A controversial bill to unravel North Carolina’s climate law would cost the state more than 50,000 jobs annually and cause tens of billions of dollars in lost investments, a new study finds. The research comes days before the Republican-controlled state legislature aims to override a veto of the measure by Gov. Josh Stein, a Democrat.
First passed by the Senate in March, the wide-ranging Senate Bill 266 repeals the 2030 deadline by which utility Duke Energy must curb its climate pollution 70% compared to 2005 levels. It leaves intact a mandate that the company achieve carbon neutrality by midcentury.
Senate leader Phil Berger, a 13-term Republican from Rockingham County, has said his chamber will vote on the override Tuesday, July 29. The House, which approved the bill with bipartisan support in June, could attempt an override of Stein’s July 2 veto the same day.
Conducted by BW Research for clean energy nonprofits, the new analysis draws on earlier projections from Public Staff, the state-sanctioned customer advocate. That modeling showed that without a near-term climate goal, Duke would build about 40% less new generation capacity over the next decade — leaning harder instead on aging fossil-fueled units to meet demand.
The fresh research calculates the economic losses of foregoing those new power plants, including massive amounts of solar and wind along with 300 megawatts of new nuclear and 1,400 megawatts of combined-cycle gas plants.
From 2030 to 2035, North Carolina would see nearly 50,700 fewer jobs annually and over $47.2 billion sacrificed in power-plant construction, the study says. More than $1.4 billion in tax revenue would also be left on the table.
“This study conveys in real terms the impact of arbitrarily removing a market signal that has proven to be a job creator and an economic booster for North Carolina,” said Josh Brooks, chief of policy strategy and innovation with the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association.
BW Research finds that if SB 266 became law, Duke would have 12 fewer gigawatts of capacity in 2035 to meet peaks in power demand, like those that happen on unusually cold winter mornings. Experts say the company would likely have to purchase more out-of-state power or rely more heavily on fossil fuels as a result.
“This limitation hampers the state’s ability to meet current energy needs and undermines its competitive edge in attracting energy-intensive industries,” the analysts say.
The new study is the second to show how Public Staff’s modeling belie claims from SB 266 proponents that the bill will save money and promote more power generation.
Late last month, three researchers from North Carolina State University found that with fewer solar, wind, and nuclear plants as projected by Public Staff, Duke would have to burn almost 40% more natural gas between 2030 and 2050.
Under a worst-case but plausible scenario for gas prices, the trio found, customers could pay $23 billion more in fuel costs on their electric bills by midcentury as a result. The figure would cancel out projected consumer savings from building fewer new sources of generation, a fact not lost on the governor.
