Proposed bill would undo NC climate goals, change rules for Duke Energy raising rates

Supporters say the proposal would slow the need for Duke to add renewable energy sources, thereby limiting rate increases. Opponents say it would still raise bills and lead to a dirtier energy grid

The Republican-controlled N.C. General Assembly is pushing a bill that would allow Duke Energy to charge N.C. customers for power plants that haven’t yet been built and allow the utility giant to avoid the state’s approaching carbon emission-reduction goals.

The proposed legislation, Senate Bill 261, has prompted fierce pushback from environmentalists, clean energy advocates and many Democrats. They all claim the bill would move North Carolina in the wrong direction when it comes to cleaning up its air and battling climate change, would saddle customers with unneeded expenses, and tie the state more than ever to a future electrical grid that relies on old fossil fuel power sources rather than cleaner, cheaper and safer renewable alternatives.

But advocates say the move would save Tar Heel State consumers from ever-increasing electrical bills − partly fueled by the need to meet clean energy mandates − and allow the construction of a more reliable and cheaper power infrastructure.

What does SB 261 call for?

The bill, dubbed the “Energy Security and Affordability Act,” would eliminate the 2030 deadline for Duke to reduce carbon emissions 70% from 2005 levels. The utility giant would still have to meet carbon neutrality by 2050.

While Duke has said it wants to add lots more solar and wind, and potentially more exotic renewables like hydrogen and small nuclear reactors, to its future grid, it also wants to replace some of its old coal-fired polluting power plants with new natural gas plants that can operate even when its dark or the wind isn’t blowing.

The legislation also would allow Duke to ask the N.C. Utilities Commission to start charging customers for power-generating facilities even before they are built.

Georgia and South Carolina already allow their large utilities to do that. But in both cases, customers are paying for new nuclear plants whose price tags vastly blew through original estimates − and in South Carolina’s case never came close to completion and left customers saddled with a $9 billion loss.

TWEAKING THE CARBON PLAN: More natural gas, offshore wind, and higher customer bills in Duke’s revised energy plan

Who is promoting the bill?

State Sen. Paul Newton, R-Cabarrus, is a former president of Duke’s N.C. operations and helped write the bill and advocate for it. Another primary sponsor is state Sen. Phil Berger, R-Guilford, the GOP leader of the Senate.

The bill passed the Senate with all Republicans and three Democrats supporting it.

Duke also supports the proposal.

“As North Carolina continues to experience unprecedented growth, we’re focused on making substantial investments in our critical infrastructure to ensure reliability and keep costs as low and predictable as possible for our customers,” the company said in a statement. “We are supportive of policies that enable us to meet the state’s growing energy needs, including those that advance efficient and always-on baseload generation resources.”

Critics of the state’s push to decarbonize its energy network note that customer bills are rising now in part because of efforts to “green” the grid, costs that would likely keep rising quickly if Duke was forced to keep adding more renewables to meet carbon-reduction goals.

Some officials also have noted that recent changes coming out of Washington under the Trump administration have made renewable energy projects more expensive and politically less palatable.

WINDY FUTURE? Trump’s decision to pause offshore wind farms creates stormy waters for NC projects

What do clean energy advocates say?

Environmentalists and others say the proposed bill would do little to clean up North Carolina’s air. It would also tie the state’s customers to expensive and polluting power-generation systems for decades to come that would do little to help in the fight against climate change when cleaner and cheaper options, like wind and solar, are proven and financially less volatile alternatives than relying on gas.

Allowing rates to be raised to cover power plants that aren’t even built yet also would remove a layer of oversight through the utilities commission that protects customers from wasteful and unnecessary bill increases.

“At a time of rising energy costs, this bill is a bad deal for ratepayers,” said Will Scott, Southeast climate and clean energy director for Environmental Defense Fund, in a statement. “Our recent analysis showed that North Carolina does not need any more baseload gas power plants, yet this bill fast-tracks those plants’ costs on to North Carolinians’ power bills. Let’s stick to our goals to reduce harmful power plant pollution and minimize customer exposure to volatile gas prices.”

Opponents of the bill also note that the 2021 bipartisan legislation that set the carbon-reduction goals was hashed out between GOP legislators, Duke and then-Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat, over months of delicate negotiations and called for sacrifices on both sides. This proposed bill has had little input from anyone but Republicans and is being fast-tracked through the General Assembly with little public debate.

POWER GAMES: NC faces challenge of creating a clean, reliable and affordable energy future

What does the governor say?

Gov. Josh Stein, who was N.C. attorney general when the original carbon bill was passed, has criticized the proposed bill as a step backward for the state’s economy and the environment.

“This bill would raise utility bills on ratepayers and threaten progress we’ve made on building a clean energy economy, a sector that employs over 100,000 North Carolinians,” said Morgan Hopkins, spokesperson for the Democratic governor. “We should be looking for solutions that create jobs and lower costs for hardworking North Carolinians, not increasing their financial burden.” 

The proposed bill is now under consideration by the N.C. House.

Reporter Gareth McGrath can be reached at GMcGrath@Gannett.com or @GarethMcGrathSN on X/Twitter. This story was produced with financial support from the Green South Foundation and the Prentice Foundation. The USA TODAY Network maintains full editorial control of the work.