Greenpeace’s sign-bearing airship flies over the Marshall Steam Station Sunday. (Greenpeace photo)

The environmental group Greenpeace flew a 135-foot airship past the coal-fired Marshall Steam Station on Lake Norman Sunday night, carrying signs urging Duke Energy to adopt cleaner energy practices.

Banners on the blimp read: “Duke: Don’t Raise Rates for Dirty Energy” and “Cleaner is Cheaper.” It was the latest in a series of flights by the airship around North Carolina, and the first to pass by one of Duke’s coal-fired plants. The airship also flew Monday near a Duke plant in Asheville.

Greenpeace says Duke is getting ready to build more coal-fired electrical generating plants, like the Marshall plant north of Mooresville. But the organization instead wants the utility to replace coal plants with cleaner types of energy generation.

“The Marshall Steam Station is responsible for over one hundred deaths, heart attacks, and asthma attacks yearly in addition to damaging water and air quality throughout the region. Continuing to operate this plant is massively expensive for communities throughout North Carolina,” Robert Gardner of Greenpeace said in a press release Monday.

Greenpeace last week released a report claiming that Duke could save rate payers $108 billion over 20 years by investing in renewable energy. That report, “Charting the Correction Course: A Clean Energy Pathway for Duke Energy,” explores alternative energy options for Duke, which recently merged with Progress Energy.

“It’s a win, win” said Mike Johnson, report author and senior analyst for Greenpeace. “Duke and their ratepayers save money while pollution is significantly reduced. This means better air quality and ultimately better health. By implementing a clean energy pathway, Duke has a chance to be the leader that Jim Rogers claims to be.”

The airship previous flew over Raleigh, Wilmington and Carrboro. The tour is expected to continue this week.

Duke says it is already spending money to improve the environmental performance of its plants. On Friday, the company’s newly acquired Progress Energy subsidiary announced plans to close two coal-fired plants – one each in North and South Carolna – on Oct. 1.

Duke Energy spokeswoman Erin Culbert said Monday the utility – and recently acquired Progress Energy – are in the midst of a “pretty aggressive fleet modernization,” which includes retiring older coal plants and improving environmental controls on existing ones. Those changes should help reduce emisions, she said. She also provided a statement outlining Duke’s other efforts:

• We are in the midst of retiring about 5,400 megawatts of older coal generation by 2015, with more than 3,260 megawatts of that in the Carolinas.
• Duke Energy has invested $6 billion in recent years to upgrade our plants to meet current environmental regulations and expects to spend an additional $4.5 to $5 billion in the next decade to comply with upcoming regulations. These investments have significantly reduced the coal fleet’s sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and mercury emissions.
• These large capital projects necessary for a cleaner, more efficient generating fleet that meets customer demand with less fuel are precisely what recent rate increases fund. The irony is that the same organizations that urged us to improve the environmental performance of our plants are now protesting the investment necessary to do so.
• Duke Energy continues making significant investment in renewables, including $2.5 billion spent on our commercial wind projects since 2007. Even if Duke Energy were pursuing strictly wind or solar projects to meet customer demand, rate increases would still be necessary to fund the vast infrastructure needed to provide that amount of electricity.
• We continue to believe a diverse mix of generation is key to providing electricity to customers affordably, reliably and in increasingly clean ways.

The utility also provided a lengthy statement last week to Raleigh TV station WNCN, NBC-17, about flights over the Triangle, saying: “It’s ironic that the same group that urged Duke Energy to improve the environmental performance of its power plants is now protesting against the company for spending money to do exactly that. Duke Energy remains focused on providing affordable, reliable and increasingly clean energy to its customers.”

RELATED LINKS

Greenpeace’s full report, http://quitcoal.org/Duke-Solutions-Pathway

July 27, 2012, “Progress Energy Carolinas Announces Accelerated Plant Closings”

Duke Energy’s 2011-12 Sustainability Report, with information on steps the utility is taking to adopted “advanced energy technologies” and reduce its environmental footprint.

July 25, 2012, NBC17.com, Raleigh, “Airship sends message to Duke Energy above Raleigh,” including an extended statement from Duke Energy about the Greenpeace campaign.

by

Here’s the EPA announcement:

June 15, 2012

EPA Proposes Clean Air Standards for Harmful Soot Pollution

99 percent of U.S. counties projected to meet proposed standards without any additional actions

WASHINGTON – In response to a court order, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today proposed updates to its national air quality standards for harmful fine particle pollution, including soot (known as PM2.5). These microscopic particles can penetrate deep into the lungs and have been linked to a wide range of serious health effects, including premature death, heart attacks, and strokes, as well as acute bronchitis and aggravated asthma among children. A federal court ruling required EPA to update the standard based on best available science. Today’s proposal, which meets that requirement, builds on smart steps already taken by the EPA to slash dangerous pollution in communities across the country. Thanks to these steps, 99 percent of U.S. counties are projected to meet the proposed standard without any additional action.

EPA’s proposal would strengthen the annual health standard for harmful fine particle pollution (PM2.5) to a level within a range of 13 micrograms per cubic meter to 12 micrograms per cubic meter. The current annual standard is 15 micrograms per cubic meter. The proposed changes, which are consistent with the advice from the agency’s independent science advisors, are based on an extensive body of scientific evidence that includes thousands of studies – including many large studies which show negative health impacts at lower levels than previously understood. By proposing a range, the agency will collect input from the public as well as a number of stakeholders, including industry and public health groups, to help determine the most appropriate final standard to protect public health. It is important to note that the proposal has zero effect on the existing daily standard for fine particles or the existing daily standard for coarse particles (PM10), both of which would remain unchanged.

Thanks to recent Clean Air Act rules that have and will dramatically cut pollution, 99 percent of U.S. counties are projected to meet the proposed standards without undertaking any further actions to reduce emissions.

Meanwhile, because reductions in fine particle pollution have direct health benefits including decreased mortality rates, fewer incidents of heart attacks, strokes, and childhood asthma, these standards have major economic benefits with comparatively low costs. Depending on the final level of the standard, estimated benefits will range from $88 million a year, with estimated costs of implementation as low as $2.9 million, to $5.9 billion in annual benefits with a cost of $69 million – a return ranging from $30 to $86 for every dollar invested in pollution control. While EPA cannot consider costs in selecting a standard under the Clean Air Act, those costs are estimated as part of the careful analysis undertaken for all significant regulations, as required by Executive Order 13563 issued by President Obama in January 2011.

The Clean Air Act requires EPA to review its standards for particle pollution every five years to determine whether the standards should be revised. The law requires the agency to ensure the standards are “requisite to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety” and “requisite to protect the public welfare.” A federal court ordered EPA sign the proposed particle pollution standards by June 14, 2012, because the agency did not meet its five-year legal deadline for reviewing the standards.

EPA will accept public comment for 63 days after the proposed standards are published in the Federal Register. The agency will hold two public hearings; one in Sacramento, CA. and one in Philadelphia, PA. Details on the hearings will be announced shortly. EPA will issue the final standards by December 14, 2012.

RELATED LINKS

Map showing counties in attainment in 2020: http://epa.gov/pm/2012/map.pdf

More information: http://www.epa.gov/pm

by