Latest news with #NorthCarolinaUtilitiesCommission
Yahoo
30-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
N.C. Treasurer names conservative climate skeptic to state Utilities Commission
Image: NC Utilities Commission - This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here. Donald van der Vaart—the state's former environment secretary and a climate skeptic who was shortlisted for EPA administrator during the first Trump administration—has been appointed to the North Carolina Utilities Commission by Republican Treasurer Brad Briner. Van der Vaart started his career in state government as a 20-year employee in the Division of Air Quality and was promoted to secretary of the Department of Environmental Quality by Republican Gov. Pat McCrory in 2015. He was a proponent of offshore drilling and fracking. The Utilities Commission regulates the rates and services of utilities like Duke Energy and companies that provide gas, electricity and drinking water. In that role, the commission oversees the state's transition to renewable energy and is also responsible for ensuring the safety of natural gas pipelines. 'North Carolinians need a strong voice on the North Carolina Utilities Commission,' Briner said in a press release. 'Don provides that voice, and his expertise and leadership will ensure that the citizens of North Carolina have access to low-cost, reliable energy.' The appointment still must be approved by the state House and Senate. Many environmental advocates oppose the appointment. Dan Crawford, director of government relations for the North Carolina League of Conservation Voters, called van der Vaart's appointment 'short sighted and a violation of the public trust. This appointment flies in the face of science and clean energy progress. It's like letting an arsonist guard the fire station.' Van der Vaart would earn roughly $150,000 as a utilities commissioner. 'I am deeply honored by Treasurer Briner's confidence in me,' van der Vaart said in the press release. 'I look forward to working to ensure that North Carolina's energy future remains reliable, affordable, and ever cleaner—safeguarding both our prosperity and our environment.' The treasurer did not have appointment power to the Utilities Commission until December, when the state legislature passed Senate Bill 382. The measure was ostensibly a disaster relief bill for communities devastated by Hurricane Helene, but also contained unrelated provisions that conservative lawmakers favored. Then-Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat, vetoed the bill, but the Republican-controlled legislature overrode it. Before SB 382, the governor appointed the majority of the Utilities Commission—three seats. After the bill became law, one of those appointments went to the state treasurer. The bill also shrunk the membership from seven to five, starting in July: two appointments by the governor, one by the state treasurer and one each to the House and Senate leadership. The treasurer and legislative leaders are all Republicans, meaning the GOP will have control of the new five-member commission. Earlier this month Gov. Josh Stein, a Democrat elected in November, petitioned a Wake County court for a temporary restraining order to thwart the treasurer's appointment power, arguing it violates the state Constitution. The filing names House Speaker Destin Hall and Senate President Pro Temp Phil Berger as defendants. A spokesperson for the governor's office told Inside Climate News that 'the parties are currently trying to work out a briefing schedule to get this dispute resolved as expeditiously as possible so that the Governor can continue the work that voters elected him to do.' When Cooper was elected governor in 2016, van der Vaart could have lost his job as a political appointee. Instead, van der Vaart used his statutory authority to demote himself to a middle management position in the Division of Air Quality. He held that post for a year until he co-authored a lengthy opinion piece in a national environmental law journal calling for the elimination of a key air quality rule, an opinion that contradicted the stance of the agency. Shortly after then-DEQ Secretary Michael Regan placed van der Vaart on administrative leave, he resigned. When Donald Trump won election in 2016, van der Vaart wrote him a congratulatory letter that earned him consideration for EPA administrator. In part, the letter read: 'We must put an end to the idea that more regulation is always good, and instead allow state and local experts to improve the environment.' The top EPA post went instead to Scott Pruitt, who named van der Vaart to the EPA's Science Advisory Board. In a 2018 opinion piece for The Hill, van der Vaart wrote that some environmental groups were 'serving as proxies for the Russians,' and to protect the environment Trump should investigate those allegations. Van der Vaart returned to state government in 2019 when Berger, the State Senate leader, appointed him to the Environmental Management Commission. The EMC makes environmental rules that DEQ must follow. His ascent continued when the chief justice of the state Supreme Court named him the chief administrative law judge for the Office of Administrative Hearings. The quasi-judicial agency presides over contested cases of administrative law. He has commonly assigned himself cases involving DEQ and has often ruled against the agency. If van der Vaart joins the Utilities Commission, he would resign his judgeship.
Yahoo
15-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Is solar threatening North Carolina farms, or is there room for cooperation?
Every morning, when Jim Howie takes his cattle out to pasture, he's following in family traditions that go back generations. His family's owned this land just outside of downtown Waxhaw since the 1860s, and Howie says it's always been used for farming. 'If you go back to the 50s and 60s, agriculture was Waxhaw's main source of income,' he said. 'Everybody had some ties to agriculture.' Now, Waxhaw and much of Union County are rapidly changing. Howie said farms are disappearing, and in their place, the county's seeing far more housing development and often, solar. 'I'm very much a supporter of alternative, alternative sources of energy, but is taking productive farmland the best way to do that?' he said. According to the Solar Energy Industries Association, North Carolina ranks 5th in the nation for solar development, but recently that development has seen a backlash. North Carolina bill would make it harder to build solar in the name of protecting farmland Several counties have instated moratoriums on solar development and House Bill 729, which is making its way through the statehouse aims to slow the industry further. Titled, 'The Farmland Protection Act,' the bill would remove property tax abatements for new solar energy systems, raising the tax liability for such projects by 500%. It would also increase regulatory constraints by requiring the North Carolina Utilities Commission to refuse to issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity for a utility-scale solar project if the project is to be sited on land currently being used for agricultural production. The bill's primary sponsor, Rep. Jimmy Dixon (R-Duplin), described the bill as a way to ensure solar does not take up valuable, productive farmland and that it's paying its fair share to the counties most-often used for development, rural predominantly agricultural communities. 'You travel across the state of North Carolina, and it's occupying the best farmland in the state,' he said. 'I think by experience now we see that this is an industry that does not need incentivizing, and it needs to pay its way.' Joel Olsen sees the industry quite differently. His solar development company, O2, which has built about 25 solar facilities, primarily in North Carolina, does so with agriculture in mind. His Montgomery Sheep Farm is a primary example. The property houses 600,000 solar modules, a few chicken coops, and seven herds of sheep. 'The sheep need the shade, they need the shelter from heat, the shelter from the rain and the solar really needs the vegetation to be kept at an acceptable height so that duality use of the land is fantastic,' Olsen said. Much of his solar power goes to farm operations, but he's also connected to the Duke Energy Progress grid to feed roughly 40 million kWh of power to the nearby town of Biscoe annually. 'That's enough to power about 3,000 average homes,' he said. Besides energy, Olsen said the farm is also paying far more in taxes than it would have without the solar installations. Agricultural land has state tax exemptions, so it generally pays a lower overall cost to its county government. When that land is used for solar, it comes out of that tax exemption and Olsen said, in his case, the Montgomery Sheep Farm had to pay three years of back taxes on the land. Finally, there's the taxes on the installation itself, the personal property tax. According to current North Carolina state law, the solar energy system gets an 80% tax abatement. HB 729 would change that to 0% for all future solar projects. 'That really pulls the rug out from the investments that have been made in North Carolina, the jobs that were created during construction and the opportunity to do agriculture here,' Olsen said. For farmers like Howie, this bill represents an opportunity to push back against at least one pressure point that's been changing the face of the communities they've worked in their entire lives. 'I'm very much a proponent of property rights, somebody being able to do with their land what they would like, but taking farmland out of production is a, it's going to be a bigger and bigger problem,' he said. Olsen said he's sympathetic to concerns about losing farmland, but he believes this bill is the wrong answer. He said farms like his show that agriculture and solar can be done together, and there are ways to encourage practices that don't pit the industries against each other. 'The way you develop this land matters,' he said. 'If you think about it upfront, and you incentivize people to do the right thing instead of trying to institute regulatory delays, regulatory fees and other taxes, on an industry then you're gonna have a benefit for the farmland rather than a lost opportunity.' As of Tuesday April 15, HB 729 has made it through the House Finance Committee. It will face a vote in the Agriculture Committee Tuesday morning.
Yahoo
09-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Agriculture Committee weighs N.C. bill to disincentivize solar on farmland
A bill moving through the North Carolina Statehouse would greatly reduce tax incentives and make it harder to build utility-scale solar projects on farmland. 'Weather Whiplash' is making our dry days drier and wet seasons worse HB 729 or the Farmland Protection Act reduces tax abatements on solar projects from 80% to 40% and requires the North Carolina Utilities Commission to not issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity for a utility-scale solar project unless it's on land not currently being used for agricultural or horticultural production. The bill would also require all new and existing solar projects to register a decommissioning plan and put money aside to enact that plan. The bill's primary sponsor, Rep. Jimmy Dixon (R-Duplin), described the bill as a way to keep productive farmland in its current land use and ensure solar development pays its fair share, particularly to 'tier one counties' or the 40 most economically distressed counties in the state, which host a disproportionate number of these utility-scale solar projects. 'You travel across the state of North Carolina, and it's occupying the best farmland in the state,' he said. 'I am a firm believer in property taxes, property rights … but when you do something on your property that cost every citizen in North Carolina every month a subsidy to pay for what you do on your property. Then I have an interest in what you do on your property.' Six stakeholders spoke before the committee during public comment. Those in favor of the bill included the executive director of the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners, who spoke to the fact that this bill would bring in millions in additional property tax revenue. A representative from the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services spoke about how quickly the state is losing farmland and how solar development is outpacing their efforts to preserve farmland. According to a report from the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association from 2022, solar occupies 0.28% of agricultural land in North Carolina. Opponents of the bill included a solar industry lobbyist, the Carolinas Clean Energy Business Association and an Anson County farmer who is currently leasing his land for solar development. The advocates for clean energy say this bill threatens to stop future development in its tracks, severely limiting North Carolina's options for a quick and cost-effective transition to carbon-free energy. They also say that this bill would have a dramatic impact on the state business environment in general, as it would significantly increase tax and operational costs for projects that were developed in good faith under previous conditions. The advocates also point out that the idea that solar developments don't pay their fair share isn't accurate as the tax abatement only applies to the solar developments themselves, not the land those developments are on. That land also pays significantly more taxes to the counties than it would have, had it remained farmland. The Anson County farmer, George Draper, brought up the impact to his own property rights. He said he was previously leasing his farmland to family, but when the lessee opted for land closer to his property and better suited for his needs, Draper chose to lease to solar so he and his wife could retire on the land they owned while collecting a stable income. 'We make considerably more money now than we did leasing it to my brother-in-law and Anson County makes considerably more money from tax revenues,' he said. 'Solar is a perfect fit for farmers who have unimproved or unused land for providing alternative sources of income.' The bill was not up for a committee vote and the committee opted to cut discussion short. Rep. Dixon said the bill was still a work in progress and said he would change the language around the tax abatement. 'I originally had it going from 80 to 40% and now it goes to zero. There will be no exclusion going forward,' he said. 'We hope that that will be last, some of the very unfair treatment related to other businesses that have come and built in North Carolina, we feel like that will be a good adjustment.' The change in language has not yet been filed in online versions of the bill but his statements imply the abatement change would not apply to existing projects, though it removes the abatement for future projects entirely. The bill remains in the Agriculture and Environment Committee and will be up for another discussion before a vote. If it's reported favorable, the bill has two more committees before it makes it to the house floor. VIDEO: National Pediatric Health Group joins debate over schools being built near Silfab Solar in Fort Mill
Yahoo
02-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
North Carolina bill would make it harder to build solar in the name of protecting farmland
A new bill was introduced in the North Carolina state house that would make it more difficult and more expensive to build big, utility-scale solar projects on agricultural land. The bill, titled the Farmland Protection Act or HB 729, would reduce the tax abatement for certain solar projects to 40% of the appraised value, half of the current 80% tax abatement. It was introduced by Republican Rep. Jimmy Dixon of Duplin. The bill would also prioritize solar development on clear-cut timberland or former industrial property (EPA-designated brownfields) rather than farmland. It would require the North Carolina Utilities Commission to refrain from submitting a certificate of public convenience and necessity for utility-scale solar for land currently being used for agricultural or horticultural production. SPECIAL SECTION >> Channel 9 Climate Stories The bill comes as solar projects across the state face some backlash and counties consider moratoriums on the industry to protect their farmland. Davidson County passed a two-year moratorium late last year. A 2020 report from the American Farmland Trust ranks North Carolina second in states with the most-threatened agricultural land. The report claims the biggest threats are from urbanization and sprawl from low-density residential land use, the report does not mention solar development. According to a report from the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association from 2022, solar occupies 0.28% of agricultural land in North Carolina. As of Wednesday, the bill has not been referred to committee, but already has several sponsors including Rep. Kelly Hastings (R-Cleveland) and Rep. Ben Moss (R-Richmond). (VIDEO: First solar-powered Domino's opens in Clover)
Yahoo
10-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
NC Senators introduce bill to partially repeal Duke Energy's emissions requirements
Monday, Republican senators introduced a bill entitled 'Energy Security and Affordability Act,' SB 261, which would repeal state requirements for Duke Energy to meet carbon reduction by 2030. HB 951, which passed with bipartisan support in 2021, required Duke Energy to meet two deadlines for reducing CO2 emissions. By 2030, the utility must reduce emissions by 70% of 2005 levels and by 2050, Duke Energy's emissions must be carbon neutral. SB 261 eliminates the first deadline, though still requires carbon neutrality by 2050. In the latest iteration of its carbon plan, Duke Energy said it will not meet the 2030 deadline, due to reliability concerns and an expected dramatic increase in energy demand. '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. 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,' the company stated. ALSO READ: Duke Energy will not meet carbon emission goals by 2030 HB 951 allowed some leeway on the midterm deadline if was necessary to ensure affordability and reliability of the grid and if the utility was working on long-term nuclear or offshore wind development. Duke Energy's long-term plan includes both in the 2030s. In November, the North Carolina Utilities Commission waived that deadline requesting Duke Energy take 'all reasonable steps' to meet the 70% reduction by 'the earliest possible date.' The utility claims it will meet that goal by 2035 at the earliest. Should SB 261 pass, this would no longer be required. The bill eliminates a deadline for 70% emissions reductions entirely. The bill would also allow Duke Energy to raise base rates outside of the typical regulatory process if the NCUC determines construction of a new baseload power plant will offer cost-savings for customers over its lifetime. SB 261′s primary sponsors include Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger (R-Rockingham), Senate Majority Leader and former N.C. president for Duke Energy, Paul Newton (R-Cabarrus), and Senator Lisa Barnes (R-Nash). ALSO READ: Duke Energy expands aid programs amid high bills The North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association Matt Abele responded by saying: 'North Carolina ratepayers have already seen significant savings as a result of HB951, which focuses on guaranteeing affordability and reliability. Energy resources like solar and battery storage continue to be the lowest cost home-grown options available in North Carolina. The bill introduced today would hinder connecting more affordable resources to the grid in favor of technologies that pose a greater financial risk to ratepayers. Maintaining the bipartisan law set by the NC General Assembly in 2021 is imperative to keeping monthly electric bills more affordable for North Carolina's residents, businesses, and manufacturers.' VIDEO: Duke Energy will not meet carbon emission goals by 2030
