Indiana Survey: Hoosiers Would Pull Plug on Duke Energy's Proposed Coal-Fired Power Plant in Edwardsport

Survey of 600 Indiana Adults Shows Strong Preference for Clean Energy, More Conservation & Energy-Efficiency; About 6 in 10 State Residents Would Be More Likely to Support Political Candidate Who Opposes Edwardsport Plant.

INDIANAPOLIS, IN., April 22, 2008 - Support in Indiana for plans by Duke Energy to build a dirty coal-fired power plant at Edwardsport is weak, according to a scientific survey of 600 state residents conducted by the Opinion Research Corporation (ORC) for the independent Civil Society Institute, a nonprofit and nonpartisan think tank located in Newton, MA.

The survey found that four out of five Indiana residents (80 percent) – 76 percent of Republicans, 85 percent of Democrats and 81 percent of Independents -- agree that “Indiana should focus on increased energy efficiency and conservation steps and more use of sustainable energy to reduce demand for electricity before it goes ahead with a new coal-fired power plant.” Fewer than one in four (18 percent) disagree.

Other key Indiana survey findings include:

• Three out of four Indiana residents (75 percent) would pick clean wind or solar energy if they “could decide where to invest money in new electric power generation for Indiana.” Fewer than one in five (16 percent) would pick nuclear and just 7 percent favor coal as the power source.

• About six out of 10 Indiana residents (58 percent) -– including an equal number of likely voters --would be more likely to vote for “a candidate for public office who spoke out against Duke Energy's planned coal-fired plant for Indiana.”This support for power plant opponent candidates includes majorities of Republicans (50 percent), Democrats (66 percent) and Independents (57 percent).

• Nearly three out of four Indiana residents (75 percent) would oppose “the building of another coal-fired power plant in Indiana if they knew it would result in additional mercury contamination and carbon dioxide pollution, which scientists believe contribute to global warming.” Over half (53 percent) of residents would strongly oppose such construction, which would be favored by only one in four state residents. Only 31 percent of Republicans, 16 percent of Democrats and 22 percent of Independents would support such construction.

Civil Society Institute Senior Fellow Gail Pressberg said: “Duke Energy clearly does not have the support of Hoosiers when it embraces a 19th Century solution like coal to deal with the challenges of a 21st Century world that requires clean energy solutions that create new jobs and cut global warming pollution. Indiana residents know that Jim Rogers is on the wrong track in relying on a dirty power source at the same time that more far-sighted utilities and the state governments that regulate them are canceling plans for coal-fired power plants.”

Grant Smith, executive director, Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Indianapolis, IN., said: “The public understands that going forward with construction of the Edwardsport coal gasification plant would be a financial disaster for ratepayers and an ecological travesty. It is simply unethical and irresponsible for Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers to pursue completion of the Edwardsport plant due to extravagant costs to ratepayers in these difficult economic times, the lack of any technology that can control carbon dioxide emissions, and the availability of cheaper, cleaner options that can easily meet electric demand in Duke’s monopoly territory and create many more jobs than a coal plant. The public just isn’t buying Rogers’ self-serving coal-now-and-forever spin.”

Other Survey Findings

Opinion Research Corporation Senior Researcher Graham Hueber said: “It is clear from the survey that Indiana residents are looking ahead to a future of cleaner energy. For example, nearly nine out of 10 Hoosiers (86 percent) agree with the following statement: ‘A national energy strategy based on a 'phasing in' of new technologies and a phasing out of carbon based energy sources would require specific actions. America should commit to a five-year moratorium on new coal-fired plants and, instead, focus on aggressive expansion of wind, solar and other renewable energy sources. Tax and other incentives should be provided for all new construction to help reduce energy consumption. Homeowners should get incentives to make their homes more energy efficient to help reduce energy demands.’”

Other key Civil Society Institute survey findings for Indiana include the following:

• Likely voters favor more conservation/energy efficiency over power plant construction by a margin of 79 percent to 19 percent.

• Four out of five Indiana residents (80 percent) say they are “concerned about the possible ill health effects -including asthma, heart problems and mental retardation in children --that could be experienced by you, your family members and others as the result of increased pollution from a new coal-fired power plant in Indiana.”Fewer than one in five state residents (19 percent) say they are not concerned by such health issues.

• About nine out of ten Indiana residents (84 percent) – including a bipartisan 80 percent of Republicans, 88 percent of Democrats and 87 percent of Independents -- agree with the following statement: "A sound energy policy is central to solving some of the most urgent problems facing our country. An energy policy that promotes energy efficiency and sustainable power would encourage innovation, create new green jobs and make for a stronger economy. It also allows the U.S. to disentangle itself from unstable and hostile regions of the world while also reducing harmful greenhouse gas emissions.“

• Roughly nine out of 10 Indiana residents (89 percent) “think it is time for the leaders of our nation to start thinking in terms of the concept of a ’new industrial revolution, ’one that is characterized by the orderly phasing out of fossil fuels and the phasing in of clean, renewable energy sources -many of which are available now, such as wind and solar for electricity, hybrid and clean diesel technologies for cars.”

• Over four out of five Indiana residents (81 percent) agree that “the effects of global warming require that we take timely and decisive steps for renewable, safe and clean energy sources. We need transitional technologies on our path to energy independence. There are tough choices to be made and tradeoffs. We cannot afford to postpone decisions since there are no perfect options."

• Over four-fifths of Indiana residents (83 percent) have little (15 percent) or no (68 percent) awareness of “plans by Duke Energy to build a new coal-fired power plant at Edwardsport in Indiana.” Only 17 percent say they are aware, with just 4 percent “very aware.”

For full findings from the new survey, go to http://www.citact.org/pdfs/Indiana_Coal_Survey_04-08.pdf.

Survey Methodology

Results are based on an Opinion Research Corporation survey for the Civil Society Institute consisting of telephone interviews conducted among a representative sample of 602 adults age 18 and over, living in private households, in the state of Indiana. Interviewing was completed during the period of April 4-7, 2008. All completed interviews were weighted by two variables: age and gender, to ensure reliable and accurate representation of the adult population. The margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points for the sample of 602 adults. Smaller sub-groups will have larger error margins.

About the Civil Society Institute

The nonprofit and nonpartisan Civil Society Institute (http://www.CivilSocietyInstitute.org) is a Newton, Massachusetts-based think tank that serves as a catalyst for change by creating problem-solving interactions among people, and between communities, government and business that can help to improve society. Since 2003, CSI has conducted more than 15 major national and state-level surveys on energy and global warming issues. The Civil Society Institute also is a of the Citizens Lead for Energy Action Now (CLEAN) campaign at http://www.cleanenergyaction.net. CSI is the organizer of both 40MPG.org (http://www.40MPG.org) and the Hybrid Owners of America (http://www.HybridOwnersofAmerica.org).

Contact: Ailis Aaron Wolf, (703) 276-3265 or aawolf@hastingsgroup.com.

Editor's Note: A streaming audio replay of the news event will be available on the Web at http://www.hastingsgroupmedia.com/CSI/042208INDukesurvey.wma.

Citizens Action Coalition / NC WARN: North Carolina Waste Awareness & Reduction Network

NEWS RELEASE

Climate Expert Says Energy Chiefs Have Stolen Big Tobacco’s Playbook

New study says carbon levels are already too high; NASA’s Hansen urges Duke Energy’s Rogers to cancel coal-fired plants and help avoid disaster

Durham, NC – The nation’s leading climate change scientist has called on a top greenhouse polluter to cancel construction of power plants in North Carolina and Indiana, to meet with him this spring, and turn hard toward energy efficiency to help avert climate disaster. New research by NASA’s Dr. James Hansen shows that atmospheric carbon levels are already 10% higher than the level required to maintain the climate to which humanity and wildlife are adapted, and that major reductions are urgently needed.

Today Dr. Hansen released publicly a letter he sent to Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers last Thursday as “a plea for cooperation and leadership.” He noted that Rogers is uniquely positioned to influence the energy industry, and seems to “comprehend the gravity of the problems we face.” But he also urged the CEO to reconsider actions that fly in the face of his public statements of concern about climate change: “…your suggestion that new, more efficient coal-fired power plants, which do not capture CO2, can be part of a solution ignores the basic facts and urgency of terminating coal emissions.”

Hansen told the nationally prominent utility boss that promotions of “cleaner” coal plants are false “solutions” that parallel the path taken by Big Tobacco when it first became clear that smoking caused serious health problems. He wrote, “Unfortunately, although the public will ultimately hold polluters accountable, it will not necessarily be soon enough or have enough impact to prevent environmental and human disasters. It may drag out as in the tobacco case, but with much more serious consequences.”

Sending Rogers the new study, “Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?” Hansen told him: “The Earth is nearing climate ‘tipping points’ with potential effects, many irreversible, including extermination of countless species, ice sheet disintegration and sea-level rise, and intensified regional climate extremes. A world filled with desperate climate refugees, we are warned by retired US generals and admirals, would be not only tragic, but dangerous for everyone.”

The NASA scientist – widely seen as one of the world’s leading experts on global warming – also mailed his letter and study to the governors of Indiana and North Carolina, and to each of the Charlotte-based power giant’s board members. He warned of increasing financial and legal liability for energy suppliers, citing both the tobacco industry and a new suit by the Inuit village of Kivalina against EXXON/Mobil, Duke Energy, and others “who bear special responsibility for the emissions that drive climate change.”

In the summary to the new study, Hansen and his co-authors wrote: “Continued growth of greenhouse gas emissions, for even another decade, practically eliminates the possibility of near-term return of atmospheric composition beneath the tipping level for catastrophic effects. …

“If we stay our present course … we will soon leave the climate of the Holocene, the world of recorded history. … With simultaneous policies to reduce non-CO2 greenhouse gases, it appears still feasible to avert catastrophic climate change. …

“The most difficult task, phase-out over the next 20-25 years of coal use that does not capture CO2, is herculean, yet feasible when compared with the efforts that went into World War II … Near-term energy needs can be met with massive but feasible conservation and efficiency programs, cogeneration, solar, wind, and biomass generation. … The stakes, for all life on the planet, surpass those of any previous crisis. The greatest danger is continued ignorance and denial, which could make tragic consequences unavoidable.”

Hansen urged Rogers not to “leave a legacy that you will regret,” and to help arrange a day-long meeting this spring at Columbia University with the nation’s top energy experts for “a realistic assessment of potential and timelines, with quantitative assessment of climate implications and identification of practical constraints.”

Citizen coalitions in North Carolina, Indiana and other Duke Energy states recently joined forces, saying they will amplify their challenge of Jim Rogers’ contradictions and block his coal-fired plants. They also intend to expose his “Save-a-Watt” plan – proposed in several states – as a highly deceptive and hyper-profitable scheme that would inhibit the transition to clean, efficient energy.

“As of today, Duke Energy’s board is on direct notice,” said Grant Smith, Executive Director of Citizen Action Coalition of Indiana, speaking of Hansen’s letter. “They will no longer be able to plead ignorance about the risky path that Jim Rogers has plotted for the corporation.”

###

See Dr. Hansen’s letter to Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers:
http://www.ncwarn.org/Programs/NewCoalPlants/DrHansenLtrToJimRogers3-24-08.pdf

See the full study, ­­­Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf

See the one-page summary of Dr. Hansen’s new study:
http://www.ncwarn.org/Programs/NewCoalPlants/TargetAtmosphericCO2Summary.pdf

CAC is a statewide consumer advocacy organization of 70,000 members that has represented Hoosier households on utility and energy issues since 1976.

NC WARN is a grassroots non-profit using science and activism to tackle climate change and reduce hazards to public health and the environment from nuclear power and other polluting electricity production, and working for a transition to safe, economical energy in North Carolina.

Pursuing new power plants is squandering our chances to slow global warming.

Jim Warren, Executive Director
NC WARN
North Carolina Waste Awareness & Reduction Network
Ph: 919-416-5077
Fax: 919-286-3985
PO Box 61051
Durham, NC 27715-1051
Email: Jim@ncwarn.org
Web: www.ncwarn.org

Sierra Club

NEWS RELEASE

Sierra Club Challenges Duke Energy’s Emissions Scheme - Pollution Limits on New Coal Plant Artificially Inflated

The Sierra Club today took steps to hold Duke Energy accountable for failing to install modern pollution controls at its aging coal-fired power plant in Edwardsport, Indiana, and trying to skirt stringent pollution limits on its new coal power plant proposal. Specifically Sierra Club filed a citizen enforcement action in federal court in Indiana seeking an order prohibiting Duke’s illegal pollution.

Sierra Club took particular aim at Duke’s CEO, Jim Rogers, who has been vocal about the need to curb pollution, but has consistently refused to commit his company to any meaningful action. In fact in this case, Duke is using its past pollution violations to try and skirt stringent emissions requirements for its new coal-fired power plant. Duke is proposing massive new coal plants in Indiana and North Carolina that would dramatically increase emissions of global warming pollution.

“Duke’s actions don’t match the company’s green rhetoric,” said Bill Hayden, Chair of the Sierra Club’s Hoosier Chapter Executive Committee. “Duke’s failure to install modern pollution controls and lead on global warming shows that the company is not serious about cleaning up its act.”

Under the Clean Air Act, coal-fired power plants are required to upgrade their pollution controls when they undertake major modifications. Over the past two decades Duke has modified its existing Edwardsport coal plant several times, investing millions of dollars in upgrades. However, the company failed to also upgrade its pollution controls to use the best available technology, resulting in unlawfully high levels of pollution.

“Duke should not be allowed to benefit from breaking the law—especially at the cost of our air and our health,” said Hayden. “Indiana already gets more than ninety percent of its electricity from coal and Duke is leading the charge to increases Indiana’s over reliance on coal to the exclusion of clean energy alternatives.”

Pollution from coal-fired power plants can trigger heart attacks and strokes, worsen asthma, and even lead to premature death. In fact, each year in the U.S. 24,000 lives are cut short by pollution from coal-fired power plants.

“We owe it to our children to move beyond coal and invest in smarter, cleaner, healthier energy options,” said the Hoosier Chapter’s Executive Committee Chair.

###

Across the country the Sierra Club’s coal campaign is fighting to stop destructive mining practices and the construction of dirty new coal plants and direct the proposed investments into energy efficiency, renewable resources and other clean alternatives.

To view the Federal Duke Air Permit Complaint Filing, follow this link: http://www.citact.org/pdfs/Federal_Duke_Air_Permit_Complaint_Filing_04-08.pdf

*Note: Citizens Action Coalition is not listed as a plaintiff on this filing. We have joined Sierra Club on the State appeal of Duke's air permit, but not on the Federal appeal. We continue to work closely with the Sierra Club to stop this coal-fired power plant from being built in Edwardsport, IN.

Dr. James E. Hansen, Ph.D. heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City. He is also currently an adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University. Hansen is best known for his research in the field of climatology and his testimony on climate change to congressional committees in the 1980s that helped raise broad awareness of the global warming issue. He is also noted for publishing "an alternative scenario" for global warming which states that in the past few decades the warming effect produced by increased CO2 has been largely offset by the cooling effect of aerosols also produced in burning fossil fuels, and that most of the net warming so far is due to trace greenhouse gases other than CO2. He has been a critic of both the Clinton and current Bush Administration's stances on climate change.

More recently, Dr. Hansen has become involved with our fight to stop Duke Energy from building more coal-fired power plants, both in North Carolina and in Indiana. Below is his commentary as well as his letter to Jim Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy.

To view this commentary in PDF format, follow this link: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20080331_DarthVader.pdf.

Mr. Rogers and Darth Vader

The captains of industry, perhaps more than anyone else, have the ability to solve the global warming problem, so they deserve attention. But different strategies are needed for a Mr. Rogers or a Darth Vader. Some may argue that Mr. Rogers, $28M/year chairman of Duke Energy, is just another executive focused on short-term profits, with any concern for his children and grandchildren directed toward their portfolios rather than the world they will inherit.

I have a different impression. Mr. Rogers attended a talk on climate change that I gave in North Carolina. That doesn’t prove much. And the words in Duke newspaper ads [“Cliffside (coal-fired power plant) – Good for the Environment and North Carolina”] have the same ring as those of celebs and other well-to-dos who purchase “carbon offsets” to “balance” their carbon emissions. Mr. Rogers, in using the rationale that new coal plants are more efficient than old ones, is misguided, but he does not deserve the enmity that Darth Vader has earned.

[The problem, in the thinking of both celebs and Mr. Rogers, is failure to recognize that burning fossil fuels adds CO2 to the air that we cannot practically get back. A large fraction of the elevated CO2 will remain for many centuries. Potential offset by growing trees is limited and that drawdown potential will be needed to reduce airborne CO2 back beneath the dangerous level, to avert centuries-long overshoot of the dangerous CO2 level (http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080317.pdf). We simply cannot put the CO2 from most of the remaining fossil fuels into the air. Most of the remaining coal must be left in the ground or used with CO2 capture and storage. It does not help to burn the coal more efficiently or more slowly; because of the long lifetime of the airborne CO2.]

Last week I sent the following letter to Mr. Rogers:

March 25, 2008
To: Mr. James E. Rogers, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Duke Energy
From: Jim Hansen, Columbia University Earth Institute
Subject: A Plea for Cooperation and Leadership

Dear Mr. Rogers,

I was glad to see you attend my talk on climate change in Charlotte last November. I write to inform you of progress in understanding of human-made climate change and the challenge it poses for those, such as yourself, who are charged with providing the public with essential energy. I know you aim to do that in a way that protects the long-term interests of people and nature, so I end with a proposal for cooperation in defining potential alternative actions.

Mr. Rogers, the challenge is greater than we thought just a few years ago. The attached paper, “Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?,” for example, makes clear that we have already passed the limit for CO2 that we can allow to exist over the long-term. Mother Nature, as a friend of mine has noted, is wagging her finger at us: “Now you have gone too far!”

Consequences of ignoring this admonishment would be severe. The Earth is nearing climate “tipping points” with potential effects, many irreversible, including extermination of countless species, ice sheet disintegration and sea-level rise, and intensified regional climate extremes. A world filled with desperate climate refugees, we are warned by retired US generals and admirals, would be not only tragic, but dangerous for everyone.

One implication for electricity generation is crystal clear from basic fossil fuel facts (enclosure). Coal is the source of 50% of fossil fuel CO2 in the air today, and, because of vast coal reserves, coal is the dominant issue for the long run. It is not rocket science. To maintain a safe planet, coal can be used in coming decades only if CO2 is captured and sequestered. Coal-fired power plants built now without CO2 sequestration will soon have to be shut down. They are a terrible, foreseeable waste of money. It would be a tragic mistake for Duke to proceed with plans for new coal-fired power plants in Cliffside, North Carolina, and Edwardsport, Indiana.

Your public statements recognize the climate problem and indicate a desire to do what is right for the environment, the young generation, and your rate-payers. However, your suggestion that new, more efficient coal-fired power plants, which do not capture CO2, can be part of a solution ignores the basic facts and urgency of terminating coal emissions. Dirty, inefficient coal plants must be replaced to avoid climate disasters, but only by choosing options from energy efficiency, renewable energies, nuclear power, and coal plants that capture all emissions, including CO2. Near-term demands for energy can be satisfied via a real emphasis on energy efficiency and renewable energies. Neither carbon sequestration nor nuclear power can help in the near-term, and they both have serious issues even over the longer term. But Massachusetts and California have demonstrated the tremendous potential of efficiency aided by appropriate incentives.

Plans for over 50 coal-fired power plants nationwide have been dropped in recent months due to rising construction and coal prices, unpredictable carbon costs, and concerns about climate change. Near-term energy needs can be met with massive but feasible conservation and efficiency programs, cogeneration, solar, wind, and biomass generation. Diversifying generation has other benefits -- creating jobs, conserving water, and minimizing the possibility of terrorist acts against the grid, about which former CIA Director James Woolsey recently warned the National Governors’ Association.

Recently I testified as climate expert in suits filed by the automobile manufacturers against vehicle greenhouse gas regulations in California and Vermont. The manufacturers lost both cases, and they are going to be scrambling to improve vehicle efficiency. As you know, another suit has been filed, on behalf of the Inuit of Kivalina, against EXXON/Mobile, Duke Energy, and others who bear special responsibility for the emissions that drive climate change.

It appears that energy industry leaders may be choosing a path analogous to that taken by Big Tobacco when it first became clear that smoking caused serious health problems. Tobacco companies manufactured and magnified public doubt about scientific evidence; they masqueraded PR as news and expert opinion; they emphasized maintaining “balance” in a “controversy”, and they supported doctors and scientists who disputed the evidence, thus proclaiming concern about discovering the truth while actually suppressing it.

Big Tobacco’s playbook proved a great “success”. Tobacco profits were so great that court settlements could be paid with hardly a blip on stock values. Can it be any wonder that Big Coal and Big Oil have stolen Big Tobacco’s playbook?

Mr. Rogers, as a leader in the Electric Power industry, your decisions will affect not only energy bills faced by your customers, but the future planet that your children and grandchildren inherit. If you insist that new coal plants are essential for near-term power needs, you may submit your company and your customers to grave financial risk, and leave a legacy that you will regret.

Scientific evidence of human-made climate change has crystallized, and it has become clear that continued emissions carry great danger. These facts fundamentally change liabilities. And liabilities will be increased by any “success” of industry efforts to confuse the public about the reality and likely consequences of human-caused climate change and to promote false “solutions” such as new “cleaner” coal plants.

Surely the number of people pressing these legal cases will grow, and they will be inexorable in pursuing justice. And assuredly, in the long run, the energy companies will lose the legal battles. Unfortunately, although the public will ultimately hold polluters accountable, it will not necessarily be soon enough or have enough impact to prevent environmental and human disasters. It may drag out as in the tobacco case, but with much more serious consequences.

Mr. Rogers, this is a path that, for the sake of our children and grandchildren, we cannot follow. Enlightened leadership is desperately needed in planning our energy future. As a captain of industry, you can help inspire this country and the world to take the bold actions that are essential if we are to retain a hospitable climate and a prosperous future. I am reaching out to you, Mr. Rogers, because you are uniquely positioned to influence others in your industry, and because your statements suggest that you comprehend the gravity of the problems we face.

I suggest that, to assist your considerations, we have a one-day discussion with top experts in the country in energy efficiency, renewable energies, clean coal with carbon capture, and nuclear power. The aim would be a realistic assessment of potential and timelines, with quantitative assessment of climate implications and identification of practical constraints. I can arrange a meeting here, at Columbia University, and would seek your advice on participants. Because these matters are urgent, I propose that we meet within the next 2-3 months. Would you please call me at 212-678-5500 at your convenience to discuss your availability for a meeting?

Sincerely,
James Hansen
cc: Duke Energy Board of Directors
Governor Michael Easley
Governor Mitch Daniels

The latter part of my letter emphasizes the stick that the public interest has, one of the few strategies that may affect Darth Vader. One of the dirty tricks of Darth Vader is an ad placed in the lower right hand corner of the New York Times op-ed page. A recent one, “the fuels of the future”, states, as a fact, backed by the authoritative International Energy Agency and the U.S. Energy Information Agency, that renewable energies such as wind, solar power and biofuels, will satisfy only 2 percent of global energy needs in 2030. One wonders how they can be so definitive when, as one example, a fraction of Nevada deserts is sufficient to provide all U.S. electrical power via existing solar thermal technology.

No doubt the people in IEA and EIA are good honest people, but they operate within guidelines of their masters, and their government masters are well-oiled. Interbreeding of the fossil fuel industry and government is pervasive [the principal activity of one well-oiled senator has become periodic fulminations about the greatest hoax (global warming) ever perpetrated on the American public, via an active public affairs office that is probably funded with your tax dollars]. The ExxonMobil ad (“Energy 2030: part 4) goes on to imply that by 2030 we will be heavily exploiting “frontier” fossil fuels (they mention shale oil and heavy oil). One wonders if they really believe the inflated reserve estimates for remaining conventional fossil fuels, or if they find the inflated estimates a convenient fiction that helps ensure that the public will not recognize the need to move soon to the energy world beyond fossil fuels.

The ExxonMobil ad is instructive because it shows that, although the voice behind the black hood has changed, a Neanderthal voice replaced by a more mellifluous one, actual policies and strategies have not changed one iota. Their intent is for the public to remain as their slavish addicts, hooked on fossil fuels. They are not investing their huge resources into becoming a (clean) energy company (can you imagine, if they would, that we would be unable to exploit Nevada sun by 2030?).

Our Founding Fathers were remarkable in foreseeing the need to protect ourselves against some of the less attractive traits of human nature. Among the checks and balances, the third branch of government, the judiciary, is furthest removed from the influence of the special interests. Darth Vader may laugh off the arrow from the Inuit of Kivalina, aimed at them and others in the fossil fuel industry, but the Inuit suit is only the beginning of a growing fusillade.

As a conservative, I tend to agree with Europeans in their distaste for punitive damages in civil suits. But as companies continue to ignore reality, and to intentionally deceive the public, large punitive damages seem appropriate. Justice is important and it may have a good effect. Settlements against cigarette companies, for causing cancer and misleading the public, were inadequate, hardly affecting their stock prices. Similarities in the fossil fuel case are striking – did you catch the sheepish admission of contrarian Fred Singer when asked whether he was ever paid by fossil fuel industry? It went something like this: well, I did once receive a check in the mail for $10,000 from ExxonMobil that I didn’t quite understand. I wonder if he cashed it?

There are a large number of defendants in the Kivalina case. The hope is that the captains of industry will include some who are more of the ilk that I am crediting Mr. Rogers. Others have argued that I am giving too much credit, but I think our best hope is to find some captains who are able to understand the requirement for a real change of direction, and we should encourage that. The captains are some of the most capable people that we have, and we need their abilities – not many of us want to go back to the boondocks. The tipping point will occur when enough of the captains peel off, onto another course. I know, it is claimed that many already are, but look at the numbers (emissions, for example) – the change so far is minuscule. The government needs to contribute by providing incentives, so we can’t give up on the elected branches of government – and there is an election on the horizon.

In the meantime, back on the ranch, the most useful thing that most of the public can do to save the planet is to take actions to block construction of new coal-fired power plants. It is also important to be sure that fossil fuel mining is prevented in national parks, off-shore regions under state influence, any place where the public has influence and can help assure that fossil fuels are left in the ground.

You also might buy a single share of stock in the evil empire and make some noise at a stockholders meeting. Who knows, if Darth Vader is continually whacked on the side of his helmet with a two-by-four, hard enough, he may eventually realize that there are other forms of energy besides fossil fuels.

Jim

The following are letters to the Office of Utility Consumer Counselor (OUCC) written by State Representatives Matt Pierce, Dennis Avery, and Phil Hoy in opposition to Duke's proposed "clean coal" coal-gasification (IGCC) power plant.

You can download the PDF of the following letter by Representative Matt Pierce by clicking here.

July 6, 2007

Ms. Susan L. Macy
Indiana Utility Consumer Counselor
100 N. Senate Avenue, Room N-501
Indianapolis, IN 46204

Re: Docket 43114

Dear Ms. Macy:

I am writing to express my concern about Duke Energy's proposed integrated coal gasification combined cycle electric generating facility. As proposed, the power plant will significantly increase the cost of electricity and the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere at the very moment global climate change has been recognized as the major threat to our environment. Because promoting energy efficiency and renewable forms of energy is a less expensive alternative to meet Indiana's future energy needs, the coal gasification plant does not satisfy the General Assembly's requirement that the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) only approve proposals that are "reasonable and necessary."

It is particulary unfair for consumers to shoulder all of the risk while Duke Energy (perhaps along with Vectren) reaps all of the rewards. As I understand it, Duke wishes to have its customers pay for the studies and plans necessary even to consider building the plant, then pay for the plant while it is being constructed although not a single watt of electricity will have been yet generated, continue to pay for electricity from the plant even if there are lower cost alternatives, and, finally, add additional profit through an "incentive" return on equity. Duke seeks this indemnification from harm for a technology that may not prove economically or environmentally viable.

While the plant will result in some reduced emissions, running it at a higher capacity than the existing plant will cause signifcant net increases in other pollutants such as lead and add to the problem of global climate change by releasing more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Even if the plant could reduce all other pollutants to zero, its large release of carbon emissions will directly thwart any efforts to meet carbon reduction targets. Ratepayers will likely suffer another round of cost increases when anticipated new federal carbon emission regulations force Duke to implement some kind of carbon sequestration technology or purchase carbon credits under a "cap and trade" system.

Proponents of the new power plant make much of Senate Bill 29 that was adopted by the General Assembly in 2002. It is true legislation was passed with the hope that a way could be found to burn Indiana coal cleanly and economically. However, it was not meant to be a blank check. The General Assembly directed the IURC to approve proposals only if the costs are "reasonable and necessary." This proposal meets neither standard.

First, the estimated 13% cost increase to consumers for the new facility is not reasonalbe when other less expensive alternatives are available. Second, constructing the plant is not necessary to meet the state's future energy needs.

There is a better way to meet Indiana's future energy needs that avoids environmetnal problems and huge rate increases for consumers. Promoting renewable forms of energy, distributed power and energy efficiency can do more tokeep Indiana electricity affordable and protect our environment. Senate Bill 29 specifically notes the importance of renewable forms of energy in IC 8-1-8.8-1(a)(2).

(2) The development of a robust and diverse portfolio of energy generating capacity, including the use of renewable energy resources, is needed if Indiana is to continue to be successful in attracting new businesses and jobs. [emphasis added]

For these reasons, I urge your office to do all that it can to protect the interests of consumers and ensure the IURC adheres to the General Assembly's mandate to approve only projects that are "reasonable and necessary."

Sincerely,

Matt Pierce
State Representative

cc: IURC Commissioners

You can download the PDF of the following letter by Representative Dennis Avery by clicking here.

May 22, 2007

Ms. Susan L. Macey
Indiana Utility Consumer Counselor
N501 Indiana Government Center North
100 North Senate Avenue
Indianapolis , IN 46204

Dear Ms. Macey:

As an Indiana state representative serving a substantial portion of Vectren's service territory, I am concerned about the environmental and rate impacts of their proposal to join with Duke Energy to construct a new coal fired plant at Edwardsport. Your office just settled gas and electricity rate cases from Vectren that will almost certainly cause economic stress for many of my constituents. The issuance of a Certificate of Need for additional capacity without first demanding substantial increases in efficiency, conservation, and maximum use of renewable energy, at both the production and consumption levels, seems shortsighted and premature.

This is especially important at a time when we very well could see substantial increases in the price we pay for electricity once Congress passes imminent legislation to constrain the emission of carbon dioxide. When that happens, Indiana 's reliance on coal as its main energy source could drive our electric rates to even higher levels.

I am especially concerned since rumors abound that much of Vectren's portion of this plant is actually intended for off system sales. Indiana already exports much of its energy production and ranks third in the nation in the production of electricity per capita at more than 20 megawatt hours per person per year.

Specifically, I would like for your office to give very serious consideration and scrutiny to particular issues relating to this matter.

First, I ask that you pay particular attention to the ratepayer impacts the construction of the plant will have on my constituents, using well qualified experts to analyze those impacts using true cost estimates of what these plants are costing in other areas of the country.

Second, I ask that you find out just how much electricity is already exported out of state and being sold at wholesale prices while my constituents are forced to pay retail prices and pay for the construction of power plants that may not be needed.

Third, I would ask that you compel both Duke and Vectren to create bigger and better efficiency programs that could eliminate the need for this or other coal fired power plant construction in Indiana.

Fourth, I would ask that you require options for renewable energy, particularly wind, be pursued in light of the serious carbon constraints that we will face in the future.

Last, I would ask that you demand Duke and Vectren hire a reputable firm to study the “total” cost attributable to coal fired electricity production in Indiana . For too long, Hoosiers have been subsidizing the “cheap” electrical rates we have in this state with ill health and contaminated air and water.

Until these “externalized costs” are recognized as costs, reasonable consumers cannot make sound decisions as to the kind of electrical use and forms of production which make the most sense.

Please keep me posted regarding the progress in this case. I would also hope that prior to any issuance of the Certificate of Need there will be opportunity for the public in Southwestern Indiana to be heard as part of the record of this case. Such a hearing is vital to the democratic process since it is clear this plant will have significant impact on this region should it be allowed to move forward.

I will be very grateful for your consideration of my comments.

Sincerely,

Dennis T. Avery
State Representative

You can download the PDF of the following letter by Representative Phil Hoy to the Office of Utility Consumer Counselor by clicking here.

June 5, 2007

Ms. Susan L. Macey
Indiana Utility Consumer Counselor
100 N. Senate Avenue, Room N-501
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2215

Dear Ms. Macey:

I am writing to convey my concern – and the concern of the Indiana residents (and Vectren Energy customers) I represent – about plans for a new coal-fired electric generating plant at Edwardsport, Indiana.

Many of my constituents already are facing financial hardship because of Vectren rate increases. The proposal by Vectren and Duke Energy can only exacerbate that hardship. In the last year, construction estimates for the plant have nearly doubled, and it is my understanding that current estimates do not include other factors such as carbon capture and sequestration that could increase the cost of the plant by 50 percent or more.

Before a Certificate of Need is granted, I respectfully request that you thoroughly investigate all of the ramifications of allowing this proposal to go forward. The citizens of Indiana are entitled to answers to the following questions:

• What financial impact will the construction of the plant have on our region’s consumers? What has been the cost of such plants in other areas of the country?
• Is it true that much of the electricity generated at the new plant will be exported to other states? How much electricity is now being exported out of state at lower prices than those paid by Indiana taxpayers, while our citizens pay the additional health costs of living in a state that is already third in the nation in the production of electricity per capita?
• Isn’t it past time to demand renewable energy options, as well as more efficient programs from Vectren and Duke Energy – programs that could eliminate the need for more coal plant construction in Indiana?

Finally, before a Certificate of Need is issued, I ask that you, as the advocate for Indiana utility consumers, insist upon a public hearing – giving the citizens of Southwestern Indiana a voice in a decision that will affect them the most.

As this case moves forward, I would welcome your thoughts and any other information you could share. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Phil Hoy, Indiana State Representative, District 77