & Post editor) and Jackie Torok (metro editor).