Critics say Senate Bill 261 will relieve pressure on Duke Energy to move rapidly away from generating electricity from fossil fuels as is done in this Indiana coal-fired facility. (Photo: Robert Zullo for States Newsroom)
A measure that would eliminate the interim goal for Duke Energy to cut its carbon emissions continued on its fast track through the Senate on Thursday, winning approval with a 31-12 vote.
Senate bill 261 removes the 2030 target for a 70% reduction in carbon emissions. The target was established in a heavily-negotiated law that passed with bipartisan support in 2021. That law also included a 2050 goal for carbon neutrality, which would remain unchanged.
Sen. Paul Newton (R-Cabarrus), a retired Duke Energy executive, said getting rid of the interim goal – which the utility has already said it can’t meet – would save energy customers $13 billion. The Public Staff of the Utilities Commission did the modeling to arrive at that figure, he said.
Senate Democrats wanted to hold off on a final vote so they could see the assumptions fed into the model.
“We wanted to meet with the Public Staff to understand the modeling better,” said Sen. Julie Mayfield (D-Buncombe). “What would happen if you had different inputs?”
Not having an intermediate goal could make it harder to reach carbon neutrality, she said.
“Not having a target, even an aspirational target, could mean that we don’t stay on track to get to our 2050 goal,” Mayfield said.
Democrats were denied the chance to get more details or put questions to the Public Staff, as a Senate majority voted to move ahead with a final vote. “We just felt that this was a bill that needed to be addressed at this time and just wanted to move forward,” Senate leader Phil Berger (R-Rockingham), one of the bill’s sponsors, said later.
The bill now goes to the state House for considering.
An email from the Public Staff executive director that was forwarded to members of a Senate committee this week said the model was a re-run of Duke Energy’s energy production plan, but without the interim goal. The model was not updated to include factors such as inflation, the price of fuel, tariff changes, and other variables, he wrote.
Republicans said the change would not cut energy costs, but would slow the rate of growth. The change would help energy consumers, they said, particularly low-income households.
“When you think about the burden of energy bills on the poor, think about low-income residents who live in older, less energy-efficient homes,” Newton said. “Removing the interim goal means you’re standing with North Carolinians.”
Democrats said Republicans’ concern for low-income residents rang hollow because when the 2021 law was being negotiated, Republicans refused to include energy efficient programs, including those that would have targeted low-income customers.
“Democrats offered about two dozen options for energy efficiency programs that could have been included in that bill, including some that Duke Energy runs in other states and would have been happy to run here,” Mayfield said. “Every single one of those suggestions was rejected by this body. Every single one.”
The bill would also allow Duke Energy to increase base rates to cover the cost of energy-generating facilities while they are under construction, if the Utilities Commission concludes there is an overall cost savings to customers over the life of the facility.
In a memo opposing the bill, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) called the provision “a win for Duke Energy at the expense of ratepayers.”
The EDF memo highlighted a partially-completed $9 billion nuclear power plant expansion in South Carolina that the utility companies Santee Cooper and South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. abandoned in 2017, which customers are still paying for.