Environmental groups are worried about new NC energy bill despite coal plant closures

Environmental groups responded to Tuesday’s unveiling of long-awaited energy legislation by criticizing the closed-door process that shaped it, as well as questioning provisions that replace some coal plants with natural gas facilities.

The N.C. Sustainable Energy Association was one of a small number of groups in conversations with legislative leaders as the proposal was negotiated, but late Tuesday issued a statement criticizing House Bill 951, specifically the prescribed replacements for coal plants and a provision allowing Duke and other utilities to spend up to $50 million finding a site for an “advanced nuclear facility.”

“We believe there are clear opportunities to improve this legislation to better protect our state’s electricity customers while still empowering electric utilities to continue providing reliable energy generation,” Ward Lenz, executive director of the N.C. Sustainable Energy Association, wrote in a prepared statement.

The wide-ranging energy bill calls for the retirement of coal plants at five of Duke Energy’s six stations that still feature them and requires the state’s utilities to procure a total of 4,667 megawatts of renewable energy by 2026.

The legislation also establishes a plan that allows utilities to set rates three years at a time instead of annuallyand creates performance-based incentives that could slightly raise or lower rates if utilities hit targets agreed upon with the N.C. Utilities Commission.

Utilities support legislation

Duke, the state’s largest utility, contends that the bill meets its goals of generating power from cleaner sources while keeping prices affordable.

“We support our state leaders charting a path forward for an orderly energy transition — one that supports North Carolina communities and helps ensure the continued affordability and reliability our customers depend on,” Grace Rountree, a Duke spokeswoman, wrote in an email to The News & Observer.

Duke Energy has reduced its carbon emissions 40% from 2005 levels and believes retiring the coal plants outlined in the bill would increase that to a total reduction of 61%. The company has a stated goal of net-zero carbon by 2050.

A spokesman for North Carolina’s Electric Cooperatives, a coalition of 26 not-for-profit cooperatives that operate in a total of 93 counties across the state, said the organization supports the bill. The cooperatives were part of the negotiations that shaped the proposal.

“We are encouraged to see proposed legislation that helps North Carolina transition to a more diverse portfolio of energy resources at a pace that ensures balance and allows us to continue delivering reliable electricity across the state, containing costs for our consumer-members and achieving long-term sustainability goals,” Louis Duke, the cooperatives spokesman, wrote in an email.

Trading coal for natural gas

Retiring coal-fired power plants is broadly seen as a key step in the effort to cut carbon emissions and curb the most severe effects of climate change. Gov. Roy Cooper’s Clean Energy Plan targets a 70% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the state’s power sector by 2030, working from a baseline of 2005 levels.

But environmental groups question replacing coal plants with natural gas facilities.

The Environmental Defense Fund criticized a provision of the bill that calls for mandates replacing coal-fired power with natural gas at the Marshall plants in Catawba County and possibly at the Roxboro Steam Plant in Caswell County. It also calls for the replacement of a Gaston County coal plant in 2023 with 70 megawatts of solar and a battery that can hold up to 20 megawatts.

David Kelly, the organization’s director of North Carolina political affairs, wrote that the N.C. Utilities Commission would generally have the opportunity to review plans for new power plants. The bill allows for that process at plants that would be slated for retirement later in the decade,

“Any new investments in natural gas generation would need to be carefully scrutinized, and should stand up on their own merits against readily available alternatives. Giving carte-blanche to new fossil-fuel power plants runs the risk of over-building and over-reliance on an energy source that leaves North Carolinians financially on the hook for fossil-fuel power longer than is economically necessary and longer than our climate can tolerate.”

Producing electricity with natural gas produces about half as much carbon dioxide and other pollutants as coal, but natural gas is mostly made up of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, and leaks can quickly wipe out advantages.

Andrew Hutson, the executive director of Audubon North Carolina, leveled criticism at the process that created House Bill 951. For months, closed-door conversations have been taking place with legislators and a small group of stakeholders, including Duke Energy, ElectriCities NC, and a pair of sustainable energy groups.

By comparison, more than 90 stakeholder groups helped shape 2007’s Senate Bill 3, the state’s first comprehensive energy legislation.

“Any energy legislation adopted this year should grow North Carolina’s clean energy economy at the speed and scale warranted by our climate crisis, while avoiding out-of-date infrastructure that will end up costing hardworking families more down the line,” Hutson wrote in a prepared statement. “To get there, Duke Energy has to stop operating in secret and begin working in good faith with conservation, environmental and ratepayer advocates.”

Gudrun Thompson, a senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center, criticized several portions of the bill. In addition to echoing worries about the process that shaped the legislation, Thompson said the multi-year rate plan could lead to over-collection on utility bills and questioned a section that allows utilities to own 55% of the renewable energy resources required by 2026.

“The bill was just released to the public for the first time late yesterday,” Thompson wrote, “but bill proponents appear poised to rush the legislative process despite the bill’s failure to meet the state’s clean energy goals and utility ratepayer protections.”

The legislation, introduced Tuesday, now goes to the House Energy committee, where it will be discussed Thursday. That committee and several others will vote on the bill next week and send it for a vote on the House floor.

This story was produced with financial support from 1Earth Fund, in partnership with Journalism Funding Partners, as part of an independent journalism fellowship program. The N&O maintains full editorial control of the work.