Latest news with #SenateBill261
Yahoo
6 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
18-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
After ICE detained parent near Charlotte school, it's clear the agency is about cruelty
With regards to the March 14 report that a parent was detained dropping kids off at a Charlotte school: for ICE and its minders, it's about cruelty, fear, terror and the hated 'other.' Masked men, shabbily-dressed, unmarked vehicles, no identification, no warrants. Our America today has shadows of Argentina under Videla, Romania under Ceausescu, Russia under Putin. Should you imagine this is not your business, that it can't happen to you, best to learn your history. Harry Taylor, Charlotte This administration aims to eliminate fraud, abuse and waste within Medicaid. Medicaid is in need of reform. Originally intended to support the poor and those who couldn't obtain insurance, it has gradually evolved into a de facto universal healthcare program. Back in 2000, Medicaid covered around 30 million people. Today, that number has grown to 80 million — about 25% of the U.S. population. This expansion goes far beyond Medicaid's original mission! Mike Howard, Waxhaw Finally, an American who can stand up to Donald Trump. Pope Leo XIV has long been critical of our president's policies toward undocumented immigrants. He has spoken against most of Trump's other harsh policies which serve to undermine the cohesiveness we have enjoyed in the United States, whether citizens or not. The Pope shows what good can come from America. Trump shows what is corrupt and bad can come from America. The Pope is a true world-class leader of 1.4 billion Catholics around the world. Trump has a shrinking following of less than half of the American voters. Looming impeachment proceedings may mean we will soon be free of him. Albert Dancy, Charlotte Senate Bill 261 is a bad deal for NC electric customers. Our utility bills are already too high and this bill would shift the cost and risk of building new power plants from Duke Energy's shareholders to everyday rate payers. This is wrong. As a senior citizen with limited income, I am deeply concerned about utility costs being too high for me and fellow seniors. Making ratepayers pay up front for plant construction costs is a bad idea. In SC ratepayers were left with 9 billion in debt for a nuclear plant that never generated a single kilowatt of electricity. In GA, the cost was even higher for a system that did not deliver as advertised. North Carolina legislators should learn from our neighboring states. We don't need to make the same mistake on power plant costs. Karen Bringle, Charlotte This administration is not even trying to hide its white, male bias. Early on, women and minorities in high positions were fired as being too 'woke.' It shut the door on asylum from South America and Africa even if lives were in danger and began immigrant deportations without due process. Now we hear it has fast tracked admission of white South Africans due to alleged racial bias in their home country. How hypocritical. Democrats have been accused of identity politics, but prejudice like this has made it necessary. Vincent Keipper, Concord Pete Rose was a great baseball player known as 'Charlie Hustle.' He holds the record of the most hits for a career. He is notoriously known for being banned from baseball for gambling on games as a player and a manager, which is clearly forbidden. Years back on a visit to the National Baseball Hall of Fame, I noticed his name was on top of a list of the all-time hits record. While he was not enshrined with a plaque or exhibit, I personally thought that was sufficient. I would not want to decide this issue but to give an analogy, If one robs a bank, is caught, pulls time, pays the debt to society and becomes a God-fearing law-abiding citizen, that person generally and must always never work in a bank. Randall Lemly, Charlotte
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
NC utilities legislation threatens regulatory integrity and consumer protections
(IStock photo courtesy of JPM Strategies) Two of the country's largest investor-owned utilities are waging a multi-state strategy to get more generating plants built at great expense to customers in the Carolinas. Duke Energy and Dominion, who operate in North Carolina are pushing utility-friendly legislation in Senate Bill 261 — now pending in the North Carolina General Assembly — which would fundamentally change the regulatory approval process. If it passes, North Carolina ratepayers will be required to pay much higher utility bills for decades to come. If adopted, SB 261 would allow these utility companies to charge their electric customers upfront for the costs of building new plants. You might remember that this practice resulted in dire consequences in South Carolina where ratepayers are still paying for the failed VC Summer nuclear plant. Here's how it worked: To pay for VC Summer, the utility company SCANA was allowed to charge its ratepayers using something known as 'Construction Work in Progress' (CWIP). That's what they call the setup where customers pay all the upfront costs to build a new power plant. The entire financial burden and the risks were placed entirely on customers and none of it on utility shareholders. When the VC Summer plant finally went belly-up, SCANA and Westinghouse both declared bankruptcy, SCANA executives were prosecuted and a few even went to jail. Guess who was left holding the bag for the $9 billion failed power plant that never was completed? If you guessed 'ratepayers' then you'd be right! Is this the path North Carolina wants to take? As a former member of the South Carolina Public Service Commission, I fear that history will repeat itself in North Carolina. These utilities should not be allowed to circumvent the normal regulatory process. My hope is that the North Carolina legislature will keep its longstanding regulatory process in place. It's worked well for years for North Carolina's large manufacturers, small businesses and residential ratepayers. The North Carolina Utilities Commission and the commissioners who serve on it are currently required by law to look out for the best interests of everyone in the state who pays a power bill. Legislative changes that would undermine their ability to do their job should be soundly rejected. Our existing regulatory process was put in place to protect consumers from utility monopolies who are motivated to increase profits for their shareholders. That is why the North Carolina legislature should continue to rely on the state's utility commissioners who possess the integrity and impartiality to be fair to all parties. Don't make the mistakes that the South Carolina legislature made years ago by passing a law known as the Base Load Review Act. Our South Carolina ratepayers are still paying for those mistakes every month when those utility bills arrive in the mail. Sadly, our ratepayers are now stuck with those high rates for decades to come. Neighbors are supposed to look out for each other. Your neighbor to the south is warning you that trouble is on the way in Raleigh unless North Carolina senators and House members say 'no' to the approach spelled out in Senate Bill 261. Fortunately, it's not too late for North Carolina senators and representatives to rethink and reject this approach. You can learn more about the bill and how to communicate with your legislators by clicking here and here.
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
NC Senate panel endorses van der Vaart for Utilities Commission slot
Donald van der Vaart addresses Senators during his confirmation hearing on May 14, 2025. (Photo: NCGA screengrab) The North Carolina Senate Agriculture, Energy, and Environment Committee voted Wednesday morning to confirm Donald van der Vaart as a member of the North Carolina Utilities Commission, forwarding the resolution to the Senate Select Committee on Nominations. Appointed by Republican Treasurer Brad Briner, van der Vaart previously served as North Carolina's environment secretary. He's a climate skeptic who was considered for EPA administrator during the first Trump administration. Van der Vaart began his state government career with two decades in the state's Division of Air Quality. Republican Gov. Pat McCrory promoted him to secretary of the Department of Environmental Quality in 2015, NC Newsline previously reported. His term on the Utilities Commission, if confirmed, would start July 1 of this year and expire on June 30, 2031. The Utilities Commission is an agency responsible for regulating the rates and services of all investor-owned public utilities in North Carolina. It's the oldest regulatory body in state government, according to its website. At Wednesday's meeting van der Vaart was asked a handful of mostly friendly questions. 'What specific strategies do you think you'll employ to ensure your decisions remain impartial, evidence-driven, and resistant to any undue influence from any of the stakeholder groups?' Sen. Buck Newton (R-Greene, Wayne, Wilson) asked. Van der Vaart said he would rely on the structure that's currently in place, which includes a 'capable' staff that works independently. 'I'm very much interested in using the transparency to the public to provide a forum where free discussions can be not only had, but also viewed,' he said. He's faced criticism in the past due to a potential conflict of interest with his wife's work. Van der Vaart served as the chief administrative judge on a DEQ dispute over the regulation of a toxic chemical in September. His wife Sandra is chair of the North Carolina Chamber Legal Institute, a prominent lobbying group opposed to PFAS regulation, the Port City Daily reported. Newton also asked Van der Vaart to share his thoughts on Senate Bill 261, which would eliminate the interim goal for Duke Energy to cut its carbon emissions by 2030. 'A lot of times, goals and mandates get conflated. Do you see this as a goal or some sort of a mandate?' asked Newton. Van der Vaart said the interim goal does provide the state with 'offramps' if things don't go as planned. 'I think if you look back a little bit into this, you'll see that some of the load predictions and the requirements that were anticipated in the past turned out to be somewhat inaccurate. Now the 2050 goal appears to be a mandate,' Van der Vaart responded. Critics of SB 261 have argued that not having an intermediate goal could make it harder to reach carbon neutrality by 2050. The bill was fast tracked through the Senate in March, but has yet to see action in the House this session. Sen. Jay Chaudhuri (D-Wake) joked that van der Vaart may hold the most degrees out of all nominees in front of the legislature: a bachelor's in chemistry from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a Juris Doctor from North Carolina Central University, a master's in chemical engineering from North Carolina State University, and a doctorate in chemical engineering from the University of Cambridge. Chaudhuri also asked what van der Vaart thought was the most important role for the utilities commission. 'The most important role, despite the fact that we regulate a number of utility functions, is to deliver reliable and affordable energy within the confines that are mandated,' van der Vaart said. 'We need to work very hard to maintain the affordability of our electricity… If we didn't have a consumer advocacy function in North Carolina, then we would be ill served.' Asked about the rising demand for natural gas and pipeline capacity to meet industrial growth, Van der Vaart said this was an issue of critical importance in sustaining the electric grid. 'I think that one of my interests will be to determine and to convince myself that we have the kind of physical capacity and redundancy from a national security standpoint to be able to continue to deliver manufacturing support electricity and various other residential uses of natural gas reliably in the future.' Environmental groups and clean energy advocates have raised concerns about the build out of natural gas pipelines, amid worries about the impacts on water, air and habitats, and greenhouse gas emissions. Along with voting to confirm van der Vaart, the committee heard a resolution to approve Reid Wilson as the DEQ secretary, following appointment from Democratic Gov. Josh Stein. This portion was 'discussion only' and the panel did not take a vote. Wilson formerly served as secretary for the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources from 2021 to 2024. Before that, he was DNCR's chief deputy secretary from 2017 to 2020. He's been serving as DEQ secretary on an interim basis while awaiting confirmation. Clayton Henkel contributed to this report.
Yahoo
06-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Neighboring states' nuclear debacles loom over North Carolina bill
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Generate Key Takeaways Proposed legislation in North Carolina that would allow utility Duke Energy to charge customers for power plants still under construction is taking heat from opponents across the political spectrum, in part because similar schemes have left residents in neighboring states holding the bag for pricey abandoned nuclear projects. The failed expansion of South Carolina's V.C. Summer nuclear plant is the most notable example. After nearly a decade of ballooning costs and construction delays, utilities gave up on the project in 2017, and consumers are still paying down a $9 billion price tag. 'The pay-up-front provision was a key factor leading to the catastrophe on the customer side,' South Carolina Rep. Nathan Ballentine, a Republican, wrote in a recent opinion piece for The Butner-Creedmoor News, a North Carolina outlet. 'We learned the hard way that this type of provision benefits only the utility, while the cost of its failure is borne by every hardworking family and business that pay their electric bills,' Ballentine says in the April 29 article. 'Let the experience that rocked South Carolina be a cautionary tale for North Carolina's Senate Bill 261.' Ballentine isn't the only conservative sounding the alarm about SB 261. National nonprofit Conservatives for a Clean Energy Future released a poll last week in which 650 likely North Carolina voters were asked if they supported or opposed legislation to allow utilities to charge residents for up-front plant construction costs. More than three-fourths said they opposed, including 75% of Republicans, 79% of Democrats, and 77% of unaffiliated voters. 'North Carolina voters of every kind oppose putting consumers on the hook for risky spending on power plants that might never produce a single watt of energy,' Dee Stewart, whose political consulting firm conducted the poll, said in a news release. 'You don't buy a house until it's built, and you don't pay for a car before it's available. … Lawmakers would be wise to reject this ill-advised proposal.' Meanwhile, clean energy advocates believe the bill would likely sweeten Duke's appetite for large new gas plants more so than nuclear ones. That could make the legislation, which also aims to erase the utility's obligation to cut carbon emissions by 2030, a double whammy for climate progress. SB 261 has passed the Senate and is now in the House committee on rules and operations. The text of the bill was also inserted into the Senate's version of the state budget, which awaits action in the House Appropriations Committee. How North Carolina pays for power plants today A basic tenet of the utility regulatory compact is that shareholders bear the risk and cost of power plant construction. In exchange, these investors are guaranteed a customer base that repays them, plus profit, once facilities are producing electricity. This dynamic has long disfavored nuclear power, with its protracted construction timelines, astronomical costs, and episodic concerns about safety. Especially since the fracking boom began some two decades ago, Wall Street has judged natural gas the better bet. This century, only two new nuclear projects have made it across the finish line in the U.S. The most recent, Southern Co.'s Vogtle plant in Georgia, came fully online last year, with the utility finishing the second of two reactors that were about seven years behind schedule and $16 billion over budget. Vogtle was made possible partly by policymakers who scrambled the regulatory compact, allowing investors to recoup their outlays as the plant was under construction and to shift the burden of cost overruns to consumers. Thanks to similar policies in other states, the Southeast is dotted with examples of customers still paying for nuclear forays that never came to fruition. North Carolina already allows Duke to recoup ongoing construction costs for plants but only after regulators scrutinize those plans via a general rate case — a heavily-litigated and time-consuming process that currently occurs about every three years. By contrast, SB 261 would allow Duke to seek rate increases as often as every 12 months to recoup outlays for building 'baseload' plants, which can provide electricity around the clock. While regulators would still have to ensure the charges were prudent, they would do so without a full picture of the utility's finances. Many experts believe such 'single-issue ratemaking' can be worse for consumers than the holistic approach. Legislation could harm state's nuclear energy aspirations Duke has no plans for a large, Vogtle-style nuclear reactor right now, and the earliest it envisions bringing a small modular reactor online is in 2035, according to its latest long-range plans. That's part of why Justin Somelofske, senior regulatory counsel for the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association, said the construction-cost provision will likely benefit plans to build gas plants in the near term. As power demand grows nationwide, Duke and other utilities are all trying to build more gas plants, Somelofske said. That 'is going to constrain the supply chain and increase the demand for these turbines and units and run up costs.' Duke could be eager to see those costs recouped annually rather than waiting for a general rate case. The effect, said Somelofske, is that SB 261 'could pave the way for more carbon-based resources powering our grid.' Then there is the other part of the bill, which would erase the 2030 deadline by which Duke must cut its carbon pollution 70% from 2005 levels. Regulators have already allowed the company to plan to miss the date by about five years. It must still reach carbon neutrality by 2050, but without a midway target, advocates believe Duke is likely to build gas plants to meet baseload needs. In modeling the bill's impact, North Carolina's consumer advocacy agency, Public Staff, estimated that Duke would build half as much nuclear energy by 2035 as the utility recently projected in its long-term plan, according to Tyler Norris, a Duke University doctoral fellow who previously worked as a solar developer and as a special advisor at the U.S. Department of Energy. 'Repealing the interim standard significantly weakens the rationale for nuclear deployment in the 2030s,' Norris wrote in March in his Power & Policy newsletter. Advocates say it also decreases the rationale for building solar, wind, and other renewables. 'What the interim target does,' said Somelofske, 'is require the utility to scrutinize all the best available technologies that can be deployed in the near term and interim term and not wait until we're past the point of no return' on climate change and meeting the 2050 deadline. Still, arguments about the climate crisis aren't likely to carry the day in a General Assembly where Republicans are just one vote shy of a supermajority and the ability to override vetoes from Gov. Josh Stein, a Democrat. The fate of SB 261 will likely hinge on the level of support for the cost-recovery provision, and even some of the bill's backers want to see that section amended. Kevin Martin, head of the manufacturing and industry trade group Carolina Utility Customers Association, previously told Canary Media that SB 261 needs 'more guardrails' to protect customers, although he also said his group is 'directionally supportive' of the bill. Testifying on behalf of the conservative John Locke Foundation, lobbyist Drew Heath told the Senate Agriculture, Energy, and Environment Committee that his organization supports the bill, but it wants 'clarification' on the section allowing Duke to charge customers for the up-front cost of power plants. 'We have questions about the cost-recovery system,' Jon Sanders, director of the foundation's Center for Food, Power, and Life, told Canary Media. 'We are curious what may happen to that aspect in House debates.'
