North Carolina Gov. Stein vetoes bill repealing interim greenhouse gas reduction mandate
The measure, which largely addresses activities involving Duke Energy — the state's dominant electric utility — would get rid of the current requirement that electric regulators take 'all reasonable steps to achieve' reducing carbon dioxide output 70% from 2005 levels by 2030.
A directive in the 2021 law to meet a carbon neutrality standard by 2050 stays in place with or without the legislation.
Environmental critics who want cleaner energy sources to come online sooner urged Stein to veto the bill. They also were unhappy with other bill provisions that they argue will make Duke Energy more profitable and shift costs of producing or purchasing electricity to residential customers.
The bill 'walks back our state's commitment to reduce carbon emissions, sending the wrong signal to businesses that want to be a part of our clean energy economy,' Stein said in a news release. 'My job is to do everything in my power to lower costs and grow the economy. This bill fails that test.'
Stein, a former attorney general who took office in January, also vetoed two more bills Wednesday from dozens still on his desk left by the GOP-controlled legislature.
These and four other recent Stein vetoes are subject to potential override votes, perhaps coming as soon as later this month. Speaking Wednesday only on the energy bill, House Speaker Destin Hall and Senate leader Phil Berger expressed confidence in successful overrides. Over a dozen House and Senate Democrats voted for the measure in June.
The 2021 greenhouse gas law was the result of a rare agreement on environmental issues by then-Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper and Republican lawmakers.
Now GOP supporters of the current bill say the 70% reduction mandate is unnecessary and will needlessly raise customer rates by requiring outsize growth for renewable sources like solar and wind power. The state Utilities Commission already pushed back the 2030 deadline — as the 2021 law allows — by at least four years.
By focusing on meeting the 2050 carbon-neutrality mandate, bill supporters say, regulators can direct Duke Energy, which backed the measure, to assemble less expensive power sources now and moderate electricity rate increases.
They cite an analysis performed by a state agency that represents utility customers that calculated the repeal would reduce by at least $13 billion what Duke Energy would have to spend on energy sources for the next 25 years.
Bill opponents, which include several environmental groups, question the savings figure. And Stein cited another study in saying the bill could cost utility customers more through 2050 due to higher fuel costs.
'We need to diversify our energy portfolio so that we are not overly reliant on natural gas and its volatile fuel markets,' Stein added.
At least 17 other states, most of them controlled by Democrats, have laws setting similar net-zero power plant emissions or 100% renewable energy targets, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council.
The bill also contains language that would help Duke Energy seek higher electric rates to cover financing costs to build nuclear or gas-powered plants incrementally, rather than wait until the project's end.
Environmentalists praised Stein's action and urged lawmakers to uphold the veto. 'Stand instead for affordable energy and economic opportunity for all,' said Dan Crawford of the North Carolina League of Conservation Voters.
Donald Bryson of the conservative-leaning John Locke Foundation urged an override, saying Stein 'has chosen ideology over affordability.'
Another vetoed measure Wednesday attempted to clarify and adjust powers of the state auditor — currently Republican Dave Boliek — including his ability to investigate alleged improper governmental activities of individuals, nonprofits and other groups that receive government funds.
Stein's veto message said the auditor's 'sweeping access' in the bill to records of 'any private corporation that accepts any amount of state funding' could undermine business recruitment efforts.
Boliek said in a statement that Stein's veto 'undercuts the important principles of accountability and transparency that taxpayers expect from their government.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Here's how Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene described support for Trump's ‘big beautiful bill'
As President Donald Trump's 'big beautiful bill' returns to the U.S. House of Representatives after passing by a single vote in the U.S. Senate, one prominent Republican supporter of the president called it a 's***show.' Speaking with Trump ally Steve Bannon on his podcast 'War Room' on Tuesday, U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., said U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., does not have the votes to pass Trump's budget reconciliation bill in the House on Wednesday. 'I can't imagine they have the votes,' Greene told Bannon. 'There's no way that Johnson has the votes in the House for this. We're supposed to be back Wednesday morning to start voting at 9 a.m. I think that is not realistic. I just don't see how that's possible. So this is, I think it's far from over.' She called the situation 'dire,' and added that 'it's hard for us to get to an agreement on anything.' 'It's a s***show,' Greene said. 'And I'm sorry for saying that. I know we're not supposed to say that on the air, but that's really what it is.' Republican lawmakers are working to meet Trump's July 4 deadline in passing the bill before he signs it into law. Three Republicans joined Democrats in voting against the Senate version of the bill, which included cuts to federal spending on Medicaid and Affordable Care Act marketplaces by about $1 trillion over a decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office on Monday. This could leave 12 million more people without health insurance by 2034. With a 50-50 split, Vice President JD Vance cast the tie-breaking vote to pass the bill before it was handed back to the House. Before the Senate vote, Greene didn't back the bill due to a provision that would have placed a moratorium on states regulating AI. In a post on X on Tuesday, she called the provision 'a gift to Big Tech and a disaster for American workers and states' rights.' After voting for the House version last month, Greene previously admitted that she missed the section that 'strips states of the right to make laws or regulate AI for 10 years.' Had she seen it, she said she would have voted no. In a 99-1 vote, senators removed the provision from the bill, which Greene subsequently called a 'huge win for federalism,' The Hill reported. The House Rules Committee is leading the debate on Wednesday on a rule to advance the legislation and consider final passage of the bill, ABC News reported. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., told ABC News that all 212 Democrats in the House will vote no on the bill. 'And all we need are four House Republicans to join us in defense of their constituents, who will suffer mightily from this bill,' Jeffries said. All told, the Senate bill includes $4.5 trillion in tax cuts, according to the latest CBO analysis, making permanent Trump's 2017 rates, which would expire at the end of the year if Congress fails to act, while adding the new ones he campaigned on, including no taxes on tips. The Senate package would roll back billions of dollars in green energy tax credits, which Democrats warn will wipe out wind and solar investments nationwide. It would impose $1.2 trillion in cuts, largely to Medicaid and food stamps, by imposing work requirements on able-bodied people, including some parents and older Americans, making sign-up eligibility more stringent and changing federal reimbursements to states. Additionally, the bill would provide a $350 billion infusion for border and national security, including for deportations, some of it paid for with new fees charged to immigrants. The Associated Press contributed to this report. Mass. senators blast Trump settlement with Paramount: 'Bribery in plain sight' Trump's antisemitism probe mostly relies on Harvard's own report, Harvard claims Trump threatens arrest of NYC mayoral candidate during visit to 'Alligator Alcatraz' Mass. has an on-time(ish) state budget: 3 big things to know about the $61B plan Group behind MCAS ballot question broke campaign finance law, state says Read the original article on MassLive.
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court to consider reviving Mississippi evangelist's challenge to protest ordinance
The Supreme Court said Thursday it will consider reviving an evangelist's challenge to a Mississippi city's protest ordinance. Gabriel Olivier, a self-described Christian called to evangelize, asked the justices to let his lawsuit challenging an ordinance barring him from demonstrating outside a Brandon, Miss., amphitheater move forward. The city, in its opposition to Olivier's petition, said the ordinance was passed after Olivier, with a group, called passersby 'whores,' 'Jezebels,' 'sissies' and other derogatory names over a loudspeaker at the amphitheater's busiest intersection. The ordinance redirects protests and demonstrations to a nearby designated area for three hours before an event and one hour after and bans the use of loudspeakers that are 'clearly audible' more than 100 feet from the protest area, the city says. Olivier claimed in his petition to the court that the ordinance 'forbids him' from sharing his faith with fellow citizens outside the amphitheater. He filed suit after being charged with and pleading no contest to violating the ordinance, after he left the protest area because it was 'too isolated for attendees to hear his message.' He paid a $304 fine. A federal judge threw out his case, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit affirmed, citing Supreme Court precedent that people convicted of a crime can't file civil lawsuits against police or other officials. The full appeals court declined to rehear the case by a one-vote margin, over several dissenting opinions. 'It sends an odd message to citizens who care about defending their constitutional rights,' Judge James Ho wrote in one dissent. 'On the one hand, we tell citizens that you can't sue if you're not injured. But on the other hand, we tell them that you can't sue if you are injured.' Olivier asked the justices to clarify whether the high court's 1994 decision in Heck v. Humphrey bars lawsuits like his. A decision is expected by next summer. 'Every American has First Amendment rights to free speech; and every American has a right to their day in court,' said Kelly Shackelford, president, CEO and chief counsel for First Liberty Institute, which is representing Olivier. 'Both of these rights were violated for Gabe Olivier. The Supreme Court will now decide whether those rights will be protected for all Americans.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Air Force to manage new militarized zone along US-Mexico border
The U.S. Air Force is slated to manage a new militarized border zone in Texas along the southern border with Mexico, the service announced. The stretch of land, known as a national defense area, spans 250 miles of the Rio Grande River through Hidalgo and Cameron counties, and will be administered as an extension of Joint Base San Antonio. This NDA is the third established by the Defense Department along the southern border, with the first being sited in New Mexico on April 21 and the second in west Texas on May 1. The secretary of the Air Force and the commander of U.S. Northern Command will collaborate closely to manage the area, according to a service release. The establishment of the NDAs come in response to several executive orders by President Donald Trump to secure the southern border, as the administration aims to reduce not only illegal immigration but also clamp down on illegal narcotics trafficking by cartels throughout the area. In response to heightened border security, narcotics traffickers have sought alternative smuggling routes to escape detection, including maritime routes that have prompted the dispatch of naval warships with Coast Guard LEDET teams aboard to the southern border area to patrol and perform interdictions. This month, a law enforcement operation in Cameron County, Texas — near the location of the new NDA — resulted in the seizure of over 100 pounds of marijuana in an area described as a 'hotspot' of drug trafficking under the influence of the Gulf Cartel. In another recent interdiction, smugglers from Mexico were foiled in an attempt to drive bundles of illicit drug products across the Rio Grande River into South Texas. The new NDA will be manned by personnel serving in Joint Task Force-Southern Border who will monitor the area, install barriers and signage, conduct patrols and stop any trespassers. The military's duty will be to detain trespassers only temporarily and transfer them to the custody of law enforcement authorities. A wide array of technology is being put into use at the southern border to establish control over swathes of vast and challenging terrain. To cut costs of constantly deploying aircraft, JTF-SB has been using 3-D printing to build drones for surveillance. In South Texas, soldiers are using ground-based radar to detect suspicious movement in remote areas and provide warning to law enforcement of potentially harmful activities — including a sharp spike in drone use by narcotics traffickers. Additionally, Stryker vehicles have been fielded due to their maneuverability and camera systems. Trespassers into military zones potentially face prosecution for two federal offenses — illegally entering the county and trespassing on U.S. military property. As of May, illegal border crossings overall were reported to be in decline.
