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 North Carolina Senate committee advanced a bill Tuesday morning that would remove a state mandate on Duke Energy to meet carbon reduction goals by 2030.
Senate Bill 261 — the “Energy Security and Affordability Act” — is co-sponsored by more than a dozen Republican lawmakers, including Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger (R-Rockingham) and Senate Majority Leader Paul Newton (R-Cabarrus).
The bill was approved on a voice vote by the Senate Agriculture, Energy, and Environment Committee, despite pleas from Democratic lawmakers that the measure be delayed until it could receive a more thorough vetting — it was only introduced Monday afternoon — and opposition from environmental advocates and concerned citizens. The bill now goes to the Senate Rules Committee.
Newton, a retired Duke Energy executive, presented the bill.
Current state law, following a law enacted with bipartisan support in 2021, provides two deadlines for Duke Energy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions — the utility company must cut emissions by 70% of 2005 levels by 2030 and reach carbon neutrality by 2050.
Newton’s bill would remove the first deadline while still requiring carbon neutrality by 2050. He called the date an “arbitrary” goal.
“It just simply opens up other possibilities for the commission to choose from, and it will lower cost and more reliability for North Carolinians,” Newton said.
Duke Energy revealed late last year in the latest iteration of its carbon plan that it could not meet the 2030 deadline due to “unprecedented” growth leading to increased energy demands, according to WUNC.
The North Carolina Utilities Commission waived the deadline in November 2024 and requested Duke Energy take “all reasonable steps” to meet the 70% reduction by the earliest possible date.
With SB 261, Duke Energy would no longer need to meet the 70% reduction by any specified date.
Environmental advocates condemned the legislation as a giveaway to Duke. In a statement, Dan Crawford, Director of Governmental Relations for the North Carolina League of Conservation Voters said the measure “rolls back cheaper, more reliable clean energy goals in favor of dirty coal and fossil gas, while allowing Duke to line its pockets on the backs of ratepayers.
“North Carolinians want to make the transition to cheap, clean, reliable energy, and this bill takes us in the opposite direction, while simultaneously enriching Duke Energy’s investors. Yesterday [the day the bill was introduced] was a dark day for North Carolina voters and ratepayers,” Crawford said.
Sen. DeAndrea Salvador (D-Mecklenburg) proposed pushing back the committee’s vote on the bill to revise its language.
“One thing in which you keep referencing the point at which that this will only be for interest. However, if you read the bill language, it does not appear that way,” she said. “Would you be willing to accept an amendment to specify that the [construction work in progress] process would be only for interest related costs?”
Committee co-chair Sen. Norm Sanderson, a Republican who represents several eastern counties, declined to delay the vote.
Newton also argued the bill would have positive financial impacts, saying it could bring more business to the state.
“We work so hard to attract job creators to North Carolina,” he said. “The last thing we want to do in our energy policy is overcome all the good tax reductions, all the good regulatory improvements we’ve made, and they look at us and say, ‘you’re too expensive, I can’t put my manufacturing plant there.’”
Yarn manufacturer Parkdale Mills closed its Sanford location in September 2024, citing a rapid increase in energy costs, according to Business North Carolina. The shutdown led to 74 job cuts.
During the meeting, some lawmakers suggested the 2021 law was responsible for a spike in Duke Energy costs for customers. A study by the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association in July 2024 cited the global rise in natural gas prices for this increase.
After senators asked questions, witnesses had the opportunity to testify.
Mark Swallow, a North Carolina resident, shared his dismay with the proposal.
“Duke Energy has been stonewalling meeting the requirements of 2030 since the original version of this bill and the Honorable Phil Berger is gonna let them off the hook,” he said. “This bill lets them off the hook from doing the work to meet the goals that they knew were coming and they’ve been ignoring. They need to be forced to do the hard work, the right work.”