N.C. Senate leaders are pushing forward a bill that would eliminate the 2030 “interim goal” of a 70% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from North Carolina’s power plants.
The proposal is embedded in Senate Bill 261. It would also give power providers more latitude for seeking permission to pass on to customers the costs of building new “baseload” power plants while they are under construction.
With Senate leader Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, among its lead sponsors, SB 261 is on a fast track. It cleared the Senate’s Agriculture, Energy and Environment committee on Tuesday morning, just a day after being filed, and has only to go through the chamber’s Rules committee before reaching the floor.
Sen. Paul Newton, R-Cabarrus, told members of the Energy committee members the bill is “a simple and straightforward way” to save North Carolinians a collective $13 billion on their power bills. The former Duke Energy executive was alluding to a possible reshaping of the company’s Carolinas Resource Plan, which presently calls for the retirement of Duke’s remaining coal-fired power plants by 2036.
Approved last November by the state Utilities Commission, the plan also calls for an array of investments in gas, solar, battery storage, hydro, wind and nuclear projects to meet both the carbon-reduction targets and the state’s growing demand for electricity.
The plan is revised every two years. Duke is scheduled to submit its next proposed update to the Utilities Commission by Sept. 1.
The Newton-Berger bill appears to have support from Duke and an array of manufacturing interests. “This legislation allows modern, efficient and always-on generation to be deployed faster and cheaper,” Duke spokesman Garrett Poorman say.
SB 261 would leave intact the state’s existing goal for its power plants to be carbon-neutral by 2050.
But Newton said the 70% interim target had led the Utilities Commission “to be very short sight-sighted” about the state’s near-term power mix. Legislators, he added, have always insisted that least-cost and reliability concerns should shape those decisions.
The $13 billion estimate, Newton said, comes from a scenario that was modeled by the N.C. Public Staff after officials asked the agency to study the removal of the 70% interim goal.
The Environmental Defense Fund criticized the bill in a statement Monday.
“At a time of rising energy costs, this bill is a bad deal for ratepayers. Our recent analysis showed that North Carolina does not need any more baseload gas power plants, yet this bill fast-tracks those plants’ costs on to North Carolinians’ power bills. Let’s stick to our goals to reduce harmful power plant pollution and minimize customer exposure to volatile gas prices.”
