North Carolina residents in an online hearing April 23 called upon the Utilities Commission to address Duke Energy’s preferred carbon plan, criticizing its slow pace of coal plant retirements and increase in gas plants compared to other options. 

The plan projects three “pathways” the utility could take to reduce its carbon emissions by 70% from 2005 levels by 2030, 2033 and 2038. All three pathways would eliminate Duke’s carbon emissions by 2050, according to the plan, but details concerning the utility’s resource mix beyond 2038 are not mentioned. The commission must approve any plan Duke puts forward before it is enacted. 

Pathway 3, with the most gradual pace of retirements and several large coal plant retirements delayed until 2036, is Duke’s preferred, least-risk option. The company would add 5,625 MW of solar by 2031, 2,700 MW of battery energy storage by 2031, 1,200 MW of onshore wind by 2033 and approximately 4,400 MW of new gas-fired generation by 2032. 

The speakers, all residents within Duke’s North Carolina footprint, took issue with the company “kicking the can,” as resident Allison Kubisko said, on the state’s 2030 goal of reducing emissions by 70% by delaying coal plant retirements. 

“I want to stress my concern about climate change and the need to reduce carbon emissions now. … Later is too late to reduce our emissions and to reduce our fossil fuel use,” Kubisko said. 

The law enacting the 2030 deadline, HB951, does include stipulations for when the commission can issue a delay, including to maintain existing grid reliability or to enable the construction of specific nuclear or wind generation. However, such delays cannot exceed two years, raising concerns about “pushback from the [North Carolina] legislature or even possible legal challenges” should the commission accept Duke’s plan unaltered, resident Matthew Mayers said.  

Putting off the state’s emissions goals could also exacerbate environmental and health issues, Durham resident Betty Matteson said. 

“Our children and grandchildren love to spend time” at Wrightsville Beach, she said. “Scientists tell us that the warming climate will cause rising sea levels and increasingly frequent and intense hurricanes … and I wonder when sea-level rise or a destructive hurricane will threaten our beloved Wrightsville.” 

Residents were also concerned about the buildout of gas-fired generation, particularly in neighboring South Carolina. Generation constructed there would not contribute to emissions reported in North Carolina, they said, even if the state’s residents used its power. Pathway 3 has over 7 GW of gas-fired power in place in 2038, compared to over 6 GW in Pathway 2 and just over 5.3 GW in Pathway 1. 

Matteson expressed specific concerns about residents’ cardiovascular health, which she said is known to be affected by air pollution from burning fossil fuels. She cited North Carolina State University research linking gas pipeline prevalence to nearby residents’ health and economic status as a reason to halt gas infrastructure buildout.  

“By reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, our children could enjoy a healthier future,” she said. “Why is this not the No. 1 priority of the 2024 carbon plan?” 

Cost Analysis

In addition to concerns surrounding emissions, residents opposed the carbon plan’s potential costs to Duke customers. 

Resident Judith Maddox and others said Duke prioritized its bottom line over actual costs in its favored plan. North Carolina regulations allow utilities to recoup gas infrastructure costs, “which makes it profitable for them to request such buildings,” she said. “Then they can turn around and charge customers for the gas costs that are required, whereas wind and solar do not have fuel costs.” 

In the plan Duke labeled as riskiest, Pathway 1, the company tacked on a 20% adder, or “cost risk premium,” to capital costs to account for the “extraordinarily aggressive” energy transition. This pathway would see 2.4 GW of offshore wind installed in the state by 2035, for example. 

This cost is “arbitrary,” resident Lisa Dietz said, given that Duke’s plan for gas and nuclear in the other two pathways is “overly optimistic … in terms of cost, timeline and future fuel availability.” 

In-person public hearings on Duke’s carbon plan also took place in Wilmington and Durham on April 29 and 30, respectively. 

Company spokesperson Bill Norton said the hearings were “about how [Duke] is going to supply the reliable, clean energy need to support North Carolina’s growing economy — while also getting out of coal and reinvesting in power plant communities to lower the cost of the energy transition for all customers.” 

Following testimony from public staff May 28 and the commission’s technical conference June 17, Duke will have the opportunity to file rebuttal testimony by July 1. The commission’s final evidentiary hearing on the carbon plan will occur July 22.