Latest news with #EnergySecurityandAffordabilityAct
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Bill claiming to lower energy costs by reducing some NC climate goals moves through House
A bill to eliminate some of North Carolina's emission goals and change the way utilities pass on the cost of power plant construction onto customers is moving through the statehouse under a new name. Wednesday, the House Energy and Public Utilities Committee took up the newly named 'Power Bill Reduction Act,' an amended version of Senate Bill 261, the Energy Security and Affordability Act. ALSO READ: Duke Energy files to dismiss climate change lawsuit Now, Senate Bill 266, which previously focused on regulations for rebuilding homes destroyed in flooding events, the Power Bill Reduction Act includes SB 261's provision to eliminate the state's interim climate goal requiring Duke Energy reduce its carbon emissions by 70% of 2005 levels by 2030, though it maintains the requirement for the utility to reach carbon neutral by 2050. SB 266 also includes the provision that allows utilities to seek rate increases to help defray the cost of construction work in progress. The bill's sponsor in the House, Rep. Dean Arp (R-Union), explained these provisions will lead to improved reliability and lower energy bills in the long run because they allow utilities to be more flexible with their power generation and avoid sudden price hikes which can come after the completion of large, capital expense-heavy construction. 'For instance, if you take out a credit card and you don't pay it off for 10 years, you're going to pay a huge finance charge,' he explained. 'This allows that interest rate to be paid earlier, thereby eliminating the financing cost and the compounding aspect of that the [construction work in progress].' This provision has earned warnings and criticism from those in South Carolina, including former Public Service Commissioner Tom Ervin, who explained a similar law in their state resulted in ratepayers facing years of rate hikes to cover the construction of two new nuclear reactors that were ultimately never built. 'That's a big mistake,' he said. 'Because it may never be completed. We've learned that lesson in South Carolina already, and if you pay as you go, that's money just thrown away.' Rep. Arp explained that SB 266's version has more guardrails than South Carolina's version, which would protect ratepayers should a similar situation arise. The legislation requires that the North Carolina Utilities Commission can only approve rate increases for construction in progress if it finds the facility is cost-effective, will save ratepayers money in the long run, and meets the state's reliability needs. It also allows the Commission to revoke approval if the project no longer meets the public interest. Everyone who appeared for public comment spoke favorably of SB 266, including representatives from Duke Energy, Electri-Cities, and NC Electric Cooperatives, the state's largest energy providers. Economic stakeholders like the Chamber of Commerce and the NC Manufacturers' Alliance said the bill will help the state maintain its momentum in attracting new businesses and development to the state by keeping energy costs low and predictable. Some committee members were skeptical of the savings claimed in the bill. Arp explained research from Public Staff, which represents ratepayers in negotiations with the Commission, shows Duke Energy's current plan would result in an estimated $150B in construction costs by 2050. Under this bill, those costs are expected to drop to around $137 billion. Some on the committee were not satisfied that those calculations factored in all appropriate externalities. Other committee members expressed concerns about how quickly the bill was brought to a vote after appearing on the docket Tuesday night and requested more time to read it. Rep. Pricey Harrison (D-Guilford) was worried about what the bill would mean for the state's commitment to reducing its emissions and fighting climate change. 'If we're thinking about the future of the state and the sustainability of the state, we would be thinking in a more sustainable fashion, and wouldn't be narrowly minded, focused on a bill that I think promotes natural gas and nuclear at the expense of cleaner energy sources,' she said. Rep. Arp pushed back, explaining that new nuclear construction, which this bill would help facilitate, is carbon neutral and that natural gas is necessary to help maintain reliability while the state retires its coal plants. 'This is a responsible, prudent bill that understands that we're not, in fact, backing away from our commitment to responsibly look at our energy production related to our carbon plan,' he said. The bill was approved by the Rules Committee and is expected to be on the House floor early next week. VIDEO: Duke Energy files to dismiss climate change lawsuit
Yahoo
30-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
NC lawmakers are rushing a bill that will increase energy rates. We need to stop them
The N.C. Senate rushed through SB261, the Energy Security and Affordability Act. The bill would allow unchecked rate hikes outside of the usual regulatory process. It would also eliminate our bipartisan law to reduce our state's carbon emissions, gutting a commitment to fighting climate change, which attributed to the unprecedented devastation of our mountain towns and destruction of coastal homes. To reduce transparency and public feedback, lawmakers are rushing SB261 through the N.C. House. Contact your state representative to vote no. Mark Taylor, Charlotte I found the Mar. 24 article 'Cabarrus County Schools lack $3 million for special needs program' thought-provoking, particularly the irony and ideological perspective presented. The opening discusses the ongoing years of frustrations and funding shortages facing special education programs, then transitions into a critique of the president's goal to dismantle the federal education department, suggesting it will exacerbate the issue. Reorganizing the funding for education could actually be beneficial. At least, based on observations and interviews, it certainly would not hurt to explore other options, right? Mike Howard, Marvin Columnist Andrew Dunn took a potshot at Gov. Josh Stein after the State of the State address, saying Stein needs to be honest in discussion of prioritizing tax cuts above investments in public education. Dunn applauds the state GOP for increasing public education funding 'for over a decade.' Odd statement. After winning a legislative majority in 2010, Republicans eviscerated public education. Funding has increased, though at levels insufficient to recapture the good schools we had. Meanwhile, Republicans hungrily await their friendly state Supreme Court tossing the 35-year-old Leandro public education funding decision. It's Dunn who needs to be honest. Harry Taylor, Charlotte Blessings and thanks to the Templeton family for their donation to a trust of 42 acres of land on Lake Norman. Preservation of our historic forests will be a testament to this family's generosity and foresight for generations. I hope their gift will be an example to others to preserve our forests while we can! Laurie Carter, Matthews The Trump administration has touted the return of free speech. There are some notable exceptions. The Associated Press was banned from White House events because they use 'The Gulf of Mexico.' Trump has spoken about revoking licenses for media outlets that don't provide pro-Trump coverage. Military records that contain words relating to minorities and women have been flagged for deletion. Trump has threatened federal funding for universities that allow protests he doesn't care for. So free speech, as long as Trump approves of the content. Arnie Grieves, Huntersville As a minister with relationships with poor people, I am alarmed that our legislators are considering cuts to Medicaid. One woman who is insulin dependent and another with serious heart trouble are both part of our care circle. I urge your readers to let our Congress members know about Medicaid's lifesaving power. Our rural hospitals are barely hanging on. Cuts will hurt poor people and rural hospitals. Pat Jobe, Forest City State lawmakers are considering a reckless bill that would allow anyone to carry a firearm without mandatory training. Removing the requirement for a safety course makes communities less safe and increases the risk of accidental shootings. Just as drivers must pass a test, those carrying guns should require basic safety knowledge. Supporters cite the Second Amendment, but rights come with responsibilities. The government regulates driving and heavy machinery — why should firearms be different? This bill ignores law enforcement professionals who support training requirements. Police already face daily dangers. Untrained, armed individuals make their jobs even riskier. Law-abiding gun owners should have no issue completing a simple safety course. If we value responsible gun ownership, we must demand legislators reject SB50 before it leads to tragedy. Thomas Uhl, Mooresville I was planning to buy a car this year. Not now. With Trump's new 25% tariffs, I won't spend thousands more for that same car. Talk about inflation. Maybe billionaires don't mind. Maybe Trump feels richer now. I sure don't. On top of everything else, the Trump administration is a total clown show. Our country's security, health benefits, Social Security and more are all going down the tubes. Joseph Halpin, Fort Mill
Yahoo
25-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Proposed bill would undo NC climate goals, change rules for Duke Energy raising rates
The Republican-controlled N.C. General Assembly is pushing a bill that would allow Duke Energy to charge N.C. customers for power plants that haven't yet been built and allow the utility giant to avoid the state's approaching carbon emission-reduction goals. The proposed legislation, Senate Bill 261, has prompted fierce pushback from environmentalists, clean energy advocates and many Democrats. They all claim the bill would move North Carolina in the wrong direction when it comes to cleaning up its air and battling climate change, would saddle customers with unneeded expenses, and tie the state more than ever to a future electrical grid that relies on old fossil fuel power sources rather than cleaner, cheaper and safer renewable alternatives. But advocates say the move would save Tar Heel State consumers from ever-increasing electrical bills − partly fueled by the need to meet clean energy mandates − and allow the construction of a more reliable and cheaper power infrastructure. The bill, dubbed the "Energy Security and Affordability Act," would eliminate the 2030 deadline for Duke to reduce carbon emissions 70% from 2005 levels. The utility giant would still have to meet carbon neutrality by 2050. While Duke has said it wants to add lots more solar and wind, and potentially more exotic renewables like hydrogen and small nuclear reactors, to its future grid, it also wants to replace some of its old coal-fired polluting power plants with new natural gas plants that can operate even when its dark or the wind isn't blowing. The legislation also would allow Duke to ask the N.C. Utilities Commission to start charging customers for power-generating facilities even before they are built. Georgia and South Carolina already allow their large utilities to do that. But in both cases, customers are paying for new nuclear plants whose price tags vastly blew through original estimates − and in South Carolina's case never came close to completion and left customers saddled with a $9 billion loss. TWEAKING THE CARBON PLAN: More natural gas, offshore wind, and higher customer bills in Duke's revised energy plan State Sen. Paul Newton, R-Cabarrus, is a former president of Duke's N.C. operations and helped write the bill and advocate for it. Another primary sponsor is state Sen. Phil Berger, R-Guilford, the GOP leader of the Senate. The bill passed the Senate with all Republicans and three Democrats supporting it. Duke also supports the proposal. 'As North Carolina continues to experience unprecedented growth, we're focused on making substantial investments in our critical infrastructure to ensure reliability and keep costs as low and predictable as possible for our customers," the company said in a statement. "We are supportive of policies that enable us to meet the state's growing energy needs, including those that advance efficient and always-on baseload generation resources.' Critics of the state's push to decarbonize its energy network note that customer bills are rising now in part because of efforts to "green" the grid, costs that would likely keep rising quickly if Duke was forced to keep adding more renewables to meet carbon-reduction goals. Some officials also have noted that recent changes coming out of Washington under the Trump administration have made renewable energy projects more expensive and politically less palatable. WINDY FUTURE? Trump's decision to pause offshore wind farms creates stormy waters for NC projects Environmentalists and others say the proposed bill would do little to clean up North Carolina's air. It would also tie the state's customers to expensive and polluting power-generation systems for decades to come that would do little to help in the fight against climate change when cleaner and cheaper options, like wind and solar, are proven and financially less volatile alternatives than relying on gas. Allowing rates to be raised to cover power plants that aren't even built yet also would remove a layer of oversight through the utilities commission that protects customers from wasteful and unnecessary bill increases. "At a time of rising energy costs, this bill is a bad deal for ratepayers," said Will Scott, Southeast climate and clean energy director for Environmental Defense Fund, in a statement. "Our recent analysis showed that North Carolina does not need any more baseload gas power plants, yet this bill fast-tracks those plants' costs on to North Carolinians' power bills. Let's stick to our goals to reduce harmful power plant pollution and minimize customer exposure to volatile gas prices.' Opponents of the bill also note that the 2021 bipartisan legislation that set the carbon-reduction goals was hashed out between GOP legislators, Duke and then-Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat, over months of delicate negotiations and called for sacrifices on both sides. This proposed bill has had little input from anyone but Republicans and is being fast-tracked through the General Assembly with little public debate. POWER GAMES: NC faces challenge of creating a clean, reliable and affordable energy future Gov. Josh Stein, who was N.C. attorney general when the original carbon bill was passed, has criticized the proposed bill as a step backward for the state's economy and the environment. 'This bill would raise utility bills on ratepayers and threaten progress we've made on building a clean energy economy, a sector that employs over 100,000 North Carolinians," said Morgan Hopkins, spokesperson for the Democratic governor. "We should be looking for solutions that create jobs and lower costs for hardworking North Carolinians, not increasing their financial burden.' The proposed bill is now under consideration by the N.C. House. Reporter Gareth McGrath can be reached at GMcGrath@ or @GarethMcGrathSN on X/Twitter. This story was produced with financial support from the Green South Foundation and the Prentice Foundation. The USA TODAY Network maintains full editorial control of the work. This article originally appeared on Wilmington StarNews: Proposed bill would see NC retreat from climate goals, allow new rates
Yahoo
13-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Bill altering NC climate goals in the name of lowering energy costs passes senate vote
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
Yahoo
13-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Bill altering NC climate goals in the name of lowering energy costs passes senate vote
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
