When a solar energy developer approached Halifax County, North Carolina, in the early 2010s about renting its former airfield in Roanoke Rapids, community leaders had a condition. 

“If they were willing to lease this land for the very first solar project in the area, the county needed to get something back in return,” said Mozine Lowe from her office, which overlooks the 20 megawatt solar farm now atop the old airport. “What they got was this building.”

Of course, it’s more than a building. It’s the headquarters for the Center for Energy Education, the nonprofit Lowe has run since 2016 that works to maximize the benefits of large solar farms in rural America — one community, one school child, and one worker at a time. 

Lowe, who grew up about five miles from where she now works, had graduated from Greensboro’s North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University but worked across the country, from California to Washington, D.C. 

When she returned to this rural county of less than 50,000 near the Virginia border, formerly a hub of farming and textiles, she said she didn’t see a lot of change.  

“The jobs were the same,” she said. “I didn’t see people making the connection between solar energy and what’s happening with the climate and the impact on rural communities, and I just wanted to try and help from that angle.” 

The Center conducts educational programs for children of all ages, who come in by the busload from surrounding schools both public and private. It holds a Solar Fest every year to celebrate clean energy with community leaders, drawing hundreds.

Through collaborations with local educational institutions like community colleges, the center has also helped to train a new workforce in jobs that pay roughly twice what workers are earning at the fast-food chains off Interstate 95. 

“We have trained more people than most other people around here to become solar installers,” Lowe said. “We want them to be first in line for our jobs.”

And there’s outreach to solar companies themselves in North Carolina as well as Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana, where the Center also has offices. The goal is to help them become better community partners.

Only a few ‘good players’ 

Geenex, the Charlotte-based developer who built the solar farm at the airport and over a dozen others in the vicinity, is still involved in the Center, and the company’s chairman also chairs the nonprofit’s board.  

But Lowe and other staff at the organization say not every solar developer is committed — at least at first — to working with community leaders in Eastern North Carolina. 

“Geenex is a very good partner,” said Reginald Bynum, the Center’s community outreach manager. “They’re a good player. But there are only a few of them. Other companies will say, ‘This is your ordinance? Great. This is all I have to do.’” 

Some county ordinances, like that in Halifax, need to be updated, Bynum said. Many still call for a 75-foot buffer between the rows of solar panels and neighboring properties. That figure is “so 2018,” said Bynum. It should be doubled, he said. 

Most solar farms are also built on private land — often bits of farmland that can help cotton growers and other farmers guarantee income. But developers usually obtain the leases first, before airing the project in public. 

“That’s the backwards process of solar,” Bynum said. “They’re talking to landowners and securing that land, and then they’re coming to commissioners.” 

What’s more, simply following ordinances isn’t enough, Bynum says. What’s needed is for solar developers to work with local residents to develop community benefits agreements — documents that memorialize pluses to the area, from minimizing construction impacts to providing jobs. 

“It’s a 30-year commitment to the community,” he said, “because your farm’s going to be here 30 years. They’re asking for that, and they deserve that.” 

Critically, say Bynum and other advocates, solar developers need to work with community leaders to provide benefits beyond tax revenue — an undeniable good, but one that isn’t “seen” by anyone except county bookkeepers.

And though a recent study from the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association shows that solar farms today take up a fraction of a percent of the state’s farmland, the figure is a full 1% in Halifax County, and on pace to triple in the coming years, according to the Center’s research. 

“From rural citizens’ standpoint, that’s a lot,” Bynum said. “You have to really understand what they’re seeing.” 

‘Projects have gotten bigger’

Part of what they’re seeing is the result of a simple fact: solar farms aren’t just growing more abundant in parts of rural America. They’re also much larger.

In North Carolina up until 2016, the average utility-scale solar development was 5.8 megawatts covering 35 acres of land, per the Sustainable Energy Association. After a 2017 state law made larger solar farms easier to build, the average system size increased to 13.6 megawatts and covered 115 acres of land.

“Projects have gotten bigger,” said Carson Harkrader, the CEO of Durham-based Carolina Solar Energy, who appeared on a recent clean energy panel with Bynum. “As they’ve gotten bigger, people freak out a little bit.” 

And while many folks’ worries about the visual impact of solar panels can be mollified — with tree buffers, setbacks, and information about the safety of the structures — some are easy targets for opponents. 

“The opposition has become much, much, more organized. There are national groups, funded by the oil and gas industry,” Harkrader said. “With this opposition that is more organized and has more resources, it’s much harder.” 

In some cases, opponents may fill a vacuum left by solar companies who lined up projects before the pandemic and have only recently begun to start construction. 

That’s what happens, said Bynum, “when you miss steps in keeping citizens updated with the project — particularly when you started talking about it five years before. Commissioners change, a lot of tribal knowledge evaporates.” 

More success stories?

And sometimes, it only takes one or two community members to force the issue with local politicians. Both neighboring Northampton and Halifax counties have passed moratoriums on new solar farms recently. Halifax acted after just a few people appeared at their meeting, concerned about the loss of trees.

Having talked with county commissioners, staff at the Center are hopeful the moratorium will end quickly as planned, after the county has updated its ordinance. But the “pause” on solar farms is an example of the constant game of whack-a-mole solar developers and their advocates must play.

Lowe says that’s why the Center is so vital. 

“What makes us unique is that our work is mainly community engagement,” she said. “Our stance is to be neutral, and to provide factual information. I think we need to tell more success stories.”

How one nonprofit is working to build support for solar — and added benefits for communities — in rural North Carolina is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

Charlotte, North Carolina, may soon get access to a new tool to deploy in its push toward 100% clean power: data.

The Tar Heel state’s largest city aims to power all government operations with carbon-free electricity by the end of the decade, including the city-owned Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, one of the busiest in the world. 

But the hub is a big question mark for the city’s climate target. Officials don’t actually know how much energy it uses — or how much renewable energy they need to offset it — because the utility bills for the five-terminal airport are paid by dozens of individual customers, from Cinnabon to Jamba Juice to airline club lounges.

Now, after a decade of urging by Charlotte and others, Duke Energy has a proposal to change that: an eight-page plan for improved data access that has sign-off from the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association; Public Staff, the state-sanctioned customer advocate; and Dominion Energy, which serves the northeast corner of the state.

Filed last month with regulators for approval, Duke’s proposed rules could have wide application, said Ethan Blumenthal, regulatory counsel for the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association. 

“For municipalities applying for federal grants, large customers pursuing energy efficiency, and homeowners and solar companies that are trying to right-size solar installations,” Blumenthal said, “this access to data is essential.”

Avoiding a ‘laborious process’

The Charlotte airport is a prime example of one hurdle facing local communities with climate goals. Today, getting total energy usage data for government-owned buildings with multiple meters means reaching out to individual tenants to get permission to access their accounts.  

“It would be a very laborious process to do that at the airport and anywhere else we have tenants,” said Aaron Tauber, Charlotte’s sustainability analyst.

The problem extends to private building owners who aim to reduce their carbon footprints or improve efficiency but don’t have insight into their renters’ energy consumption. Honeywell, for instance, is a partner in the city’s “Power Down the Crown” initiative, whereby building managers look to reduce energy use by optimizing efficiency. 

“They don’t own all of the data,” Tauber said. “They have tenants in their properties. So, they don’t have visibility to the entire building’s energy use.” 

The new rule will allow a large user, from Honeywell to Charlotte, to access aggregated data for a large building with multiple tenants by request to Duke, so long as at least 15 individual accounts are involved, and none consumes more than 15% of the building’s energy use. 

“Being a larger city, we do have a lot of large buildings with multiple tenants,” said Tauber. “I’m just really excited for these building owners to really — for the first time — gain an understanding of how their buildings are using energy.”

That understanding, he said, is critical for commercial properties to access a new law that allows them to borrow public money for energy efficiency upgrades and pay it back on their property tax bills.  

“Being able to unlock a financing mechanism based on this data will really go a long way for the city to be able to meet our strategic energy action goal of being a low-carbon community,” said Tauber.

Not just for big buildings

The data access rule also applies to a census block, zip code, or other area with at least 15 accounts, which will help local governments meet community-wide climate goals. 

“You can use the aggregated data to make good decisions for program design, and where you might want to target,” said Ann Livingston, senior executive and director of programs with the Southeast Sustainability Directors Network. “You can assess: is this particular block or neighborhood really using a lot more energy per house per square foot than others?” 

Durham County, for instance, together with neighboring Granville and Orange counties, has a $1.5 million federal grant to help low-income homeowners cut their energy use through weatherization and other upgrades.  

“We want to focus in areas where there’s a higher energy use or higher energy burden,” said Tobin Freid, the county’s sustainability manager. “We’d like information at a more granular level than just the county.”

If the new Duke rule is approved, it will also help county officials better tailor the program to individual households and assess its impacts. The proposal would ease the approval process for allowing third-party access to data and ensure that at least two years of prior energy use is included.

“For every home that we work on, we would need historic data to see: what was your energy use before?” Freid said.

Both the aggregated data and third-party access provisions will also be critical for federal programs like Solar for All, aimed at deploying rooftop solar on low-income households. 

“Often, those federal funding opportunities require you to assess and report on energy impact,” said Livingston. “Solar for All will be a very clear example of this, where you need to report energy savings for individual participants.”

Growing interest in local impact

Apart from the sustainability goals, government officials also have a commitment to manage public dollars efficiently, Livingston noted. That’s especially pertinent for large energy users like Durham County, who may pay a higher “demand charge” for a single 30-minute spike in energy use. Large customers with net-metered solar power also pay more during times of peak demand. 

The proposed rules will help solve these challenges by allowing third parties access to machine-readable, easily analyzed data for customers of all sizes. The format would essentially meet national “Green Button” standards, one familiar to the many companies around the country dedicated to managing building energy performance.

The Green Button initiative, a project of the U.S. Department of Energy that originated in Canada, has been around for over a decade – about as long as the Sustainable Energy Association has been advocating for improved customer data access, along with counties like Durham.

But the issue seems to have gained new steam in recent months, as local governments look to take advantage of new federal grants and laws aimed at reducing climate pollution.

What’s more, Blumenthal said, Duke has pledged to implement the rules within 18 months of their approval and help expedite any data requests in the interim.

“There is a commitment to doing everything they can, essentially, to provide data for federal funding purposes up until [the proposal] is fully implemented,” Blumenthal said. “A commitment to try to bridge the gap.”

Asked what prompted the agreement with Blumenthal’s group and others after all this time, Duke spokesperson Logan Stewart said over email: 

“A lot has changed in the last decade from a technology, cybersecurity, and customer engagement perspective that made this stipulation possible. Duke Energy is always looking for ways to collaborate with stakeholders to achieve outcomes that benefit customers.”

Duke Energy data access rules poised to help North Carolina communities meet climate goals is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

Mark Fleming has a prediction for those terrified about the impact of a second Trump administration on the clean energy transition: “It’s going to work out better than folks think.”

Fleming is head of Conservatives for Clean Energy, a Raleigh-based nonprofit that brings together lobbyists, consultants, and politicians on the right who support clean energy. The group formed a decade ago, not long before Trump’s first term began, and is now active in six Southeast states. On Tuesday, together with the Chambers for Innovation and Clean Energy, it held its biennial luncheon in downtown Raleigh. 

Coming just two weeks after an election most advocates see as a major setback for federal clean energy policy, the Raleigh event was not unlike past affairs, with congenial vibes, a half dozen awards to politicians and businesses, and presentation from leading Republican consultants assessing the political salience of clean energy.

“It was an election about the economy and immigration,” explained Paul Shumaker, one such pollster and a fixture at these gatherings. “Clean energy is never going to be the issue.”

Trump and his hostile, mostly fact-free rants on the campaign trail about wind energy and the climate crisis got little mention during the formal presentations. Side conversations showed conservatives seemed relatively unconcerned about the future president’s tirades and threats.

“Governing is different than campaigning,” Fleming said. 

He and others believe much of Trump’s rhetoric was tossed as red meat to his base of supporters and won’t get meaningful follow-through. On technologies such as offshore wind — which the incoming president frequently lambasts — perhaps the administration and even the man himself can be convinced of its economic benefits, attendees suggested. 

Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, a Republican who supports offshore wind in the commonwealth, “will be at the top of the list of conservative policy makers in terms of encouraging the Trump administration to look at the positives on offshore wind,” Fleming said. “It makes long term economic sense, but there’s going to be some education there.”

Indeed, to help his re-election chances, Trump did flip his stance on offshore drilling four years ago — at least for the Southern Atlantic — after input from Republicans in Southeast states who oppose the practice.

Despite Trump’s vague promise to curtail the Inflation Reduction Act, Fleming believes congressional Republicans will preserve most of Biden’s signature climate law because of its benefits in rural areas.

Nine new projects announced in North Carolina the year after the measure’s passage, from lithium processing to vehicle-charging equipment plants, will spur tens of thousands of jobs and add $10 billion to the state’s GDP, the clean economy group E2 found.

Such data should be fodder for members of Congress like Sen. Thom Tillis, North Carolina’s senior U.S. senator and a Republican, to fight to keep most of the Inflation Reduction Act’s provisions.

“He has been such a thoughtful leader on energy issues,” Fleming said of Tillis. “He’s going to be a key decision maker in the U.S. Senate on these clean energy issues moving forward.” 

‘We won’t agree on everything’ 

Jason Saine, a Lincoln County Republican who served more than a dozen years in the North Carolina House and now works as a lobbyist, was among the luncheon’s awardees. He says Trump’s rhetoric is just part of politics. 

“Good science and good facts will rule the day, but in the meantime, we’ll suffer through a lot of rhetoric,” he said.

Like some of his conservative colleagues who focus on federal policy, Fleming hopes the closely divided Congress will have new reason to enact reforms to the permitting process that will speed approval of clean energy as well as fossil fuel projects.

And though he’s confident that much of the Inflation Reduction Act will survive, Fleming believes Congress will trim it — a “scalpel rather than a sledgehammer” approach. 

Saine agrees. “It can always be recreated in a different format and voted on again,” he said. “What’s dead today is never dead tomorrow.”

One item in the climate law that’s ripe for repeal is the $7,500 tax credit for electric vehicles, Fleming said. That incentive is spurring plenty of economic development in rural areas in the form of EV and battery factories, but it’s perceived as benefiting only urban folk. 

“The administration will want wins,” Fleming insisted. “We won’t agree on everything. But I think we’ll have opportunities to work together to move the economy forward and move the clean energy cause forward in D.C.”

No matter what, most of the luncheon attendees remained focused on incremental reforms in North Carolina — where the power dynamics are largely unchanged after Nov. 5. Trump won the state, but Democrat Josh Stein trounced a scandal-plagued Republican to win the governor’s race. The GOP continues to control a heavily gerrymandered legislature and is just one vote shy of a veto-proof majority in the House. 

Still, as “Trump II” approaches, Fleming acknowledged Conservatives for Clean Energy has an important role to play.

“It’s going to be better than folks think,” he repeated. “But the onus will be on all of us to make it happen. Now, groups like ours are more needed than ever. That thought leadership on these issues will be on the right. It’s not going to be from our friends on the left.”

In North Carolina, conservative clean energy supporters don’t think Trump will follow through on threats is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

When regulators allowed Duke Energy to lower bill credits to homes with rooftop solar, critics warned the solar industry would suffer a major loss. 

A year after the new rates took effect, available data show those detractors had a point, with new household solar connections in Duke territory on pace to drop about 40% compared to 2023. 

Yet the reason for the dip is multifaceted — ranging from steep interest rates to the loss of a popular rebate program — and seems to have had little impact on longtime installers in the state.

Indeed, many say they’re optimistic about the future of home solar, partly because of new Duke incentives for home batteries that are already having an impact. Their push now is to extend and expand them.  

“We believe this is a strong way forward to support our utility grid and the ability of homeowners to produce and use their own energy,” said Brandon Pendry, communications specialist at Southern Energy Management, an installer based in Raleigh. 

A complex truce on net metering

Most homes that go solar stay connected to the utility grid, drawing electricity at night and providing surplus power on sunny days. The question is what bargain these solar owners strike with their utility for this give and take, known as net metering.  

The arrangement for Duke’s North Carolina customers was long straightforward: they bought the electrons they needed at the retail rate and sold excess ones back at the same rate. Like all customers, they faced a minimum bill charge for the company’s fixed grid costs, such as poles and wires.

But this approach has downsides for a for-profit utility like Duke, whose business model depends on buying or producing electrons at one cost and selling them for a higher one. Like many utilities around the country, Duke had sought for years to impose more costs on solar customers and credit them less for their contributions to the grid. 

A major campaign contributor in the state legislature with an army of lobbyists, Duke helped write and pass two laws, one in 2017 and another in 2021, requiring an end to retail net metering by 2027. 

Seeking to avoid the bruising battles over net metering seen in California and other states, some North Carolina solar installers and clean energy advocacy nonprofits sought – and achieved – compromise with Duke instead. 

Under the deal, new solar customers can choose a “time of use” rate, in which they’re rewarded more for electrons they add to the grid, and charged more for those they subtract, during times of heavy demand. Alternatively, until the start of 2027, customers can select a “bridge rate,” in which they get a one-to-one exchange for electrons taken from and given to the grid. 

While sophisticated customers might conceivably squeeze out substantial benefits of solar with the time-of-use rates, installers pushed the bridge rate for its simplicity and certainty, which they deem nearly as good as the old net metering rate.

“All in all, I think residential solar installers are feeling excited about where the industry is going right now,” said Matt Abele, the executive director of the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association.

Industry cross currents 

But the dip in sales since the complex truce took effect is undeniable. Abele’s group tracked a huge spike in solar projects registered with state regulators in September 2023, just before the new net metering rates were implemented, followed by a steep drop off that bottomed out last December.  

Different metrics supplied by Duke — solar connections rather than registrations — show new solar rooftop customers on pace to number about 5,300 in 2024, compared to about 9,100 in 2023 and 10,200 in 2022. The number also falls well short of Duke’s own predictions for new residential solar customers for this year of 11,400. 

Yet the installers contacted for this article were largely unfazed. Reached before the devastation of Hurricane Helene, Clary Franko, chief operating officer at Asheville’s Sugar Hollow Solar, predicted sales this year would be lower than last, but not by a huge amount. “Hooray for the bridge rate!” she said. 

Executives at Yes Solar Solutions, based in Cary, agreed. “In residential, the net metering bridge rate has kind of kept things intact,” said Stew Miller, president of the company. “I think everybody's doing as well as to be expected.” 

And Pendry at Southern Energy Management said his company had more potential customers this year than the year before.  

“Looking back at our previous 12-month period, we saw high interest from homeowners who wanted to lock into the legacy net metering program,” he said. “Moving into this last 12-month period, we have seen slightly more interest in solar overall.” 

The disconnect between these companies’ optimism and the decline in sales may reflect that fewer installers are doing business now in North Carolina, with 40 companies registering new systems in the state in August versus 57 last September, according to the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association. 

Indeed, established rooftop solar companies say part of their business model now includes cleaning up after so-called bad actors, who installed panels incorrectly or incompletely during the heady days of the early 2020’s.

“There were so many systems that were put in in our area that we’re having to redo,” said Dave Hollister, president of Asheville-based Sundance Solar Systems. “It's been a significant problem in our community.”

Still, a spokesperson for EnergySage, a marketplace that helps connect vetted solar companies with customers, says the company hasn't seen any decrease in the number of active vetted installers working in the state.

It’s also true that the most successful companies are used to the “solar coaster,” the ebb and flow of sales based on policies as well as market conditions. Installations rose sharply immediately after the pandemic, when Duke was still offering rebates, the old net metering rates were in effect, and interest rates were low. That all changed. 

“As usual, we have all these cross currents in the industry,” said Hollister. “I can say that probably the biggest chilling effect was the interest rate hikes.” 

‘An incredible program’

There’s another key factor fueling hope among solar installers: Power Pair, a battery incentive program implemented this spring that was the final puzzle piece in the net metering compromise with Duke. 

For adding a home battery, Duke customers can get a rebate on both it and their solar array. Combined with a 30% federal tax credit, the cash back could cut the cost of an average $40,500 system down to less than $20,000. 

Power Pair participants subscribed to the simpler bridge rate allow Duke to remotely manage their battery and earn an extra $37 a month on average. Enrollees in the more complicated time-of-use rate plan, on the other hand, don’t get monthly incentives but do retain full control of their systems. 

Installers say the incentive is a huge hit, with the great majority of their customers now choosing the bridge rate and buying a battery along with solar panels.

“It’s gotten us to a place where we always thought we would be,” said Miller of Yes Solar, “in that many, if not most, solar systems now include some element of storage.”

The battery inducement drove interest in solar overall, said Bryce Bruncati, director of residential sales with 8M Solar. A whopping 95% of its customers are now installing batteries with their solar systems, as opposed to about a quarter before. “The Power Pair program has been a big success,” he said. 

The uptick in batteries occurred statewide, according to EnergySage. Sixty-nine percent of North Carolina homeowners who went solar with EnergySage in the third quarter of 2024 included battery storage, compared to just 8% in the same period in 2023.

Still, Power Pair is just a pilot program, set to end when each Duke utility reaches a cap of 30,000 kilowatts. Duke reports about 2,000 participants as of early September. According to the company’s website, the utility serving the Asheville area and the eastern part of the state is 36% full, and the one serving central North Carolina is 21% full.

For the solar industry and its advocates, then, the priorities looking forward are several. Extend Power Pair, and count on market forces to make batteries and rooftop solar economically attractive even when the bridge rate expires in 2027. At the same time, expand the incentives to include small businesses and nonprofits, currently under new net metering rates.

“Power Pair has been an incredible program,” said Sugar Hollow’s Franko. Extending it to the commercial sector would make a huge difference, she said, “opening the door for new types of industries that probably aren't thinking about this because sustainability isn't their goal, but reliability would be.”

Correction: Duke Energy's Power Pair pilot program was 36% full for the utility serving the Asheville area and 21% full for the utility serving central North Carolina. An earlier version of this story included incorrect numbers.

Home rooftop solar dips in N.C. after Duke Energy reduces payments, but many installers unfazed is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

North Carolina regulators on Friday accepted Duke Energy’s controversial plan for curbing carbon pollution, a blueprint that ramps up renewable energy and ratchets down coal power but also includes 9 gigawatts of new plants that burn natural gas.

The biennial plan is mandated under a 2021 state law, which requires Duke to zero out its climate-warming emissions by midcentury and cut them 70% by the end of the decade.

The timing of the order from the North Carolina Utilities Commission, two months ahead of schedule, caught many advocates by surprise. But its content did not: it hewed closely to a settlement deal Duke reached this summer with a trade group for the renewable energy industry; Walmart; and Public Staff, the state-sanctioned ratepayer advocate.

But critics were dismayed by regulators’ abdication of the 2030 deadline. The ruling said Duke no longer needed a plan to make the reductions by decade’s end, instead telling it to “pursue ‘all reasonable steps’ to achieve the [70%] target by the earliest possible date.”

“Major step back on climate,” Maggie Shober, research director at the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy,” wrote on X, the website formerly known as Twitter, adding, “for those that say it couldn’t be done, Duke had a 67% reduction by 2030 in its 2020 [long-range plan.] The utility industry generally, and Duke in particular, has had opportunity after opportunity to do better. They chose not to, and here we are.”

EPA rules could complicate plans for gas plants

And while many observers say the three large gas plants approved in the near-term carbon plan are better than the five originally proposed by Duke, detractors note the facilities still could run afoul of rules finalized this spring by the Biden-Harris administration.

“Duke’s plan isn’t even compliant with the latest EPA regulations related to greenhouse gas pollution,” David Rogers, deputy director of the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign, said in a statement. 

Concerns about the Biden-Harris rules, along with doubt that the natural gas plants could be converted to burn carbon-free hydrogen, appeared not to persuade regulators. 

“The Commission acknowledges that there are uncertainties and risks associated with new natural gas-fired generation resources, but this is true of all resources,” the panel wrote. 

On the contrary, regulators believe Duke can make use of gas plants after the state’s 2050 zero-carbon deadline, even if clean hydrogen doesn’t pan out.

“Accordingly,” the panel said, “the Commission determines that a 35-year anticipated useful life of new natural gas-fired generation and its assumed capital costs are reasonable for planning purposes.”

The greenlight for the gas infrastructure is not absolute, commissioners emphasized in their order, since Duke still must obtain a separate permit for the facilities. But advocates still bemoaned the anticipated impact on customers.

“This order leaves the door open for Duke Energy to stall on carbon compliance in order to develop additional resources, like natural gas, that largely benefit their shareholders over ratepayers,” Matt Abele, the executive director of the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association, said via text message.

‘Positive step’ for offshore wind

Still, Abele and other advocates acknowledged the plan’s upsides, including its increase in renewables like solar and batteries. The 2022 plan limited those resources to about 1 gigawatt per year; this year’s version increases the short-term annual addition to about 1.7 gigawatts.

Regulators’ decision to bless 2.4 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2034 and call for Duke to complete an “Acquisition Request for Information” by next summer also drew measured praise. 

“This order is an overall positive step for offshore wind,” Karly Lohan, North Carolina program manager for the Southeastern Wind Coalition, said in an email, adding, “we still need to see Duke move with urgency and administer the [request for information] as soon as possible.”

With regulators required to approve a new carbon-reduction plan for Duke every two years, advocates are already looking ahead to next year, when the process begins anew.

“Proceedings in 2025 present another chance to get North Carolina back on track to achieving the carbon reduction goals as directed by state law,” Will Scott, Environmental Defense Fund’s director of Southeast climate and clean energy, said in a statement.

“By accelerating offshore wind and solar, the Commission could still set a course for meaningful emissions reductions from the power sector that are fueling the effects of climate change, including dangerous and expensive storms like Hurricane Helene.”

And like Scott, David Neal, senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, isn’t giving up on the state’s 2030 carbon-reduction deadline, the commission’s latest order notwithstanding.

“We’ll continue to push for the clean energy future that North Carolinians deserve and that state law and federal carbon pollution limits mandate,” he said in a statement.

Months ahead of schedule, North Carolina regulators accept Duke Energy’s controversial plan to reduce carbon is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

Seventeen days after Hurricane Helene devastated Western North Carolina, tearing down power lines, destroying water mains, and disabling cell phone towers, the signs of relief were hard to miss. 

Trucks formed a caravan along Interstate 40, filled with camouflaged soldiers, large square tanks of water, and essentials from pet food to diapers. In towns, roadside signs — official versions emblazoned with nonprofit relief logos and wooden makeshift ones scrawled with paint — advertised free food and water. 

And then there were the generators. 

The noisy machines powered the trailers where Asheville residents sought showers, weeks after the city’s water system failed. They fueled the food trucks delivering hot meals to the thousands without working stoves. They filtered water for communities to drink and flush toilets. 

Western North Carolina is far from unique. In the wake of disaster, generators are a staple of relief efforts around the globe. But across the region, a New Orleans-based nonprofit is working to displace as many of these fossil fuel burners as they can, swapping in batteries charged with solar panels instead. 

It’s the largest response effort the Footprint Project has ever deployed in its short life, and organizers hope the impact will extend far into the future. 

“If we can get this sustainable tech in fast, then when the real rebuild happens, there’s a whole new conversation that wouldn’t have happened if we were just doing the same thing that we did every time,” said Will Heegaard, operations director for the organization.  

“Responders use what they know works, and our job is to get them stuff that works better than single-use fossil fuels do,” he said. “And then, they can start asking for that. It trickles up to a systems change.” 

A ‘no-brainer’ solution to the problem of gas generators 

The rationale for diesel and gas generators is simple: they’re widely available. They’re relatively easy to operate. Assuming fuel is available, they can run 24-7, keeping people warm, fed, and connected to their loved ones even when the electric grid is down. Indubitably, they save lives.  

But they’re not without downsides. The burning of fossil fuels causes not just more just more carbon that exacerbates the climate crisis, but smog and soot-forming air pollutants that can trigger asthma attacks and other respiratory problems.  

In Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria, generators were so prevalent after the electric grid failed that harmful air pollution in San Juan soared above the safe legal limit. The risk is especially acute for sensitive populations who turn to generators for powering vital equipment like oxygenators. 

There are also practical challenges. Generators aren’t cheap, retailing at big box stores for more than $1,000. Once initial fuel supplies run out — as happened in parts of Western North Carolina in the immediate aftermath of Helene — it can be difficult and costly to find more. And the machines are noisy, potentially harming health and creating more stress for aid workers and the people they serve. 

Heegaard witnessed these challenges firsthand in Guinea in 2016 when he was responding to an Ebola outbreak. A paramedic, his job was to train locals to collect blood samples and store them in generator-powered refrigerators that would be motorcycled to the city of Conakry for testing. He had a grant to give cash reimbursements to the lab techs for the fuel. 

“This is so hard already, and the idea of doing a cash reimbursement in a super poor rural country for gas generators seems really hard,” Heegaard recalled thinking. “I had heard of solar refrigerators. I asked the local logistician in Conakry, ‘Are these things even possible?’”  

The next day, the logistician said they were. They could be installed within a month. “It was just a no-brainer,” said Heegaard. “The only reason we hadn’t done it is the grant wasn’t written that way.” 

‘Game changing for a response’

Two years later, the Footprint Project was born of that experience. With just seven full-time staff, the group cycles in workers in the wake of disaster, partnering up with local solar companies, nonprofits and others, to gather supplies and distribute as many as they can. 

They deploy solar-powered charging stations, water filtration systems, and other so-called climate tech to communities who need it most — starting with those without power, water, or a generator at all, and extending to those looking to offset their fossil fuel combustion.

The group has now built nearly 50 such solar-powered microgrids in the region, from Lake Junaluska to Linville Falls, more than it has ever supplied in the wake of disaster. The recipients range from volunteer fire stations to trailer parks to an art collective in West Asheville.

Mike Talyad, a photographer who last year launched the collective to support artists of color, teamed up with the Grassroots Aid Partnership, a national nonprofit, to fill in relief gaps in the wake of Helene. “The whole city was trying to figure it out,” he said. 

Solar panels from Footprint that initially powered a water filter have now largely displaced the generators for the team’s food trucks, which last week were providing 1,000 meals a day. “When we did the switchover,” Talyad said, “it was a time when gas was still questionable.”

Last week, the team at Footprint also provided six solar panels, a Tesla battery, and charging station to displace a noisy generator at a retirement community in South Asheville.

The device was powering a system that sucked water from a pond, filtered it, and rendered it potable. Picking up their jugs of drinking water, a steady flow of residents oohed and aahed as the solar panels were installed, and sighed in relief when the din of the generator abated. 

“Most responders are not playing with solar microgrids because they’re better for the environment,” said Heegaard. “They’re playing with it because if they can turn their generator off for 12 hours a day, that means literally half the fuel savings. Some of them are spending tens of thousands of dollars a month on diesel or gas. That is game changing for a response.” 

‘Showing up for their neighbors’

Footprint’s robust relief effort and the variety of its beneficiaries is owed in part to the scale of Helene’s destruction, with more than 1 million in North Carolina alone who initially lost power.  

“It’s really hard to put into words what’s happening out there right now,” said Matt Abele, the executive director of the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association, who visited in the early days after the storm. “It is just the most heartbreaking thing I’ve ever seen — whole mobile home parks that are just completely gone.” 

But the breadth of the response is also owed to Footprint’s approach to aid, which is rooted in connections to grassroots groups, government organizations, and the local solar industry. All have partnered together for the relief effort. 

“We’ve been incredibly overwhelmed by the positive response that we’ve seen from the clean energy community,” Abele said, “both from an equipment donation standpoint and a financial resources standpoint.” 

Some four hours east of the devastation in Western North Carolina, Greentech Renewables Raleigh has been soliciting and storing solar panels and other goods. It’s also raising money for products that are harder to get for free — like PV wire and batteries. Then it trucks the supplies west.

“We’ve got bodies, we’ve got trucks, we’ve got relationships,” said Shasten Jolley, the manager at the company, which warehouses and sells supplies to a variety of installers. “So, we try to utilize all those things to help out.”

The cargo is delivered to Mars Hill, a tiny college town about 20 miles north of Asheville that was virtually untouched by Helene. Through a local regional government organization, Frank Johnson, the owner of a robotics company, volunteered his 110,000-square-foot facility for storage.

Johnson is just one example of how people in the region have leapt to help each other, said Abele, who’s based in Raleigh.

“You can tell when you’re out there,” he said, “that so many people in the community are coping by showing up for their neighbors.”

‘Available for the next response’

To be sure, Footprint’s operations aren’t seamless at every turn. For instance, most of the donated solar panels designated for the South Asheville retirement community didn’t work, a fact the installers learned once they’d made the 40-minute drive in the morning and tried to connect them to the system. They returned later that afternoon with functioning units, but then faced the challenge of what to do with the broken ones.

“This is solar aid waste,” Heegaard said. “The last site we did yesterday had the same problem. Now we have to figure out how to recycle them.”

It’s also not uncommon for the microgrids to stop working, Heegaard said, because of understandable operator errors, like running them all night to provide heat.  

But above all, the problem for Footprint is scale. A tiny organization among behemoth relief groups, they simply don’t have the bandwidth for a larger response. When Milton followed immediately on the heels of Helene, Heegaard’s group made the difficult choice to hunker down in North Carolina. 

With climate-fueled weather disasters poised to increase, the organization hopes to entice the biggest, most well-resourced players in disaster relief to start regularly using solar microgrids in their efforts. 

As power is slowly restored across the region, with just over 5,000 remaining without electricity, there’s also the question of what comes next.

While there’s a parallel conversation underway among advocates and policymakers about making microgrids and distributed solar a more permanent feature of the grid, Footprint also hopes to inspire some of that change from the ground up. Maybe the volunteer fire station decides to put solar panels on its roof when it rebuilds, for instance. 

“We can change the conversation around resilience and recovery by directly pointing to something that worked when the lights were out and debris was in the street,” Heegaard said.

As for the actual Footprint equipment, the dream is to create “lending libraries” in places like Asheville, to be cycled in and out of community events and disaster relief.

“The solar trailer or the microgrid or the water maker that went to the Burnsville elementary school right after the storm – that can be recycled and used to power the music stage or the movie in the park,” Heegaard said. “Then that equipment is here, it’s being utilized, and it’s available for the next response, whether it’s in Knoxville or Atlanta or South Carolina.”

This disaster relief nonprofit is pioneering a clean energy alternative to noisy, polluting generators is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

Even as North Carolina continues to weaken its building energy conservation codes, a new federal rule is poised to spur the construction of thousands of energy-efficient starter homes in the state each year. 

Adopted earlier this spring, the measure requires homes with certain federally-backed mortgages to meet the latest guidance for insulation thickness, window quality, and other energy-saving features — a major improvement over the state’s 2009-era floor for new residential construction. 

The rule is expected to impact more than 1 in 10 new home sales in North Carolina, mostly by lower-income and first-time homebuyers. Government studies show they will pay more for improved efficiency but reap immediate cash-flow benefits from lower monthly utility bills. 

“The requirements are essential for protecting low-income homebuyers and renters,” said Lowell Ungar, federal policy director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, “lowering their energy bills, giving them more comfortable and healthier homes, and protecting them in the climate transition.”

The impact extends beyond North Carolina and will lift standards in several states where lawmakers and industry lobbyists have pushed back against energy-saving building code updates.   

Ungar and his colleagues are also working to extend the requirements to the independent regulator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. If they succeed, a large majority of new homes in North Carolina could be built to modern energy-savings standards — even though a 2023 state law prevents any major code updates until the next decade. 

Rob Howard, who builds sustainable homes in the state’s foothills, fought against the law and now serves on the state’s Building Code Council. 

“It’s the first feeling of hope that I’ve had for North Carolina since last year,” he said.

Homebuilders block local improvements 

Reducing energy waste in buildings is a critical component of the clean energy transition. The most cost-effective way to do so is at the point of construction, especially in rapidly-growing North Carolina, where some 90,000 new homes are built each year, about two-thirds of them single-family units. 

Yet the powerful home construction lobby has long resisted stronger requirements for energy-saving features in residential construction, influencing the state legislature, where it is a major campaign donor, and until recently, the state’s Building Code Council, a citizen commission. 

Thus, while model codes are updated every three years, North Carolina’s rules remain outdated. Though the council was poised last year to bring the code in line with 2021 guidelines, lawmakers backed by developers intervened to circumvent the update, overriding a veto from Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat. 

This year, the Republican-led legislature relaxed insulation requirements and made other changes to the building code that many experts, including the state fire marshals’ association, argued would make homes less safe. Again, Cooper vetoed the measure, and in a vote last week, lawmakers overrode him.

“The General Assembly has let the homebuilding industry make a quick buck at the expense of North Carolina families who will pay more every month in home energy costs,” Drew Ball, Southeast campaigns director at Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement after the vote. “This law rolls back North Carolina’s energy building codes and passes the costs on to consumers.”

‘Let’s set the bar as high as possible’

But state building codes aren’t the only policies that can influence home construction.  

The federal government plays a huge role in promoting homeownership by guaranteeing loans for borrowers who can only make a small down payment or may otherwise risk default.  

In 2007, a sweeping energy law adopted under the George W. Bush administration required any new home purchased with backing from the Department of Housing and Urban Development or the Department of Agriculture to meet the latest model code for energy efficiency. 

It wasn’t until 2015 that the Obama administration tied the loans to the 2009 model energy efficiency code. The Trump administration took no action.

The Biden-Harris administration picked up the torch last year, beginning an examination to make sure the latest model codes would bring more benefits than costs. In May of this year, officials concluded that the 2021 standards wouldn’t negatively affect the affordability and availability of housing.

“As a result of the updated energy standards, energy efficiency improvements of 37% will cut energy costs by more than $950 per year, saving homeowners tens of thousands of dollars over the lifetime of the home,” a press release from the Department of Housing and Urban Development said.

Similarly, last year an independent government lab found that the more stringent standards will add about $5,000 to the cost of the average North Carolina home, but generate a positive monthly cash flow instantly in the form of lower utility bills. 

About 1 in 10 new single-family home loans per year are backed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development or the Department of Agriculture, according to the federal officials. 

The Department of Veterans Affairs must update its lending rules to match those of HUD and USDA, impacting another 3% to 5% of newly built homes, Ungar estimates.

Howard, who’s building a small collection of super-efficient homes in Granite Falls, says just one of the 11 cottages so far is being financed with a loan that would be affected by the new rule. 

“As a small builder who’s focused on attainable housing, I’m going to assume that a certain percentage of my buyers will qualify for the USDA loan programs,” he said. “And so of course, I want them to have the ability to participate in those. But I’ve already made the decision to build to zero-energy ready, which is currently based on the 2021 [model code]. I’m already there.” 

The bigger impact of the new rule will be on large, multi-state, multi-regional builders who focus on starter homes, Howard said. “Those kinds of builders don’t want two different levels that they’re building to. They would rather have one that simplifies their entire construction process.”

With the new rule, then, builders can either adhere to the latest energy efficiency standards so that potential buyers can qualify for federal backing on their loans — or not. 

“Let’s set the bar as high as possible,” said Howard, “and then builders get to choose.” 

If multi-state builders choose to build all of their homes to the 2021 model code, the rule’s impact could extend beyond the roughly 15% of new stock estimated by government officials and advocates.

‘A much broader impact’

If advocates succeed in getting the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the regulator of Fannie and Freddie, to adopt the same standards, the effect would be even greater: the two companies ultimately end up buying over half of mortgages in the country. 

“Now you’re talking about 70% of the loans in this country,” Howard said. “So that’s obviously a much broader impact.”

As they have in North Carolina, the national builder lobby claims the energy efficiency standards will add tens of thousands of dollars to construction costs. They oppose the rule that’s already finalized for the Departments of Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, and Veterans Affairs, and they object to extending the requirements to Fannie and Freddie. 

“If Fannie and Freddie were forced to comply with the 2021… mandate,” Missouri builder Shawn Woods told Congress this spring, “this would become a de facto national standard and be a massive blow to housing affordability.” 

Unless Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump wins this November, the finalized rule is safe for now, advocates believe. As for the broader requirements on Fannie and Freddie, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency said it would study the matter and issue a decision by the end of June. 

“Obviously, they did not do that,” Ungar said.

Even with N.C.’s building code frozen, federal rule poised to boost energy-efficient housing in the state is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

A three-judge panel in North Carolina upheld Duke Energy’s reduced payments to rooftop solar owners on Tuesday, unanimously rejecting claims from climate justice advocates that the smaller credits run afoul of state law.

The ruling upholds for now a scheme that took effect last October after Duke, some of the state’s oldest solar installers, and multiple clean energy groups reached a complicated truce to avoid the bruising battles over net metering seen in other states.

NC WARN, Environmental Working Group, and others opposed to the compromise argued that regulators adopted it without conducting their own analysis of the costs and benefits of net metering, a requirement of a 2017 statute. Such studies typically show that rooftop solar offers net benefits to the grid, contrary to utility claims.

The appellants rested their argument in part on a statement from one of the 2017 law’s authors, John Szoka, a Fayetteville Republican who served in the state House of Representatives for a decade. An Energy News Network article quoted in the appeal describes Szoka as “adamant” that the Utilities Commission, not Duke, should conduct the study.

The appeals court panel agreed, based on the plain text of the law. 

“The commission erred in concluding that it was not required to perform an investigation of the costs and benefits of customer-sited generation,” Judge Hunter Murphy, a Republican, wrote. 

But in a disappointing twist for the challengers, he continued, “however, the record reveals that the commission de facto performed such an investigation when it opened an investigation docket in response to [Duke’s] proposed revised net energy metering rates; permitted all interested parties to intervene; and accepted, compiled, and reviewed over 1,000 pages of evidence.”

Joined by two Democrats, Judges John Arrowood and Toby Hampson, Murphy’s opinion also rejected arguments that the commission erred by failing to consider all of the benefits of rooftop solar and by forcing solar owners to migrate to time-variable rates instead of allowing flat rates to stand.

“The commission properly considered the evidence before it and made appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law,” Murphy wrote.

Many solar installers saw a dip in sales and interest in the last quarter of 2023 when the lower net metering credits took effect. But they were also hopeful about a new Duke program that rolled out this spring, which offers solar customers incentives to pair their arrays with home batteries.

Jim Warren, NC WARN executive director and an outspoken Duke critic, said in a press release that he and his allies would weigh an appeal to the state’s Supreme Court. 

“This ruling directly harms our once-growing solar power industry and the communities constantly battered by climate change driven by polluters like Duke Energy,” he said.

North Carolina appeals court upholds Duke Energy’s lower net metering rates is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

An array of critics came out swinging in January when Duke Energy first filed its plans in North Carolina for one of the largest fossil fuel investments in the country.  

But as the months have dragged on in the development of the company’s biennial carbon-reduction plan, some notable detractors have relented. 

Just before expert witness testimony was set to begin in Raleigh late last month, the state-sanctioned ratepayer advocate, Public Staff, and Walmart endorsed a settlement with Duke on its blueprint, which includes building 9 gigawatts of new natural gas plants that the utility says could be converted to run on hydrogen in the future.

A few days later, the Carolinas Clean Energy Business Association, a consortium of solar and wind developers, announced it had signed on too.  

The agreement, which contains some small concessions from the utility, led to low-key hearings that ended in less than two weeks. It makes it more likely that Duke will get what it wants from regulators by year’s end, including a greenlight, if not final approval, for three large new natural gas plants in the near term.

Chris Carmody, executive director of the Carolinas Clean Energy Business Association, says the proposed compromise also helps lock in forward progress on solar energy and batteries, however incremental. 

“It’s a more aggressive solar spend. It’s a more aggressive storage spend,” he said. “Certainly, we would like to see more. But first of all, we like to see it going in the right direction.” 

Clean energy advocates believe Duke’s push for new gas plants will harm the climate, since the plants’ associated releases of planet-warming methane will cancel out any benefits of reduced carbon pollution from smokestacks. At the same time, they say the investments could become useless by midcentury or sooner, before their book life is over, saddling ratepayers with costs that bring no benefits.

“There’s not much in it for their customers except unnecessary risk, cost, and more pollution,” Will Scott, southeast climate and clean energy director for the Environmental Defense Fund, wrote in a blog last month. 

But Duke’s gas bubble has proved hard to burst. For one, the company’s predictions of massive future demand from new data centers are based in part on confidential business dealings that are challenging to rebut from the outside. 

Unlike two years ago, when Duke proposed its first carbon reduction plan, no groups produced an independent model showing how Duke could meet demand without building new gas. 

“We can talk about costs, or market conditions,” said Carmody. But, he said, “we did not do any modeling.”

Public Staff ran its own numbers and has urged more caution on new gas plants than Duke proposes. But the agency is unwavering that at least some are needed.

New Biden administration rules haven’t yet proved the death knell for gas that some expected. Duke is suing to overturn the rule, but it insists that building new plants that will run at half capacity is the most economical plan for compliance.

And even as Duke is proffering more gas, it’s also undeniably proposing more solar.

Clean energy backers still object to annual constraints on solar development the utility says are necessary. But the limits have increased from less than 1,000 megawatts per year in 2022 to over 1,300 megawatts. And the settlement would result in another 240 megawatts of solar than Duke had first proposed.

“It’s an iterative improvement,” said Carmody. 

What’s more, the settlement opens a discussion with Duke about the scores of 5-megawatt solar projects across the state whose initial contracts will soon expire. A proposal for how to refit them could come in April of next year. 

“This is a really important issue to our members,” said Carmody.  “These are projects that could be repowered. They could be upgraded with storage. They could have significantly more efficient solar technology than was on them 15 or 20 years ago.” 

Still, Carmody said his group tried to word the settlement in a way that left room for clean energy advocates to continue to advocate for less gas and steeper emissions cuts sooner — and that’s certainly their plan. 

“Three power plants that will be really expensive to build and then operate for only a few years is just a ridiculous proposal,” the settlement notwithstanding, said Maggie Shober, research director for the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. 

“We remain hopeful that there’s a lot that the [commission] can do in this carbon plan proceeding and in their final order, to move us forward on a clean energy trajectory.”

Nick Jimenez, senior attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center, acknowledges the settlement stacks the deck somewhat against his clients. 

“Historically, the commission approves a lot of settlements,” he said. “It likes to see parties settle, especially when Duke and the Public Staff are involved.”

Former critics start to coalesce around Duke Energy’s plans for more gas, solar in N.C. is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

North Carolina regulators have approved a controversial green tariff proposal from Duke Energy, rejecting protests from critics who argue it won’t bolster the company’s transition to zero-carbon electricity. 

Originally designed as a way for large electric customers to chip in extra for renewable energy projects Duke is already mandated to build, an amended tariff offered in April could allow some customers to speed up construction of new solar farms by about two years.

The revision appeared to help sway the Utilities Commission. The change, the panel said in its Jul. 31 order, is an “improvement” because the change “adds additional accelerated capacity” of renewable energy. 

The revised tariff, called Green Source Advantage Choice, has backing from the Carolina Industrial Group for Fair Utility Rates, an association of some of Duke’s largest customers. The utility says it plans to formalize the program soon in the wake of the regulators’ order. 

“The [commission] didn’t give us a deadline but asked that we do so when reasonably feasible,” spokesperson Logan Stewart said over email, “so it will be in the coming weeks. In conjunction, we will be working on updating the Green Source Advantage public webpage to include the new program details.” 

A question of ‘regulatory surplus’ 

For large customers with 100% clean energy commitments, a green tariff is a necessity in North Carolina, where Duke has a monopoly and cities, data centers and the like can’t buy clean energy directly from solar farms.  

In theory, a green tariff allows a company such as Google or Amazon to spur a new supply of clean energy equal to their electric demand, with Duke acting as an administrative go-between. An earlier iteration of Green Source Advantage more or less did just that. 

But the accounting got more complicated in 2021, when a bipartisan state law required Duke to cut its carbon pollution at least 95% by 2050. If the company is legally required to build scores of solar farms anyway, can a large customer legitimately claim its sponsorship of one project makes a difference? 

This question of “regulatory surplus” sparked a flurry of arguments and counter-arguments before the commission for some 18 months. Duke initially claimed such “additionality” was neither feasible nor necessary, and some businesses said chipping in to support the clean energy transition was good enough for them. More than a dozen local chambers of commerce and potential customers wrote regulators in support of the original program.  

But Google, the U.S. Department of Defense, and other large customers joined clean energy advocates to flag the problem of regulatory surplus, as did the Center for Resource Solutions, the nonprofit that certifies voluntary renewable energy purchase programs. Duke University, which has no connection to the utility, said it wouldn’t participate in the tariff.  

‘A small step in the right direction’ 

The debate, along with prodding from commissioners, prompted Duke to add a “resource acceleration option” to its proposal. The alternative allows large customers to advance about 150 megawatts of solar energy each year by sponsoring projects not selected in the company’s annual competitive bidding process. Every two years, Duke gets retroactive credit for this “extra” solar as part of its compliance with the 2021 law.

Clean energy advocates believe the new option is a “small step in the right direction.” But they note it accounts for 1 gigawatt of clean energy over ten years, a fifth of the entire program. Customers who lay claim to the remaining 4 gigawatts would not be impacting the state’s transition to clean electricity, they say. 

“If you’re the customer of a business who claims to support our state’s clean energy transition by participating in the program, you’re going to expect that business to be making a difference – not just subsidizing what Duke was going to do anyway,” said Nick Jimenez, senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center. 

The Carolinas Clean Energy Business Alliance, a group of clean energy suppliers, also criticized the acceleration option. And though the Carolina Utility Customers Association, another group of large industrial customers, didn’t oppose the amended proposed tariff, it registered skepticism. 

“[Our] members have little interest in the Resource Acceleration Option,” the group said in a letter to regulators, “which would deliver electricity at a premium cost without providing the benefit of regulatory surplus-based environmental attributes that would be useful in meeting corporate environmental, social, and governance goals.” 

Cause for hope? 

While advocates see little good in the commission’s approval of the Green Source Advantage Choice program, they still have some faint cause for hope. 

One is the so-called Clean Transition Tariff, which Duke could propose later this year. An outgrowth of a May agreement between the utility and Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Nucor, that program could allow participating customers to spur new projects, such as solar-battery storage combos or small nuclear energy, that provide carbon-free electricity around the clock. 

“This is not within the order,” said Jimenez, but the May memorandum of understanding, “is the big opportunity for something better.” 

Duke says the Clean Transition Tariff would be another voluntary option for customers, not a replacement for the one just greenlighted. “We see the approval of Green Source Advantage Choice as a first step,” the company’s Stewart said, “enabling us to move forward with new tariffs like the Clean Transition Tariff.” 

Maggie Shober, research director at the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, agrees the memorandum of understanding is cause for some optimism. But she also notes that it’s only “an agreement to talk about something. It could be an opportunity,” she said, “or it could be a missed opportunity. “ 

And no matter what, the Clean Transition Tariff won’t cater to municipalities and other midsize customers with climate commitments. If these customers decline to pursue Green Source Advantage Choice, their only option is to wait for Duke to adjust.  

Commissioner Jeff Hughes pointed to that possibility in a concurring opinion. 

“Once the program offerings are launched, it will quickly become clear whether the program is as attractive as Duke asserts,” Hughes wrote. “If concerns continue and interest is modest from the outset, it is my hope that Duke will work quickly on new programs that will have a greater impact.”

N.C. regulators approve controversial Duke Energy plan that lets large customers chip in for solar projects is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

Before pivotal hearings that begin Monday, Duke Energy has made a few small concessions to its plans for a giant fossil fuel buildout in North Carolina, winning over the once-skeptical state-sanctioned ratepayer advocate.

Duke’s proposed settlement with Public Staff and Walmart needs approval from the state’s Utilities Commission to take effect. It comes as dozens of experts plan to appear before the panel to debate the company’s biennial carbon plan, including its controversial bid to invest in 9 new gigawatts of natural gas plants and punt on a key state climate deadline.

The agreement still shows Duke determined to construct five large combined-cycle gas plants in the coming decade, but only three would get a preliminary blessing for now. Public Staff earlier had wanted only one such plant to be considered “reasonable for planning purposes.”

While state law requires Duke to cut its carbon emissions 70% by 2030, in line with scientists’ recommendations for avoiding catastrophic global warming, the agreement stipulates that a pollution cut of that magnitude by decade’s end is “unachievable and presents unacceptable risks to the reliability of the grid.” 

Duke also agrees to study the $250 billion Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment Program it had earlier eschewed, though the settlement’s wording seems to reject what experts say is the program’s best use: financing up to 80% of new clean energy projects and remaining debt on retiring coal units with government loans. 

Apart from a few other changes around the edges, the settlement is aligned with the plan Duke filed in January. And while the deal means the utility and Public Staff won’t spend time debating each other next week in Raleigh, clean energy groups and other intervenors still have plenty to litigate.

‘A risk of stranded investments?’

Perhaps most notable, critics say the January blueprint, combined with Duke’s spirited defense of it in hundreds of pages of testimony filed July 1, runs headlong into a new federal rule on coal and gas plants finalized in April.

In effect, the rule forces any new large gas plants to run no more than 40% of the time beginning in 2032. Public Staff, the office of the Attorney General and clean energy groups had urged Duke to reconsider its plan in light of the new regulation, perhaps by replacing some or all of the planned gas with renewables or rolling out new initiatives to reduce electric demand.

Duke is suing to try to overturn the new rule, which is now final. But the company avowed that if the regulation remains, its only option was still to build five new, combined-cycle turbines, even if they only ran at half their potential capacity. 

Having placed manual constraints on renewables and battery storage in its computer forecasting program, Duke said in its testimony, “the model is not able to shift this ‘lost’ gas generation to renewable resources.” 

Instead, the company asserted it would have to generate more power from its existing gas and coal plants, causing 4 more million tons of carbon pollution in the year 2035, a “likely delay” in 70% pollution cuts to 2036 or later, “and an increase in the total system cost of more than $600 million.”

In its July 1 filing, Duke also brushed aside doubt from Public Staff and clean energy groups that its new gas plants could ultimately run on emissions-free hydrogen fuel, which is not yet commercially viable and many experts say may never be practical.

“Several parties incorrectly assume that the addition of new gas resources will subject customers to the risk of stranded investments,” the company wrote in its testimony, “but fail to consider the critical value of these resources over the planning horizon and lack detailed analysis regarding how such a risk would actually materialize three decades from now.”

‘A desperate attempt’

The question of timing also still looms large. Though approval of the settlement would foreclose a 2030 compliance date, clean energy advocates still hold out hope that Duke will make deep pollution cuts consistent with climate science and not delay them until late in the next decade.

In fact, the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association and three groups represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center were so dismayed by Duke’s July 1 testimony that last week they moved for regulators to declare that they wouldn’t approve a plan that violated state or federal law, before the meat of next week’s expert witness hearings begin.

That provoked a blistering countermotion from Duke. The groups, said the utility, “were inexcusably dilatory in filing their motion, and their desperate attempt to introduce legal and procedural complexity into this proceeding at the 11th hour should be stricken.”

The commission denied both motions.

Before key hearings in North Carolina, Duke Energy makes tiny concessions to big gas ambitions is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

Duke Energy has been laying the groundwork for a new gas power plant in North Carolina’s Person County for years, touting it as the “next generation” of electricity production and lining up support from local politicians eager to hold on to the utility’s tax dollars. 

With acknowledgement from regulators and even some clean energy experts that new gas infrastructure may be needed as Duke shutters its coal fleet, the long-planned gas turbines once seemed like an inevitability.

But now, the 1,360 megawatt combined-cycle facility poised to replace the company’s aging coal smokestacks on Hyco Lake has become a major point of contention. And while the odds still favor Duke, community members and advocates alike say they have cause for hope.

First, there’s the reality of new Biden administration rules on fossil fuel power plants. Beginning in 2032, any new large, combined-cycle plant like that proposed in Person County must either cut its carbon emissions drastically or run 40% of the time or less. 

Because North Carolina’s geology isn’t suited to carbon sequestration and emissions-free hydrogen fuel isn’t yet viable, the company would have to limit the plant’s operations — either making it unavailable at key times or requiring costly startups and shutdowns, said Ridge Graham, the North Carolina program manager for Appalachian Voices.

“Either of these options make this combined cycle plant a bad investment and a much more expensive form of electricity generation than clean or renewable energy sources,” Graham told commissioners at a public hearing in Roxboro last month. “This is especially true for Duke customers as the purchase of gas fuel is passed on and has led to multiple rate increases through riders on electricity bills since 2017.”

Bolstering that concern, Public Staff, the state’s ratepayer advocate, notes that Duke lists a proposed new pipeline to transport gas to the plant as an operating cost that would “presumably” be recovered through the fuel rider.

Even if the actual fuel costs were cut in half, engineers for the agency said, “total transportation charges would mostly be unchanged within the ‘Fuel’ category because of the significant pipeline costs that would be necessary to provide natural gas service to the Roxboro site.”

In addition to these charges, ratepayers would also have to pay the full cost of the plant, amortized over 35 years, plus Duke’s regulator-approved profit margin, energy analyst Elizabeth Stanton said in written testimony on behalf of Sierra Club, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, and the Natural Resources Defense Council.  

What’s more, she noted, ratepayers would cover whatever “replacement resources” were needed to meet demand “after the facility’s expected generation was decreased.”

In contrast, Stanton says, Duke’s estimated costs for ratepayers assume the plant will run at over 40% capacity through 2042 — a scenario squarely at odds with the new Biden administration regulation. 

“Duke needs to account for the rule in their planning, and they have not done that,” Mikaela Curry, a North Carolina-based campaign manager at the Sierra Club, said in an interview. “Who pays for a gas plant that can only run 40% of the time?”

While Public Staff supports the new plant, it also asserts in testimony that Duke hasn’t developed a plan for how it will comply with the new federal rule.

“We have concerns about the impact and implementation of the recently issued [Clean Air Act] Rule,” engineers Dustin Metz and Evan Lawrence wrote. “We cannot yet identify how [the] proposed Roxboro facility may be impacted and to what extent.”

‘That modeling … was flawed’ 

The agency also hasn’t seen a comprehensive analysis from Duke to justify the location for the combined cycle unit. “The Public Staff cannot say definitively that the proposed Roxboro… project is least cost for [Duke’s] ratepayers,” Metz and Lawrence said in their testimony.

Other critics also question whether the gas plant is Duke’s most economical option, though for different reasons.

In testimony for the environmental groups, Stanton asserts that Duke artificially limits renewables in its carbon-reduction models; assumes clean energy is 60% costlier than industry standards; and, in the plan that most quickly transitions the company away from fossil fuels, makes all resources 20% more expensive. Plus, new generation built before 2030 — which would be mostly solar — gets an 8% penalty.

“Duke’s rationale for requesting the [Hyco Lake plant… is the] selection of gas resources in its least-cost modeling,” Stanton wrote. “That modeling, however, was flawed, including multiple biases for gas resources and against renewable resources.”

Detractors also doubt the company’s plan to convert the gas plant to run on emissions-free hydrogen as late as 2049 – just in time to comply with state law. That “presumption,” said consultant Bill McAleb in testimony on behalf of the Environmental Defense Fund, “is not based on substantive evidence presented in this docket proceeding.”

Detailing an array of challenges, including uncertainty from equipment manufacturers, McAleb concludes a zero-carbon, hydrogen-fueled facility, “is not only speculative but unlikely.”

‘A very nuanced topic’ 

While advocates wage a legal campaign against the gas plant, activists are reaching out to the people of Person County face-to-face, knocking doors on the roads surrounding the existing coal facility.

Juhi Modi, North Carolina field coordinator for Appalachian Voices, says the canvassing effort so far has identified more opponents than not – surprisingly so. 

“Given that it’s a very nuanced topic, and the fact that people appreciate Duke’s economic presence in the county,” Modi said, “it’s been really meaningful to just hear what they think.” 

Referencing the yearslong campaign to get Duke to excavate its leaking coal ash pits, Modi added: 

“These people were also impacted by coal ash contaminating their well water and were part of a long fight to get their water cleaned up, and still have a lot of skepticism about Duke’s ability to responsibly operate in this community.”

Along an existing pipeline right-of-way, the new pipeline Dominion Energy plans to transport gas to Duke and other customers has also given some in the community pause. Activists say it appears to pass dangerously close to Woodland Elementary School in Semora.

“What would happen if there is an accident? If there is a fire or an explosion?” Modi said. “It’s a real concern for the children, the teachers and the staff that work in the school.”

While cleaner than coal in terms of smog-and soot-forming air pollution, the gas plant’s emissions of methane — a potent greenhouse gas — will negate its climate benefits, said  Katie Moore, an air quality researcher who lives in Roxboro.  

“Not only do we not have enough time to use [gas] as a ‘bridge fuel,’” she said,  but it doesn’t even make sense because the climate impacts are the same, essentially, as coal.”

Moore also believes there’s an incorrect assumption that either Duke replaces its Hyco Lake coal units with gas or the company leaves the county altogether.

“Those are not the only two options,” said Moore, who grew up in neighboring Durham County and moved to slower-paced Person 2.5 years ago. “I don’t want people to be out of jobs and I don’t want to lose 20% of the tax base. But that’s not an inevitability. I think there are lots of ways that we could embrace renewables in this county.” 

Long odds remain

Still, at an in-person public hearing last month, Moore and other locals against the plant were outnumbered by supporters, who ranged from tourism boosters to local elected officials to the superintendent of Person County Schools, Rodney Peterson. 

“A school district like ours could not recover from the loss of our local tax base,” said Peterson, who noted he was appearing in a personal capacity. “I ask you to remember our students, our parents, our teachers in Person County.” 

Besides support from many community leaders, many other factors still weigh in Duke’s favor.  

Notwithstanding its concerns about the plant’s cost and its compliance with the new Biden administration rules, Public Staff believes the energy it will provide will be vital as the company works to reduce its carbon pollution as required by law.

“There is a need for [combined cycle and combustion turbine] natural gas generation in [Duke’s] service territories,” the engineers wrote in their testimony. Denying the company a permit to build the plant, they asserted, “could delay interim carbon emissions reduction compliance and coal plant retirements set forth in the Carbon Plan Order.”

While solar combined with battery storage could in theory provide similar economic and energy benefits as the gas plant, Person County leaders would have to repeal a 2022 ordinance that effectively bans large-scale solar farms. 

Meanwhile, Duke is eschewing an Inflation Reduction Act loan program meant to encourage clean energy investments in communities with retired coal plants.

And even though the commission is dominated by appointments from Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat who’s embraced the clean energy economy and criticized fossil fuels, the panel has so far exhibited little resistance to the utility’s gas expansion plans.

“It just makes me feel sad,” said Crystal Cavalier-Keck, the co-founder of the Indigenous activist group Seven Directions of Service, referencing how the panel approved Duke’s last carbon reduction plan with few edits. “It’s disheartening.”

A spokesperson for Duke declined to comment for this story, but the company’s formal responses to Public Staff and clean energy advocates intervening in the case are due later this month. An expert witness hearing is expected as soon as early August.

In the meantime, organizers like Cavalier-Keck say they’ll keep getting the word out. “We’re just going to continue to knock on all the doors,” she said, “and continue to educate people.”

Can a long-planned Duke Energy gas plant in North Carolina be defeated? is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

Duke Energy’s plan to zero out its carbon pollution all but ignores a federal loan program that could save ratepayers hundreds of millions of dollars and enable more clean energy, the state’s ratepayer advocate said in recent filings.

And since the loans run out in September 2026, state Public Staff and clean energy advocates say time is running out for Duke to correct course. 

“This is a singular bite at the apple that they’re going to get,” said Jeremy Fisher, principal adviser for climate and energy at the Sierra Club. “So, we’re not in a position to sit here and say, ‘hey Duke, in your next [long-term plan], you should model it.’ This is the moment.” 

Public Staff called attention to the $250 billion federal Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment Program in its assessment of Duke’s proposed biennial carbon reduction plan, the first of which was approved by state regulators at the end of 2022, months after the surprise passage of the Inflation Reduction Act.

In accepting Duke’s plan that year, regulators noted: “it is appropriate for Duke to incorporate the impacts of the Inflation Reduction Act… and other future legislative changes… into its [Carbon Plan and long-range generation] proposal that it will file with the Commission on or before September 1, 2023.”

But Public Staff and other intervenors say the utility did not fully do so, at least when it comes to the Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment Program. 

“The Public Staff has concerns regarding Duke’s failure to model the [loan] program,” wrote Jeff Thomas, an engineer with the agency. The program, he added later, “represents a significant opportunity for cost savings for ratepayers tied to the deployment of new clean energy resources.”

Bundling retirement refinancing with new clean energy

The loans are perhaps less well known than the Inflation Reduction Act’s tax incentives for everything from electric vehicles to solar panels to offshore wind turbines. 

But they’re just as important, if not more so, especially in light of the North Carolina law that requires Duke to reduce its carbon emissions in a “least cost” manner.

Fisher said utilities can take advantage of the program to varying degrees, with proportionate savings for ratepayers. 

In the “ideal use of this program,” Fisher said, utilities can refinance outstanding loans for their retiring coal plants and combine them with new clean energy investments, all for a low interest rate. Then there’s a “lesser version,” in which a utility doesn’t transfer its balance on old coal plants but does finance new clean energy projects through the federal government. Finally, he said, there’s “one more step down.” That’s where a company like Duke essentially switches to the government debt it would otherwise owe a bank.

In a recent paper, the clean energy think tank Rocky Mountain Institute explained why this last option is least desirable for ratepayers.  

“If utilities do nothing more than use [Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment] loans to displace corporate debt,” researchers wrote, “overall ratepayer savings will be minimal, since most utilities can already borrow at reasonably attractive interest rates without the added complication and expense of participating in a government program.” 

Yet, Fisher said, testimony from the state-sanctioned customer advocate suggests this “stepped down” version of the loan program is what Duke envisions.  

Michelle Boswell, director of Public Staff’s accounting division, relayed an example of a Missouri utility that could maximize the Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment program and save its customers over $900 million. “While these ratepayer benefits come at the expense of lower earnings for the utility,” Boswell noted, “they are consistent with the least-cost mandate contained in [state law].” 

‘Take aggressive advantage?’ 

At a technical hearing last week before regulators, Thomas reiterated that position. “As the ratepayer advocate, cost is a major concern,” he said. “We believe there are ways to control costs. One proposal is that Duke should take aggressive advantage of the Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment loan program.”

Doing so could save ratepayers more than $400 million through 2032, Thomas said last week, and lead to increased renewable and storage deployment.

Testifying on behalf of Attorney General Josh Stein, expert witness Edward Burgess stressed the loan program could be utilized to cover transmission upgrades needed to connect more solar and storage to the grid. 

“Reconductoring of transmission lines could allow for significantly greater renewable resource availability,” Burgess wrote. “This could be done much more cost-effectively with assistance from the Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment program.”

Indeed, advocates say the federal program doesn’t just promise to lower ratepayer costs for the clean energy Duke currently proposes. By changing the economic calculus, the loans could spur the company to invest in more storage and solar and retire its coal plants sooner. 

Duke’s proposed 1,360-megawatt gas plant outside Roxboro in Person County is a case in point.

In theory, rather than replace coal smokestacks on Hyco Lake with gas-fired units, Duke could build battery storage and clean energy on the site instead. 

That investment would qualify the utility for an additional 10% federal tax incentive, since it would be located within 30 miles of a retiring coal plant. Much of the outstanding debt on the old fossil fuel plant and the solar and battery investments could be leveraged into a low-interest loan through the federal government.

Testifying for several clean energy advocacy groups, expert witness Maria Roumpani said that Duke may not be taking full advantage of this additional 10% incentive, since it assumes that 60% of its new standalone batteries will be sited at retired coal sites.

“Although the approach seems reasonable,” Roumpani wrote, “it might lead to the analysis overlooking certain opportunities to replace coal capacity.”  

The Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment Program and the 10% bonus credit for former coal plant communities could also work in concert with so-called securitization of Duke’s coal-fired power plants, in which the remaining book value of plants is paid off through bonds backed by ratepayers. 

The same state law requiring Duke to zero out its carbon pollution also calls for only half of the book value of its least efficient coal plants to be securitized. Theoretically, advocates say, the remainder could be paid off through the federal loan program.

‘A once-in-a-decade opportunity’ 

Asked about Public Staff’s assertion that the utility didn’t account for the federal loan program in its latest proposal for phasing out carbon, spokesperson Bill Norton said Duke was still reviewing the filing. 

He added, “we have already engaged with the Department of Energy and other utilities to learn more about the… program and see if it provides benefits to our customers. We will pursue all federal funding that we believe can reduce energy transition costs for our customers in a manner that protects reliability, supports our coal plant communities and accommodates North Carolina’s growing economy.”

Public Staff and others say time is of the essence. The loan program has a limited amount of funds, and records suggest other utilities have already applied for nearly half the total. That means Duke needs to begin applying for the loans as soon as possible, and, critics argue, should have already started.

“By failing to examine this option,” the attorney general said in its filing, “Duke may be missing out on a once-in-a-decade opportunity to save millions for its customers.”

N.C.’s ratepayer advocate: Duke Energy ‘failed’ to consider incentives that would cut costs & enable more clean energy is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

It’s become a biannual tradition.

Since 2021, when North Carolina adopted a law requiring Duke Energy to zero out its carbon pollution, advocates have spent every other year poring over the company’s plans for supplying this state of 11 million with clean electricity. 

As of late last month, the first phase of the new ritual is now complete: citizens turned out by the hundreds to public hearings around the state and submitted written comments; and dozens of organizations, businesses, and large customers filed testimony to the state’s Utilities Commission, charged with approving or amending Duke’s plan by year’s end.  

A review of these comments shows clear dissatisfaction with Duke’s plan, which critics say is too reliant on gas and unproven technologies and too dismissive of resources like solar and battery storage.  

But there are also a few powerful institutions pulling in the opposite direction. And their voices could grow louder in the coming months, as the state enters the next phase of in-person, expert witness hearings. 

The law requires Duke to cut its carbon pollution by 70% by 2030 and at least 95% by midcentury, in line with scientists’ recommendations for avoiding catastrophic global warming. The statute directs regulators on the Utilities Commission to develop a plan to make that happen and to update the blueprint every two years.

Even as the popular, bipartisan measure moved through the legislative process, some critics worried it gave too much deference to Duke and did not make clear that regulators — not the utility — would chart the state’s path to a decarbonized electricity sector.

Still, after Duke in 2022 issued its first Carbon Plan proposal — a document covering hundreds of pages and including four different pathways for achieving net zero — a host of outside stakeholders put forward their own plans for the commission to mull, hoping the panel would pick and choose from them or even craft its own blueprint.

But in the end, after months upon months of expert hearings, public input, and thousands of pages of written testimony, the commission adopted Duke’s plan with few edits. 

This first Carbon Plan order was largely nonbinding. But after regulators sided with Duke on virtually every major issue — from how much the company should drive energy efficiency to how much solar it can connect annually to the grid — advocates this year are taking a slightly different tack. 

Rather than devise their own painstaking models to compete with Duke and its army of lawyers, engineers, and other experts, this time most organizations are starting with the company’s portfolios and critiquing key elements.

‘Most reasonable, least cost, least risk plan’

As in the lead up to the first Carbon Plan, this year Duke has proposed multiple routes to zero carbon by midcentury, with one clear preference. Offered in January after predicting a steep rise in electricity demand, that pathway is to add over 22 gigawatts of renewable energy and battery storage in the next decade, including from ocean-based wind turbines.

In the same time frame, the company wants to shutter most of its coal plants and add nearly 9 gigawatts of new gas plants, nearly three times the immediate build-out it proffered two years ago and one of the largest such proposals in the country. It also envisions two small nuclear plants of 300 megawatts each, about a seventh the size of the state’s largest nuclear plant outside Charlotte.

The company seeks to exploit exceptions in the state’s law to achieve a 70% cut in carbon emissions by 2035 instead of 2030. And while its plans to zero out its pollution are vague, they rest partially on building more nuclear reactors by 2050 and fueling any remaining gas plants with hydrogen – a technology still under development.

Still, Duke’s focus is on the immediate term. In its January filing, it sought support for “pursuing near-term actions that align with [its preferred pathway] as the most reasonable, least cost, least risk plan to reliably transition the system and prudently plan for the needs of…customers at this time.”

‘Imperative that the 2030 target be met’ 

Numerous commenters questioned that assertion, including the company’s premise that ratcheting down emissions more slowly than the law prescribes presents a “lower execution risk.” 

Perhaps most notably, the Clean Energy Buyers Association, a group of 400 major corporations from a range of sectors with their own sustainability targets, argued forcefully against delaying the 2030 target. 

“The ability of [our] members that are Duke customers to meet their clean energy commitments depends in large part on how clean Duke’s resource mix is,” the association’s Kyle Davis said in written testimony. He went on to say regulators should “only” approve a near-term plan that would allow Duke to cut its pollution 70% by decade’s end. 

Similarly, a group of local government Duke customers with climate goals, including major cities Raleigh and Greensboro and small college towns Boone and Davidson, noted that Duke’s energy mix would dictate whether they could meet their aims.

“Due to the urgency of the climate crisis and the implications to the health and well-being of the constituents we serve,” the cities and counties wrote, “it is imperative that the 2030 target be met in the timelines specified in [the law.]”

Testifying for the office of the Attorney General Josh Stein, expert witness Edward Burgess noted that the commission has not yet abandoned the 2030 deadline and that, according to the law, the 70% cut could only slip past 2032 under “very specific conditions” that have not been met.

Regulators haven’t authorized a nuclear or wind project that has been delayed beyond Duke’s control, he asserted, and a delay wasn’t necessary to maintain the “adequacy and reliability of the existing grid.”

Recognizing Duke’s latest increased demand projections, Burgess urged commissioners to “set a clear directive for Duke to achieve the Interim Target by no later than 2032.” Otherwise, said the witness for the attorney general, the public interest would be harmed by the “increase [in] the cumulative tons of CO2 emitted, which would remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years.”

‘Arbitrary limits on battery and solar’

The process by which Duke maps its generation plans over the next decade is complex and time intensive. But it’s aided by a computer modeling program that weighs various factors including costs to produce an optimal generation mix.

This method produces more solar and battery storage each year than Duke thinks is possible or appropriate to connect to the grid, so the company imposes manual limits on the computer program. Critics call that step unnecessary and damaging to the project of curbing carbon emissions in a least-cost manner. 

“Solar [photovoltaic] is the cheapest source of carbon-free electrons on the grid now and for the foreseeable future,” testified expert witness John Michael Hagerty on behalf of the Carolinas Clean Energy Business Association. “All things being equal, the more generation… that Duke can get from solar PV instead of other resources, the cheaper it will be for Duke to comply with carbon reduction targets.”

Michael Goggin, an expert witness for the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association and clean energy groups represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center, analyzed other grid operators around the country and estimated that Duke could connect around 4 gigawatts of solar and storage annually, compared to the upper limit of 2.8 gigawatts suggested by the utility.

“Duke’s arbitrary limits on solar and battery interconnection should be greatly increased if not eliminated,” Goggin wrote. “These limits do not reflect reality, and there are many potential solutions to the interconnection challenges Duke claims in its attempt to justify these limits.” 

Pleading for more offshore wind

While numerous commenters were happy to see Duke move much more ambitiously toward offshore wind than it did two years ago, they noted the utility’s projected 2.4 gigawatts — enough to power about a million homes — fell significantly short of the near-term potential in ocean wind areas off the state’s coast. 

“The Carolina Long Bay projects have the potential to reach more than 2 gigawatts, and the Kitty Hawk Projects have the potential to reach nearly 3.5 gigawatts,” two employees of wind company Avangrid testified. “Therefore, there is additional offshore wind resource beyond the Preferred Portfolio request available to North Carolina.”

The state’s Department of Commerce has taken a keen interest in offshore wind because of its vast potential for economic development. Jennifer Mundt, an assistant secretary at the Department, implored regulators and Duke to “set a path forward… that directs the deployment of at least 6.0 gigawatts of offshore wind by the mid-2030s.” 

Such development is achievable with the Carolina Long Bay and Kitty Hawk areas, she said, and “will unlock billions in capital expenditures and tens of thousands of good-paying jobs for North Carolinians, and boost Duke towards its mandate to achieve carbon neutrality by mid-century – a true win-win-win scenario.”

A pair of experts testifying for the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association noted that Duke would benefit from being a “second mover” on offshore wind in the United States: it could learn from the many other projects underway on the Eastern seaboard without putting ratepayers at risk. 

In contrast, John O’Brien and Philip Moor warned that for small modular nuclear reactors, “it is unclear when the Companies will be a second mover… the only approved project design…has been cancelled, and the closest designs… are under development by TerraPower and the Tennessee Valley Authority.”

Skepticism of new gas and ‘advanced’ nuclear

Indeed, while most clean energy advocates believe large, existing, emissions-free nuclear power plants can play a vital role in curbing carbon pollution, several say Duke’s near-term pursuit of as-yet unproven small modular reactors over more readily available alternatives is a mistake.

“Given the long lead-times, nuclear experts have found that [small modular reactors] will do nothing to address climate change, as the technology is too little, too late,” Grant Smith, senior energy policy advisor with Environmental Working Group, testified on behalf of his group, Durham nonprofit NC WARN, and others.

Numerous stakeholders criticized Duke’s plan to build 10 new gas plants in the next decade, half of which would be large baseload plants forced by new federal rules to run 40% of the time or less. Not only would Duke customers be on the hook for these underutilized plants, critics argued, they’d also be subject to erratic fuel prices.

“In North Carolina, this volatility was at the heart of hundreds of millions of dollars of recent fuel cost increases approved by the commission,” expert witness Evan Hansen testified on behalf of Appalachian Voices. “The Companies’ proposed aggressive build-out of natural gas-fired power plants will only increase their exposure, and their ratepayers’ exposure, to the future volatility of natural gas prices.”

The company’s strategy of converting gas plants to run on hydrogen molecules separated from other compounds as late as 2049 also strains credulity for some. 

“Duke’s general plan to build new natural gas-firing facilities and then transition those facilities to 100% hydrogen-firing faces significant technical uncertainty, infrastructure hurdles and costs,” testified William McAleb for the Environmental Defense Fund. The plants, he said, “are not necessary to maintain grid reliability, may never be co-fired with hydrogen, and will likely raise rates.”

The Clean Energy Buyers Association also suggested that Duke’s plan to supply its members with gas-fired electricity could backfire, causing the state to lose economic development projects and the utility to lose new customers.

“Some of the new load that Duke is forecasting may not materialize if Duke increases the carbon intensity of its resource mix as it has proposed to do in this docket, since some of the customers bringing new load… have clean energy targets,” the association’s Davis wrote. 

If that happens, he said, “and Duke overbuilds with fossil fuel capacity, it would result in higher costs for existing customers and make it more difficult for existing customers to meet their sustainability targets.”

Amid all this criticism, support for Duke’s approach stood out, especially where the timeline is concerned.

Testifying for the Carolina Industrial Group for Fair Industrial Rates, a powerful consortium of manufacturers and other large Duke customers, Brian Collins asserted, “there is increased cost and risk in reliably meeting the interim 70% target by 2030. As a result, I recommend that the Commission not require Duke to meet the 70% emission reductions target by 2030.”

Public Staff, the state-sanctioned ratepayer advocate, believes that compliance with the interim pollution cut is possible by 2034 but not before. And the state’s 26 electric cooperatives, which buy electricity wholesale from Duke, expressed some concern about the speed of transmission upgrades necessary to add renewable energy to the grid fast enough. 

A technical conference is scheduled for next week in Raleigh, and what is likely to be weeks of expert-witness hearings begin July 22.

Groups urge N.C. regulators to push Duke Energy on solar and wind, pump the brakes on new gas is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.