Latest news with #PublicStaff
Yahoo
13-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
A bill erasing an intermediate clean energy goal in NC speeds through the state Senate
Critics say Senate Bill 261 will relieve pressure on Duke Energy to move rapidly away from generating electricity from fossil fuels as is done in this Indiana coal-fired facility. (Photo: Robert Zullo for States Newsroom) A measure that would eliminate the interim goal for Duke Energy to cut its carbon emissions continued on its fast track through the Senate on Thursday, winning approval with a 31-12 vote. Senate bill 261 removes the 2030 target for a 70% reduction in carbon emissions. The target was established in a heavily-negotiated law that passed with bipartisan support in 2021. That law also included a 2050 goal for carbon neutrality, which would remain unchanged. Sen. Paul Newton (R-Cabarrus), a retired Duke Energy executive, said getting rid of the interim goal – which the utility has already said it can't meet – would save energy customers $13 billion. The Public Staff of the Utilities Commission did the modeling to arrive at that figure, he said. Senate Democrats wanted to hold off on a final vote so they could see the assumptions fed into the model. 'We wanted to meet with the Public Staff to understand the modeling better,' said Sen. Julie Mayfield (D-Buncombe). 'What would happen if you had different inputs?' Not having an intermediate goal could make it harder to reach carbon neutrality, she said. 'Not having a target, even an aspirational target, could mean that we don't stay on track to get to our 2050 goal,' Mayfield said. Democrats were denied the chance to get more details or put questions to the Public Staff, as a Senate majority voted to move ahead with a final vote. 'We just felt that this was a bill that needed to be addressed at this time and just wanted to move forward,' Senate leader Phil Berger (R-Rockingham), one of the bill's sponsors, said later. The bill now goes to the state House for considering. An email from the Public Staff executive director that was forwarded to members of a Senate committee this week said the model was a re-run of Duke Energy's energy production plan, but without the interim goal. The model was not updated to include factors such as inflation, the price of fuel, tariff changes, and other variables, he wrote. Republicans said the change would not cut energy costs, but would slow the rate of growth. The change would help energy consumers, they said, particularly low-income households. 'When you think about the burden of energy bills on the poor, think about low-income residents who live in older, less energy-efficient homes,' Newton said. 'Removing the interim goal means you're standing with North Carolinians.' Democrats said Republicans' concern for low-income residents rang hollow because when the 2021 law was being negotiated, Republicans refused to include energy efficient programs, including those that would have targeted low-income customers. 'Democrats offered about two dozen options for energy efficiency programs that could have been included in that bill, including some that Duke Energy runs in other states and would have been happy to run here,' Mayfield said. 'Every single one of those suggestions was rejected by this body. Every single one.' The bill would also allow Duke Energy to increase base rates to cover the cost of energy-generating facilities while they are under construction, if the Utilities Commission concludes there is an overall cost savings to customers over the life of the facility. In a memo opposing the bill, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) called the provision 'a win for Duke Energy at the expense of ratepayers.' The EDF memo highlighted a partially-completed $9 billion nuclear power plant expansion in South Carolina that the utility companies Santee Cooper and South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. abandoned in 2017, which customers are still paying for.
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
