Join us.

We’re working to create a just society and preserve a healthy environment for future generations. Donate today to help.

Donate

Duke Energy Carbon Plan Hearing: Authentic Community Engagement Lacking

On July 27, I had the privilege of testifying at the North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC) public hearing regarding the Duke Energy Carbon Plan. The Asheville hearing was one of six forums designated for public witness testimony on the proposed decarbonization plan.

In 2019, North Carolina joined 34 other states investing in solar, wind, and other renewable resources when it passed its Clean Energy Power Plan, and, in 2021, when it passed House Bill 951, which commits to a 70 percent carbon reduction by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2050. When Duke Energy, a major corporation with outsized influence over the state’s decarbonization plan, submitted its proposal to meet those goals, it failed to account for affordability and equity.

The company and NCUC have also not meaningfully engaged with low-wealth ratepayers in the process. These public hearings are intended to promote community engagement; however, the extent to which they have been successful in reaching low-wealth ratepayers is a point of concern. The Asheville hearing was case in point.

Prior to the hearing, local organizers and climate advocates rallied outside the Buncombe County courthouse, imploring Duke Energy toward a cleaner carbon plan grounded in renewable energy. “Tell Duke Energy we can’t breathe methane!” one organizer chanted. “We want clean, clean, clean energy! Clean energy!” the crowd sang. Among the organizers and speakers, Mary Crowe with the Indigenous Environmental Network spoke about the justice and equity concerns associated with white colonialism and climate change. There were also mentions of the disproportionate impact of Duke’s plan on low-wealth communities of color. However, the main ethos of the rally was preserving the planet through renewables, as opposed to an overarching lens of racial justice.

Despite a significant turnout of 100 attendees, with about a third testifying, there was a noticeable lack of diverse representation across speakers. Many speakers represented clean energy businesses or nonprofit organizations. A few speakers described themselves as “climate refugees,” escaping climate hotspots like California. Many speakers were multi-generational Ashevilleans, concerned about the fate of the planet for their children and grandchildren. Most speakers were white. Very few, if any, represented the voices of overburdened communities.

In reality, low-wealth households in North Carolina are the most impacted by Duke Energy’s plan and should have a meaningful seat at the table. Low-wealth communities have high energy burdens, where a larger percentage of their income goes toward their energy costs. Low-wealth ratepayers in North Carolina, on average, spend between 8 to 10 percent of their income on energy costs. This means that North Carolina sits in the top half of states with the highest energy burden for low-wealth communities. Indeed, nearly 1.5 million North Carolinians are overburdened by energy costs. These communities, disproportionately of color, contributed little to climate change but face steep increases in electricity rates as North Carolina addresses the climate crisis. And yet low-wealth people aren’t required — or, in many cases, even able — to participate. They’re shut out.

Lamentably, this held true for the Asheville hearing. While it is not up to overburdened communities to fix a problem they didn’t create, it is up to Duke Energy and the state to actively engage with those most impacted by the company’s proposal. Representation of low-wealth communities at the hearing should have been stronger. Duke Energy can do better to authentically engage with overburdened communities.

In response to this lack of meaningful engagement, the Center for Progressive Reform’s Campaign for Energy Justice aims to ensure that:

  1. North Carolina’s transition to a clean energy economy equitably serves all North Carolinians, regardless of wealth or background.

  2. Duke Energy and NCUC improve public participation for low-wealth ratepayers and reduce barriers to substantial investments in consumer-owned/distributed energy generation, like community solar, as a resource to help low-wealth ratepayers while also achieving the state’s climate goals.

Further, the Center presses Duke Energy and the NCUC to:

  1. Educate the public about Duke’s Carbon Plan and ensure all have information needed to meaningfully participate in the rulemaking process.

  2. Reach out to low-wealth communities and communities of color and meaningfully incorporate community input.

  3. Set fair and affordable rates for low-income North Carolinians.

  4. Invest in programs to help people buy and maintain equipment to generate their own energy (customer-owned generation), all the while reducing energy burden and increasing energy security and efficiency.

  5. Adopt and implement programs that support low-income ratepayers.

As I approached the podium at 9:45 p.m., simultaneously exhausted and energized by the people power in the room, I committed the following lines of testimony to memory: “Now is the time for NCUC to act to ensure racial and economic equity and justice are centered meaningfully during every step of the process going forward. Duke Energy’s Carbon Plan is a matter of both economic and racial justice — and getting it right will ultimately strengthen our state and nation.”

Authentic community engagement is a cornerstone to achieve true environmental justice. Duke Energy can and must do better.

Showing 2,823 results

Sophie Loeb | August 4, 2022

Duke Energy Carbon Plan Hearing: Authentic Community Engagement Lacking

On July 27, I had the privilege of testifying at the North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC) public hearing regarding the Duke Energy Carbon Plan. The Asheville hearing was one of six forums designated for public witness testimony on the proposed decarbonization plan. In 2019, North Carolina joined 34 other states investing in solar, wind, and other renewable resources when it passed its Clean Energy Power Plan, and, in 2021, when it passed House Bill 951, which commits to a 70 percent carbon reduction by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2050. When Duke Energy, a major corporation with outsized influence over the state’s decarbonization plan, submitted its proposal to meet those goals, it failed to account for affordability and equity.

Hannah Klaus | August 3, 2022

Environmental Justice for All Act Would Address Generations of Environmental Racism

Last week, the Center for Progressive Reform joined 90 organizations in expressing strong support for the Environmental Justice for All Act in a letter as the bill went before the House Committee on Natural Resources for markup. The coalition, led by Coming Clean, a collaborative of environmental health and environmental justice experts, and the Environmental Justice Health Alliance for Chemical Policy Reform, urged committee members to advance this important legislation to the House floor. The bill, introduced by Reps. Raúl M. Grijalva of Arizona and Donald McEachin of Virginia, is the most significant effort by the federal government to address generations of environmental racism.

James Goodwin | July 27, 2022

Op-Ed: Manchin and the Supreme Court Told Biden to Modernize Regulatory Review — Will He Listen?

The Biden administration’s path forward on climate change -- as the widely deployed metaphor goes -- has become more difficult with the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in West Virginia vs. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). If the Biden administration is to successfully navigate that path -- and it must if we are to avert the worst consequences of the climate crisis -- the president will need to abandon the “compass” that his predecessors have relied on for decades to guide their policy agenda: Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review.

Thomas McGarity, Wendy Wagner | July 25, 2022

Do Not Blame Us

Law professors dream of the day when the U.S. Supreme Court will rely on one of their publications for a proposition that is crucial to the outcome of an important case. What better validation of all the blood, sweat, and tears that were poured into the publication? What an existential high to know that they have finally arrived at the pinnacle. We experienced none of those emotions when reading Chief Justice John Roberts' opinion in West Virginia v. EPA. The citations to our work were both minor and innocuous, so that fact helps allay any sense of accomplishment. But equally significant, the Court's analysis bears little relationship to our own understanding of Section 111(a) of the Clean Air Act.

Daniel Farber | July 20, 2022

Declaring a Climate Change Emergency: A Citizen’s Guide, Part II

What government powers would be unlocked by declaring a climate change emergency? One immediate possibility would be to use the same power that former President Trump used to divert military construction funds to other uses -- in this case, perhaps building wind or solar farms or new transmission lines. But what else could President Biden do?

Grace DuBois | July 20, 2022

Forced Arbitration Robs Workers of Billions in Wages

Corporations’ widespread use -- and abuse -- of forced arbitration in employment contracts allow them to steal billions of dollars from workers every year with impunity. Employers have unilaterally imposed mandatory arbitration agreements onto 60 million American workers, and the practice is only becoming more widespread. By 2024, 80 percent of nonunion workers will be subject to forced arbitration.

Daniel Farber | July 19, 2022

Declaring a Climate Change Emergency: A Citizen’s Guide, Part I

Based on press reports, it now seems likely that President Joe Biden will soon declare climate change to be a national emergency. Would this be legal? Would it unlock important powers that could be used to fight climate change? My answers are: It would probably be legal, and it would unlock some significant powers. But an emergency declaration is not a magic wand that gives presidents a blank check. It would allow some constructive steps to be taken, but within limits.

Grace DuBois | July 19, 2022

Protecting Workers by Prosecuting Wage Theft as a Crime

Wage theft is a massive crisis for workers, but federal, state, and local agencies have failed to address the problem. Wage theft occurs in many forms: Paying wages lower than the minimum wage, not paying overtime wages, coercing employees to work "off the clock" before or after shifts, prohibiting workers from taking legally mandated breaks, confiscating tips, and more.

Minor Sinclair | July 15, 2022

Op-Ed: We Committed to Paying Our Staff More Than a Living Wage. Your Nonprofit Should Do the Same.

Nationally, nonprofit organizations employ about 10 percent of the entire private workforce. That’s 12 million paid workers -- nearly as many as the entire manufacturing field. Many of those employees, with the exception of higher-paid college and hospital workers, earn $4 to $5 per hour less in terms of total compensation than similar workers in private industry. Many factors contribute to the nonprofit wage gap. For some organizations, a reliance on donations or government contracts puts a ceiling on employee compensation. For others, mission-first means serving the cause even if it means sacrificing the financial well-being of the employees tasked with doing the actual work. This is unacceptable -- especially during a time when the nonprofit world is increasingly focused on the importance of aligning mission and human-resource policies. But figuring out how to make that alignment happen is the tricky part.