Quotes by Duke in testimony regarding IGCC plant at IURC

Body: 

These quotes are from testimony filed by Duke before the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (Cause #43114).

Several documents have been entered into testimony before the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission. The quotes below were taken from a variety of those documents. You can access these documents by going to the IURC website. Just enter the cause number in the first search box and then click "Search" at the bottom of the page.

The following quotes show the contradictions that Duke and the other proponents of coal gasification technology (IGCC) make when presenting their case to decision makers.

Both the Clean Air Task Force (CATF) and Duke praise the potential of IGCC, calling it "clean coal" technology, for it's reduced environmental impact:

“First, because the IGCC technology proposed for the project offers significant environmental benefits and advantages.”
   --John Thompson (CATF) testimony page 5 lines 10-11

“[T]he IGCC option is especially attractive because it has so much potential for both near- and long-term cost-effectiveness while being an environmentally responsible choice.”
   --Jim Rogers (Duke CEO) testimony page 6 lines 13-14

Jim Rogers continues and points out the following:

“Currently, the 160 MW Edwardsport plant runs less than 30% of the time and in an average year emits approximately 10,000 tons of SOz, NOx and particulates. Even running 100% of the time, the proposed approximately 630 MW IGCC Project would emit about 2,900 tons of these pollutants annually.”
   --Jim Rogers's (Duke CEO) testimony page 6 lines 20-23

It's curious Mr Roger's would include particulates in his praise of IGCC when their data shows the following:

“Particulate Matter (PMlo)- an increase of 398.3 tons year from the proposed project;”
   --from Significant Source Modification Application (SSMA) Proposed IGCC Project - Duke's Edwardsport, Indiana Power Plant page 4

Duke's SSMA data also points out, that in addition to increase in particulate matter, significant increases in Volatile Organic Compounds, Lead, and Beryllium; It should be noted that:

  1. The effects of inhaling particulate matter has been widely studied in humans and animals and include asthma, lung cancer, cardiovascular issues, and premature death.
  2. Lead is a poisonous metal that can damage nervous connections (especially in young children) and cause blood and brain disorders. Long term exposure to lead or its salts can cause nephropathy and colic-like abdominal pains.
  3. Beryllium and its salts are toxic substances and potentially carcinogenic. Chronic berylliosis is a pulmonary and systemic granulomatous disease caused by exposure to beryllium.
  4. VOCs are sometimes accidentally released into the environment where they can damage soil and contaminate groundwater. Vapours of VOCs escaping into the air contribute to air pollution. VOCs are an important outdoor air pollutant.

Before the North Carolina Utilities Commission Judah Rose (expert witness for Duke) stated:

“Capital investment costs for new power plants have been increasing significantly. For example: Coal Power Plants – Actual coal power plant capital costs as reported by coal plants already under construction exceed government estimates of capital costs by a wide margin (i.e., 35 to 40 percent). Additionally, current announced power plants appear to face another increase in costs (i.e., approximately 40 percent additional).”
   --testimony page 6 lines 3-9

“There are two principal reasons why power plant cost increases have greatly exceeded general economy-wide inflation. First, input costs have risen, and second, demand for plants is straining supply.”
   --testimony pg 7 lines 7-9

“The primary categories of input cost impacting the capital cost of new plant construction are steel costs and labor costs.”
   --testimony pg 7 lines 11-12

“The dramatic increase in demand for new coal power plants is straining the ability of power plant suppliers to meet demand.”
   --testimony pg 9 line 13

“There is also a boom in expected coal plant construction internationally.”
   --testimony pg 8 lines 8-9

Yet before the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission one year later, Judah Rose claims:

“My Direct Testimony did not fully anticipate two key developments: (1) significant cost increases in underlying inputs into new power plants, especially for steel and concrete, and (2) the increases in the costs of new power plants due to recent increased demand in the U.S. and internationally for new coal power plants.”
   --Judah Rose (expert witness for Duke) rebuttal pg 3 lines 9-10

The OUCC recognizes Duke's need for increased capacity; however they make the following statement:

“The OUCC believes that no Indiana utilities have pursued demand side options as aggressively as they should.”
   --Soller (Director of the Electric Division of the Office of Utility Consumer Counselor) testimony page 13 lines 9-10

The CATF/IWF laud IGCC technology for it's reduced environmental impact, particularly Mercury removal. They call it "clean coal" technology, however, they point out the following:

“In practice, the plant may achieve 98% mercury removal or higher. One challenge is verification. It is very hard to confirm this level of mercury removal with today's analytical methods.”
   --John Thompson (Director of Coal Transition Project for the Clean Air Task Force) testimony pg 7 lines 3-5

The following quotes are by Jim Rogers, President and CEO of Duke Energy:

“Many scientists believe that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are influencing the earth's climate, and momentum is building that steps should be taken now to reduce these emissions. Duke Energy shares that view.”
   --pg 15 lines 3-5

(CAC comment: Then why build a plant that will significantly increase greenhouse gases?)

 

“I strongly believe that the energy industry needs to help shape the future of carbon regulation. Duke Energy is committed to being a leader in this area.”
   --pg 15 lines 19-21

(CAC comment: Increasing emissions is being a leader?)

 

“Duke Energy, certain other utilities, and companies in many other industries are proactively taking steps to control and report on greenhouse gas emissions.”
   --pg 17 lines 3-4

(CAC comment: And those steps would be?)

 

These quotes are from testimony by Duke before the North Carolina Utilities Commission during hearings determining whether or not Duke should be allowed to build two new 800 megawatt coal-fired power plants in N.C. (Click here to download the full testimony in PDF format.)

The following quotes are by Jim Rogers, President and CEO of Duke Energy:

“And so I'm sitting here today saying we need to build coal plants. We need to make sure they're grandfathered. We need to make sure we get the allowances that we have today with our low rates in terms of attracting investments.

"So I feel very strongly about this issue and I'm going to be very involved in mobilizing all the political support I can in the southeast and the mid-west to make sure we get fair allocations as we did with SO2 and NOx."
   --pg 336 lines 2-13

(CAC comment: Need we say more?)

 

“This investment (Cliffside) is more than reasonable given the substantial uncertainties that surround nuclear construction and future pricing of natural gas.”
   --pg 169 lines 23-24, pg 170 lines 1-2

(CAC comment: This quote highlights Duke's unwillingness to give renewables or efficiency any real consideration.)

 

“We've got to figure out how to do carbon sequestration and that's 15 years off in terms of commercialization.”
   --pg 203 lines 2-4

“…the only options I have are energy efficiency and coal. And the reality is, I've got to stand and deliver in 11 and 12 and thereafter and I need to make sure I have the capability to do that. I only have a limited number of tools to use. And when I look at the risk – I mean, every fuel, every technology has got a strength and a weakness. And when I assess all of these, it really – what drives me back to having a portfolio and not putting all eggs in a nuclear basket and not putting all my eggs in energy efficiency, or gas, or coal. It's having a blend.”
   --pg 255 lines 11-2

(CAC comment: Where's the renewable basket?)

 

Speaking of lobbying Washington to grandfather the proposed plants in N.C.:

“I think it gets grandfathered because it's perceived by the government as we perceive it, as a clean coal plant. And so I think IGCC might get a pass.”
   --pg 261 lines 7-11

During a discussion about a New York Times article published 1/19/2007 entitled “A Coalition for Firm Limits on Emissions,” the testimony refers to a quote by Rogers stating his resolution “to strongly discourage further construction of stationary sources that cannot easily capture carbon dioxide.”
   --pg 271-273

“[T]here is no commercially available technology today for IGCC. And there's none for pulverized coal.”
   --pg 275 lines 10-11

The following quotes are by Judah Rose, expert witness for Duke Energy:

[T]here is a significant possibility the CO2 emission controls will be federally mandated sometime in the future. … [C]oal power plants emit more CO2 per MWh of electricity produced, and no technology exists in the power industry to control CO2 emissions from coal power plants…”
   --pg 26 lines 9-12

“I've been disappointed at the extent to which there has been a cost increase in IGCC.”
   --pg 87 lines 8-10

“We're talking about technology that's never been scaled up before”
   --pg 87 lines 18-19

“I don't see major extraction sequestration in the foreseeable future, you know for the next 20 years or so. That's not our firm's forecast because it's so expensive relative to the other control options and because of it's, you know, very high expense and technical difficulty.”
   --pg 99 lines 19-24

“There's no deployed technology that would be economic for the control of CO2 from a PC plant, and there's no deployment in the power sector of any CO2 extraction technology anywhere to my knowledge and no sequestration in the power industry anywhere to my knowledge in the world”
   --pgs 100-101 lines 22-24,1-3