Bill altering NC climate goals in the name of lowering energy costs passes senate vote

Yahoo

13-03-2025

Senate Bill 261, known as the Energy Security and Affordability Act, passed its second and third readings in the Senate Thursday and will head to the House for further discussion.
PAST COVERAGE: Legislation to alter NC climate goals progresses in state Senate
The bill, which was introduced Monday, would remove the state's mandate for Duke Energy to reduce its carbon emissions by 70% by 2030, a goal set with bipartisan support in 2021. The utility is still required to operate with carbon neutrality by 2050.
One of the bill's primary sponsors, Senate Majority Leader Paul Newton (R-Cabarrus), also a former Duke Energy executive, introduced the bill to the floor.
He argued that models run by North Carolina's Public Staff, which represents ratepayer interests, show removing the 2030 goal would save North Carolinians $13 billion.
'One in three low-income households struggle to pay their electricity bill each year,' Sen. Newton said. 'The North Carolina Justice Center reports that 1.4 million residents are energy cost burdened. Why would we keep the interim goal?'
Senator Julie Mayfield (D-Buncombe) expressed doubt about the purported savings to ratepayers. She said while that's an admirable goal, she's wondering what assumptions were made in the Public Staff's modeling that achieved the $13 billion savings.
'If this bill allows, for instance, the construction of more gas plants, what does that mean for the cost to customers?' she said. 'If the cost of natural gas skyrockets, as it has done multiple times over the last few decades. What does that mean?'
She also expressed confusion over the purpose of removing the 2030 target entirely, as the North Carolina Utilities Commission has already approved a plan that allows Duke Energy to miss that target by about five years.
Sen. Newton responded that the 2030 goal requires the commission to think more about the short-term rather than allow for longer-term solutions that could provide more cost savings for customers.
'If you look to 2050 then the least cost option for low income may be to build a nuclear plant that may not be on the grid for another 10 years, but it's much less expensive for everyone in North Carolina than jamming in near term, more intermittent resources that are forcing the rates higher today than they otherwise would be,' he said.
The focus on building nuclear has drawn critics to another section of the bill, which would make it easier to raise electricity rates to fund projects under construction before they're completed, if the utilities commission believes this will save ratepayers money in the long run.
Groups, including the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association and the North Carolina Justice Center, expressed concern that this could mean ratepayers would be on the hook for risky, expensive projects, particularly as nuclear energy projects have historically faced cancellations during construction or run behind schedule and over budget.
In a statement, the N.C. Justice Center said the bill reminded them of the legislation that led to the scandal at South Carolina's VC Summer plant.
'When South Carolina had a similar policy in place 10 years ago, ratepayers paid billions of dollars to fund the construction of a nuclear power plant that never produced a single unit of power,' said Claire Williamson, the N.C. Justice Center's Senior Energy Policy Advocate.
Sen. Newton said the provision in the bill requiring the overall cost-savings would offer regulatory protection for customers.
The bill passed its second reading 31 to 12, and immediately after, it passed its third reading with a voice vote.
VIDEO: Legislation to alter NC climate goals progresses in state Senate