On November 1, the North Carolina Utilities Commission (Commission) issued its carbon plan order, two months in advance of the filing deadline. The order reflects an earlier settlement agreement among the Public Staff, Duke Energy, and Walmart that allows Duke Energy to build four new methane gas units while marginally increasing the amount of solar, battery storage, and wind resources in its proposed carbon reduction plan. Critically, the selected plan (known as Portfolio 3) fails to meet the 2030 interim carbon reduction timeline in House Bill 951 — the state’s carbon reduction law — and likely delays compliance to 2035.
While clean energy advocates are largely unsurprised by regulators “rubber-stamping” Duke Energy’s gas-heavy plan, it’s still deeply problematic. Gas plants are supposed to be more strictly regulated under new EPA carbon reduction rules, which would force Duke to run plants at 40 percent capacity or switch to hydrogen resources. Those rules will likely be under attack during the early days of the second Trump administration, but the investment in additional gas infrastructure will likely saddle customers with high energy bills in the long run as gas infrastructure becomes a stranded asset as the energy transition continues — with or without the short-term involvement of the federal government.
According to Duke’s own estimate, by 2033, Duke Energy Progress customers would pay 39 percent more over previous estimates; Duke Energy Carolinas would pay 73 percent more per month attributable to gas infrastructure. With 1.5 million residents in North Carolina already energy burdened — spending more than 6 percent of their income on energy bills — any substantial bill increase could mean choosing between keeping the lights on and other basic needs.
There are alternatives to improve this current version of the carbon plan and stay on track to meet the state’s interim carbon reduction goals. The Environmental Defense Fund, for example, found that even small modifications to this proposal — eliminating three new combined cycle gas units, increasing new solar capacity by 1,750 Megawatts, advancing onshore and offshore wind resources, and retiring coal units by the end of 2031 — can keep the state on track to meet legal carbon reduction requirements.
Further, Duke should listen to the Public Staff and embrace the many federal tax credits currently available through the Inflation Reduction Act. Though Duke agreed to study the IRA Energy Reinvestment Program funding program — a federal loan program to finance clean energy projects — there is no Commission mandate to integrate this funding into future carbon planning. This is a missed opportunity to follow states like Michigan, Missouri, and Virginia in Commissions mandating the adoption of cleaner energy resources to lower costs to customers and meet carbon reduction goals.
Read our policy brief to learn more about how the Commission can “rise to the challenge” of climate change by compelling Duke Energy to fully utilize IRA funding, and if you live in North Carolina, talk to your neighbors and your elected officials about the energy future you’d like to see.
P.S. You can help spread the word about this brief by liking and sharing on Twitter/X, Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn.
