Scientists: Stop Duke fossil fuel expansion
A group of more than 60 scientists is calling on Gov. Josh Stein to use his executive authority to oppose Duke Energy’s growing investment in fossil fuels, citing threats to public health, worsening climate impacts and a missed opportunity to expand clean energy.
The open letter, sent Thursday and organized by the Center for Biological Diversity and NC WARN, urges Stein to speak out against Duke’s plans to expand natural gas infrastructure and delay coal plant retirements — moves the scientists say will lock in decades of carbon pollution.
“In North Carolina, it looks like extreme heat. It looks like more intense rainfall and flooding when storms like Hurricane Helene hit the mountains,” said Dr. Drew Shindell, a Duke University climate scientist and former NASA researcher who helped organize the letter. “The only way to avoid the worst climate damages is to rapidly phase out fossil fuels.”
Shindell said Duke’s proposed gas plants represent “a five-alarm fire,” with infrastructure expected to operate 40 to 50 years — long past the window scientists say is needed to meet global climate targets.
The letter comes amid a broader political shift in North Carolina energy policy. Three weeks ago, the state Senate passed Senate Bill 261, a proposal that would remove Duke Energy’s 2030 carbon-reduction deadline and allow the utility to raise rates to finance future power plants — even if they are never built. Critics warn the bill could delay climate action while exposing customers to higher costs, similar to a failed nuclear project in South Carolina that left ratepayers with a $9 billion burden.
Sen. Paul Newton, a Republican from Cabarrus County and former Duke Energy executive who led efforts behind the bill, said the legislation would make energy costs more predictable and allow Duke to invest in baseload sources like nuclear power. Newton, the Senate’s majority leader, is stepping down from the legislature to serve as general counsel for UNC-Chapel Hill later this month.
Duke Energy said its long-term plans balance clean energy growth with reliability and affordability.
“We are committed to our customers and communities and will continue working with policymakers, regulators and other state leaders to deliver reliable and increasingly clean energy while keeping rates as low as possible,” a Duke spokesperson said in a statement.
But Shindell questioned the company’s focus on affordability.
“Duke Energy makes its profits by building infrastructure, not by lowering rates,” he said. “If they were prioritizing affordability, they’d be scaling up renewables, not gas.”
Duke currently generates about 1.4% of its power from solar in North Carolina, despite the state’s high potential for local solar and storage projects. Environmental groups have long accused the company of hindering the expansion of rooftop and community solar.
The scientists’ letter also references a lawsuit brought by the town of Carrboro, which alleges Duke executives misled the public about the harms of fossil fuels. Shindell stopped short of accusing the company of deception but said Duke has been slow to embrace the clean energy transition, unlike other utilities that now regularly choose renewables on cost alone.
“We’re not asking the governor to micromanage Duke,” Shindell said. “We’re asking him to change the system so it rewards decisions that are in the public’s best interest … reducing emissions, improving health and preparing for climate impacts that are already here.”
If Senate Bill 261 becomes law, Duke would only be required to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, a deadline that critics say is too far off to prevent irreversible harm.
“Duke is following the economics,” Shindell said. “It’s up to the state to change the rules so doing the right thing is also the profitable thing.”