Carbon limits would hurt South Carolina

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our or .

| Sourced From |

South Carolina residents will be hurt if the federal government moves too swiftly to limit carbon emissions or shuts out the states when deciding what those limits should be. The state’s reliance on coal energy, high per capita electricity use and low per capita incomes make the state particularly vulnerable, especially in the short term.

According to a new Energy Policy Report prepared by the state Public Utilities Review Committee, the impact of a federal cap-and-trade law on South Carolina electric utility customers could range from $102 to $1,270 every year, depending on how high the tax is set on carbon emissions.

The problem comes in South Carolina’s unusually high dependence on electricity for home heating and cooling. The state ranks third in the nation in per-household electric usage because so many residents rely on electricity for both cooling and heating. In fact, 62 percent of South Carolinians use electricity as their primary fuel source, compared with 32.5 percent nationally.

What’s more, the state gets a significant majority of its electricity from coal generation. According to the report, 61 percent of electricity used in South Carolina is coal-generated, 31 percent is nuclear and the rest is from natural gas, hydroelectric and a tiny percentage from renewable resources.

The state also is geographically and geologically unsuited to large-scale production from renewable resources. There’s no significant potential for wind, solar or hydro power in South Carolina on the scale needed for utilities to supply customers with power.

And demand is increasing. According to the report, “without additional generation, South Carolina’s aggregate reserve margin may fall below 12 percent in 2011 and may fall below zero in 2019, at which time the state could face blackouts.” Without added generation or successful conservation, blackouts could become possible by 2016.

Certainly the report is correct in recommending all South Carolinians need to be more “energy-conscious.” However, according to the report, South Carolina will add a million residents by 2030. That growth will more than offset any gains made by conservation. Also, our poorest residents often can’t afford more energy-efficient appliances and devices.

That means in the near term, South Carolina needs to rely on its existing coal-fired power plants and, presumably, new carbon-based generation. A new coal plant is planned by state utility Santee Cooper. While not the ideal power plant to build, it may be the only viable option to tide this state over until new nuclear plants can be built.

Any federal carbon limits need to consider the plight of states like South Carolina. This state, also one of the poorest in the nation, can’t be saddled with extraordinarily high power bills in an attempt to find a blanket solution to carbon emissions.

This report rightly concludes that any federal limits must originate in Congress. If the Obama administration unilaterally imposes limits on CO2 emissions, South Carolina and other states would not have a voice in how those limits are shaped.

Any solution also needs to take into account the reality of a slow transition from carbon-based to renewable generation. And any solution, as the report recommends, needs to consider nuclear as a legitimate, carbon-free source of electricity.

If and when the federal government limits carbon emissions, those limits need to be imposed in a thoughtful way that reduces the negative impact on ordinary Americans and states that rely on coal and nuclear power.