Loading ...
GUV’S ARGUMENT FOR OPPOSING POWER PLANT USED PHONY FIGURES
Last week Gov. Mark Sanford held a press conference to announce his opposition to Santee Cooper’s much-need coal-fired power plant in Florence County on the grounds that it was too expensive.
During his remarks, Sanford said that rising energy costs would increase the plant’s price tag from $2.5 billion to a $4 billion. To justify that, he noted that, “Duke Energy has recently decreased its energy sales forecast by 28.4 percent over the next 16 years.”
That statistic wasn’t merely a side note, it was the major premise of his entire argument. But according to Duke Energy, Sanford’s numbers are completely wrong.
Duke’s Integrated Resource Plan — an annual report filed with the Public Service Commission of South Carolina — does show that between 2007 and 2008 the company reduced its expected growth rate by 28 percent.
But that’s the growth rate (a short-term forecast), not the energy sales forecast as Sanford tried to spin it. They are two completely different things; the growth rate numbers Sanford used don’t even apply to Santee Cooper’s high-growth service area.
In fact, Duke’s 2008 IRP showed the energy sales forecast growing by an average of 1.1 percent each year between now and 2023. Contrary to Sanford’s supposition, those numbers actually show that Duke will still see long-term growth.
“Here’s a simplistic example,” said a Duke Energy expert. “Let’s say my load is 100 megawatts and last year I said it was going to grow at 10 percent.
“So I thought my load this year would be 110, but instead it’s 8 percent. That is a 20 percent change (10 minus 8 divided by 10) in the GROWTH rate, but now my load is 108 instead of the 110 I thought, which is a change of less than 2 percent [in the sales forecast].”
I’m really bad at math and even I can understand that equation. So how did the governor of South Carolina not get it?
The answer is that he probably did get it. Only a 1.1 percent sales increase isn’t quite as sexy as a 28.4 percent sales decrease when you’re trying to say that energy costs will be be way too high to build a new plant.
Of course, there’s always the possibility that he didn’t get it, which might actually be even more scary than him just lying to get his way.
you truly are an idiot mcfogle
Thanks… How so?
I cannot understand Sanford’s opposition to growth, to building wealth.
Whoa, what are you talking about?
He got it wrong because he let let his rich buddies at the Coastal Conservation League write his statement. They are shameless liars and Sanford is a moron. I would have had more respect for him if he had just told the truth and said, “I’m opposed because I want my cool friends to like me.” The nuclear option was just a bone he threw out for the ignorant out-of-staters that want him to run in 2012.
you all got it wrong.
this is classic sanford. pass the issue off to someone else and protect yourself politically. that is the sanford mantra.
it doesnt matter if his figures were wrong…..coal is old and furthers our reliance on a limited fuel supply.
there is nothing wrong with nuclear and to say “hey lets not build any more coal plants and focus our efforts on nuclear” makes any numbers irrelevant.
mcfogle, you might want to jump on board with nuclear…..after all…..your slave master mcmaster is having his talking points written by the CVSC…..that coming from the CVSC treasurer who proudly blares all over Columbia that he is their candidate.
when you report on things…..its valuable to hear more of the “whole” argument, not just picking and choosing things to hit sanford with. That gets old and shows that you are simply a biased “write what you get paid to write” idiot.
if you dont look out….my bet would be that sanford DESTROYS mcmaster’s campaign because of your ignorance.
want that on your careless conscious?
Geez!
I guess truth and accuracy doesn’t mean anything to Whoa, or to Sanford either.