As North Carolinians continue to grapple with rolling blackouts and rising energy bills, yet another pending environmental catastrophe is developing in our backyards. Duke Energy, our state’s monopoly utility provider, has submitted filings for two new methane gas power plants — one at the current Roxboro coal plant in Person County and another at the Marshall plant on Lake Norman.
Methane is the primary component of natural gas. Widespread application of natural gas releases nitrogen oxides and methane gas, which are linked to asthma, lung disease, and other problems for human health and the environment, such as poor air quality and climate change. State law requires these plants to obtain a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN), which authorizes a utility to construct a new facility within “the public interest.”
However, as of February 7, the North Carolina Utilities Commission (Commission) has not held public hearings on these new plants, nor is it compelled by law to do this specifically, disregarding outright the possibility of genuine community engagement in the face of these environmentally damaging plants. “Public interest,” then, is clearly up for debate.
These new gas plants are baked into Duke Energy’s proposed “carbon plan.” House Bill 951 required the Commission to devise a plan by the end of 2022 that would cut carbon emissions by 70 percent by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. The Commission delegated Carbon Plan development to Duke Energy, which has proposed a plan that fails to meet those legal requirements, unnecessarily postpones changes that could benefit the state’s environment right away, and doesn’t even provide the lowest possible cost to consumers.
Ironically, a Duke Energy-commissioned study revealed that by tripling solar and onshore wind capacity, the state could meet its carbon goals quicker, more cheaply, and with no additional methane gas power plants. Even with this knowledge, on January 31, Duke Energy filed for more gas power plants, slowing carbon reduction goals and putting overburdened and under-resourced communities, in particular, at risk.
Duke Energy also estimates its new gas power plants and nuclear reactors will increase bills by 39 percent for Duke Energy Progress customers and by 73 percent for Duke Energy Carolinas customers. I’m a Duke Energy Progress customer, so for me, that means a significant electric bill increase — from $170 per month on average to nearly $240 every month.
A group of signatories from the People Power North Carolina coalition recently drafted a letter asking the Commission to hold public hearings on these proposed power plants. Public participation opportunities around energy development are sorely needed in the state, especially because Duke Energy has a long track record of ignoring community voices. This is particularly concerning given the rural makeup of Person and Catawba Counties, the proposed sites for the two new plants.
Rural communities already spend more of their income on energy costs than non-rural communities — a cost known as an energy burden. Building these new gas plants will cost these communities even more, both economically and environmentally.
North Carolina should look to other states for guidance on embedding equity into the CPCN process. Other states, for example, have legal requirements for public hearings. In Maryland, one public hearing is required at a location proximate to the proposed site. Notice for the hearing must be published in the local newspaper and posted on social media sites each week for four weeks leading up to the hearing, as well as on the main public service commission website.
The Commission should revise the North Carolina CPCN hearing process to ensure that:
Our rural residents’ health and safety depend on it.
Showing 2,821 results
Sophie Loeb | February 15, 2024
As North Carolinians continue to grapple with rolling blackouts and rising energy bills, yet another pending environmental catastrophe is developing in our backyards. Duke Energy, our state’s monopoly utility provider, has submitted filings for two new methane gas power plants — one at the current Roxboro coal plant in Person County and another at the Marshall plant on Lake Norman.
Daniel Farber | February 13, 2024
EPA has just issued a rule tightening the air quality standard for PM2.5 — the tiny particles most dangerous to health — from an annual average of 12 micrograms per cubic meter down to 9 micrograms per cubic meter. EPA estimates that, by the time the rule goes into effect in 2032, it will avoid 4,500 premature deaths, 800,000 asthma attacks, and 290,000 lost workdays. Most likely, by the time this post goes up, someone will have filed a lawsuit to overturn the EPA rule. What legal arguments will challengers raise, and what are their chances of winning? Let’s consider the possible challenges one by one.
Daniel Farber | February 8, 2024
In 2023, the Supreme Court ended 50 years of broad federal protection of wetlands in Sackett v. United States. It is only when you look back at the history of federal wetlands regulation that you realize just how radical and destructive this decision was.
Daniel Farber | February 2, 2024
Later this month, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument about whether to stay a plan issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to limit upwind states from creating ozone pollution that impacts other states. As I wrote before the Court decided to hear the arguments, the issues here seem less than earthshaking, and for that matter, less than urgent. It was puzzling to me why after many weeks, the Court was still sitting on the “emergency” requests of the upwind states to be rescued from the EPA plan. Given that the Court seems to think the issues are important enough to justify oral argument, however, it’s worth examining what seems to be bothering the Court about implementing the EPA plan.
Richard Pierce, Jr. | February 1, 2024
I find the Center for Progressive Reform’s pursuit of environmental justice inherently appealing, but this work raises provocative questions: Should U.S.-focused groups like the Center and policymakers pursue an environmental justice mission that does not account for potentially negative trade-offs in developing countries? Or, are there ways to account for those trade-offs to ensure environmental justice work and efforts to address climate change benefit people across the globe?
James Goodwin, Will Dobbs-Allsopp | January 31, 2024
What if we told you that every day, tens of millions of Americans are exposed to something that contributes to neurological disease, depression, and an increased risk of heart disease and stroke? What if we also told you that in causing these health harms, it was disproportionately affecting low-wealth communities and communities of color? What is this dangerous “something”? It’s excessive noise. And, as it happens, more than 50 years ago, Congress recognized the seriousness of the harms that excessive noise causes and, as a result, passed a law directing the EPA to take aggressive action against it.
Robin Kundis Craig | January 11, 2024
Fisheries regulation might seem to be unusual grounds for the U.S. Supreme Court to shift power away from federal agencies. But that is what the court seems poised to do in the combined cases of Loper Bright Enterprises vs. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. vs. Department of Commerce.
Daniel Farber | January 10, 2024
State climate policy is a big deal. State governments began cutting emissions at a time when the federal government was essentially doing nothing about climate change. Since then, more states have become involved. Part II of this post covers state climate action from New Jersey to Washington State during the second half of 2023, as well as multi-state efforts.
Daniel Farber | January 10, 2024
State climate policy is a big deal. State governments began cutting emissions at a time when the federal government was essentially doing nothing about climate change. Since then, more states have become involved, and state policies have become more aggressive. It’s not for nothing that 2023 was called a banner year for state climate action. The state developments in just the second half of the year make up an impressive list. Part I of this post covers state climate action from California to Michigan.