State legislators pushing to unravel North Carolina’s climate law say their bill will give utility Duke Energy more leeway to build new gas and nuclear power plants and save its Tar Heel customers billions of dollars.
But a new study predicts the opposite will happen under Senate Bill 266, which repeals a requirement that Duke slash carbon pollution 70% by 2030 compared to 2005 levels. (The legislation leaves in place a 2050 deadline for the utility to reach carbon neutrality.)
The analysis from researchers at North Carolina State University builds on projections from the state customer advocate, Public Staff. That modeling showed SB 266 could cause Duke to build less generation capacity over the next decade, just as electricity needs are expected to surge.
That means Duke would have to lean harder on aging plants and burn almost 40% more natural gas between 2030 and 2050, experts at N.C. State University say. Under a worst-case but plausible scenario for gas prices, customers could pay $23 billion more on their electric bills by midcentury as a result.
“Our analysis finds that removing the interim target could expose ratepayers to significant financial risk, particularly if natural gas prices rise,” the paper’s authors write. “These additional fuel costs are borne directly by customers.”
A complex measure that’s faced little public debate, SB 266 easily cleared both chambers of the Republican-controlled General Assembly in June with a handful of Democratic votes. It now awaits action from first-term Gov. Josh Stein, a Democrat who’s confronting growing pressure to veto it.
“This new information adds to the concern we had all along, that SB 266 is dangerous for the financial stability and health of North Carolinians,” said Chris Herndon, director of the Sierra Club’s North Carolina chapter, which hosted a news conference last week urging Stein’s veto.
The new study also underscores a surprising finding from Public Staff’s modeling: SB 266 does little to prepare North Carolina for ballooning electricity needs expected from an influx of data centers, manufacturers, and new residents. In fact, removing the 2030 goal would prompt Duke to build 11,700 fewer megawatts of new power plants in the next decade than its current plans.
“In talking with legislators, I found that almost all of them emphasized economic growth and the need for power generation to meet that demand,” said Will Scott, Southeast climate and clean energy director for the Environmental Defense Fund. “But Public Staff’s analysis found that the most likely short-term impact of SB 266 is to build less new generation and storage and instead to lean harder on aging coal and gas facilities.”
The Public Staff forecast shows renewable energy would be the main short-term casualty of SB 266, just as its backers intend. By 2035, Duke would construct 7,200 fewer megawatts of solar and battery storage, and no offshore or onshore wind farms whatsoever — a 4,500-megawatt decrease compared with the status quo.
But new “always-on” nuclear and gas resources — the same ones SB 266 champions seek to promote — would also suffer. Without a near-term carbon reduction deadline, Public Staff says Duke would develop just 300 megawatts of nuclear power in the next decade, half as much as it currently plans. The utility would build 1,400 fewer megawatts of large, efficient combined-cycle gas units.
Only gas “peaker plants” — simple-cycle combustion turbines that are relatively cheap to build but expensive to operate — would become more abundant, Public Staff forecasts. Duke would build 3,800 megawatts’ worth instead of 2,100.
