Duke Energy wants to significantly increase its natural gas footprint to replace its dirty coal power plants. But others say there's a better, cheaper way for NC to go green that's just as reliable
Gareth McGrathUSA TODAY NETWORK
Salette Andrews was the 23rd speaker of the night at a late April public hearing held at the New Hanover County Courthouse.
Like the other speakers, the message from the Wilmington council member was clear: Duke Energy must meet the spirt and the deadlines included in the state's carbon-reduction legislation.
“I urge the N.C. Utilities Commission to reject Duke Energy’s reliance on natural gas and instead prioritize a robust expansion of solar and wind energy capacity,” Andrews said at the third of four public hearings the commission was holding around the state on Duke's proposed tweaks to its carbon plan. “By doing so we can reaffirm our commitment to leading the clean energy transition, mitigating climate change, and securing a sustainable future for all North Carolinians.”
With pressure mounting on governments to take steps to grapple with climate change, North Carolina wants to reduce its carbon footprint. One of the state's focal points to do this is to move away from the state's historical reliance on coal-fired power plants for electricity and replace them with "greener" power sources.
House Bill 951, which was hashed out between Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper, the GOP-controlled General Assembly, and Duke Energy, lays out a series of benchmarks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the energy sector. The legislation, however, also includes quite a bit of wiggle room on how to get there. The 2021 law requires theN.C. Utilities Commission“to take all reasonable steps” to ensure the state's energy sector, dominated by Duke, reduces its carbon dioxide emissions 70% from 2005 levels by 2030 and reaches net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.
For Duke officials, that means reaching the goals while still offering a reliable, diversified power mix that keeps the lights on and doesn't break the bank for its customers. It also means bulking up its electricity generation to meet surging demand driven by the growth of power-sucking computer data centers, electric vehicles and a revitalized manufacturing sector fueled by incentives and clean energy strategies from the Biden administration.
Duke's updated carbon plan, which modifies an earlier proposal, is to add pretty much more of everything in its power-production tool box, but especially focusing on building additional natural gas-fired power plants in the coming years.
"We need new sources of power and we need a lot of it," said Kendal Bowman, president of Duke's N.C. utility operations, in a video explaining the company's updated plan submitted to the utilities commission earlier this year.
'We need clean energy'
But for environmentalists and clean energy advocates, the way forward is already proving itself on the ground today, namely in the form of renewable wind and solar, that can be scaled up to meet the power and emission-reduction demands without investing in dirtier, older power-producing methods like natural gas. It is also a strategy that doesn't rely on flirting with technology that still has to be proven in real-world settings, namely hydrogen and small modular nuclear reactors.
Will Scott, Environmental Defense Fund’s director for Climate and Clean Energy Southeast, said relying on natural gas is a power source that comes out of the old school playbook for utilities, is one they are familiar with, and is a way to maximize profits for the company and shareholders while leaving customers beholden to potentially wild fluctuations in the price of the fossil fuel.
"This is a real opportunity for the state to be innovative and forward-thinking, to look at embracing renewables like offshore wind and solar and become a leader in developing and amplifying those resources," he said. "Relying on adding a massive amount of new gas is a huge risk for everyone and the environment."
At April's public hearing, speaker after speaker said they didn't want to see Duke and North Carolina invest in more fossil fuel-powered plants − albeit ones that are much cleaner than the particulate-spewing coal plants they will replace. Adopting a plan that doesn't widely embrace renewables is "moving the state backwards" in its push to grapple with climate change, several speakers said.
Sally McLean of Maxton in Robeson County traveled to Wilmington to express her concerns.
"We need clean energy, and that's not what Duke is offering," she said. "We don't need dirty electricity. We need clean electricity."
Dr. Robert Parr, a retired emergency room physician who has previously expressed concerns over the utility giant's plan to keep building natural gas plants, said the commission needs to stop Duke from continuing its "fossil fuel slow dance" and push it to embrace affordable and proven renewable power sources that won't keep polluting the air and adding to existing problems tied to a warming climate.
"Every one of us will have a healthier and better quality of life if we breathe clean air," he said.
Building a diverse power mix
Duke officials say that by 2030 energy demand could be 22% above what the company estimated just two years ago, and within a decade it could be 25% greater than previously forecast, prompting the need to add somewhere around 6.8 gigawatts (GW) to the future grid beyond what was in the company's original carbon plan.
That's why Duke is accelerating its plan to add power capacity in pretty much every resource available to it, keeping a diversity of power production sources to ensure reliability and affordability, the company's N.C. president Bowman has said.
The push, Duke said,will require the addition of more natural gas plants, more advanced nuclear reactors and the utilization of both onshore and offshore wind facilities.
The new plan proposal also adds more solar energy, reaching 17.5 megawatts within 15 years. Additional battery storage also would be built to store and allow the power to be utilized at night.
As with Duke's earlier proposal, the updated plan includes several "pathways" for the utilities commission to consider to meet the state's pollution-reduction goals, with timelines of 2030, 2033 and 2035.
Bowman said 2035 is Duke's recommended approach because it is the "most reasonable, least-cost and least-risk portfolio."
Duke admits its proposal will hit ratepayers in the pocketbook. In itsfilingwith the utilities commission, the utility estimates that construction costs for these additional power resources could significantly increase the average monthly bill for customers − although the number is a moving target considering the potential impacts from technological advances, federal aid to help with the clean energy transition, and future market conditions.
Technology and cost concerns
Critics of Duke's plan say that along with higher costs for customers and the continued release of contaminants into the air, particularly methane, an especially damaging climate-warming pollutant, new federal regulations could also make any new natural gas plants a risky investment.
In late April the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued new rules mandating strict controls on carbon dioxideemissionsat existing coal plants and newly builtnatural-gasplants.
“Today,EPAis proud to make good on the Biden-Harris Administration’s vision to tackle climate change and to protect all communities from pollution in our air, water, and in our neighborhoods,”EPAAdministrator Michael Regan said in a release. “By developing these standards in a clear, transparent, inclusive manner,EPAis cutting pollution while ensuring that power companies can make smart investments and continue to deliver reliable electricity for all Americans.”
The rules require existing coal-fired and newnaturalgas-fired power plants to control 90% of their carbon pollution, primarily by utilizing existing and future carbon-capture and storage (CCS) technology.
But that will mean added costs for future natural gas plants, making their construction and operation more expensive and potentially leading to even higher rates for customers.
"These new EPA rules cast real doubt into the long-term future and practicality of new natural gas plants," EDF's Scott said, adding that North Carolina is already struggling to import enough natural gas to support its existing power plants and manufacturers that rely on the energy source.
Even with the new regulations, Duke spokesman Bill Norton said the utility company remains confident natural gas will play an important role in meeting North Carolina's energy future.
“While we are analyzing the final rules, our view is that the 111 (EPA) rule does not change our path forward in North Carolina as we continue retiring our coal plants and supporting the state’s unprecedented growth with an all-of-the-above approach that’s designed to deliver affordability and reliability for customers," he said. "Natural gas remains an essential resource in this diverse mix that can be dispatched to meet demand 24/7.”
The Edison Electric Institute, an association that represents investor-owned electric companies like Duke, said its members were in favor of investing in carbon-free technologies that offer reliable power while meeting customers' demands at affordable costs. But it had concerns about the EPA's new rules − particularly its focus on CCS technology.
“While we appreciate and support EPA’s work to develop a clear, continued path for the transition to cleaner resources, we are disappointed that the agency did not address the concerns we raised about carbon capture and storage (CCS)," the institute said in a release. "CCS is not yet ready for full-scale, economy-wide deployment, nor is there sufficient time to permit, finance, and build the CCS infrastructure needed for compliance by 2032."
'It's doable'
But Andrews, the Wilmington council member, said she knows clean, renewable energy isn't something that's just aspirational.
Her house has a set of 35 solar panels on the roof, which has help drive down here monthly electric bill to next to nothing and helps power her Prius Hybrid.
"It's doable because I'm living it," Andrews said a week after the public hearing. "What Duke is proposing is not a clean energy plan that moves us forward."
She said she is especially concerned about Duke's proposal to delay the deadline to meet the 70% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by five years from 2030 to 2035.
"That could have substantial repercussions, especially for us here in Wilmington," Andrews said. "We’re already very vulnerable to the impacts of climate change with sea-level rise and more powerful storms."
The utilities commission has the final say on Duke's carbon plan, which can be tweaked every two years, with the option to approve, reject or amend the proposal. The agency is expected to issue a decision sometime late this year, with the next major milestone in the process an evidentiary hearing in Raleigh starting in late July.
Reporter Gareth McGrath can be reached at GMcGrath@Gannett.com or @GarethMcGrathSN on X/Twitter. This story was produced with financial support from the Green South Foundation and the Prentice Foundation. The USA TODAY Network maintains full editorial control of the work.
