Duke’s plan to go ‘green’ in the works
But at what cost to energy customers?
Projecting “unprecedented” future power demand while legally obliged to reduce carbon emissions to help slow climate change, Duke Energy has proposed adding lots more power-production capacity − including offshore wind − to its plan to meet North Carolina’s future “green” energy needs.
“We need new sources of power and we need a lot of it,” said Kendal Bowman, president of Duke’s N.C. utility operations, in a video explaining the company’s updated plan submitted to the N.C. Utilities Commission late last month.
Duke officials say meeting the surge in power demand, eight times the load growth the company projected just two years ago, while “greening” the grid, keeping the lights on, and customer rates affordable could mean a delay in meeting a major reduction in greenhouse gas emissions until 2035 − five years later than the original goal. The 2021 law requires the N.C. Utilities Commission “to take all reasonable steps” to ensure the state’s energy sector, dominated by Duke, reduces its carbon dioxide emissions 70% from 2005 levels by 2030 and reaches netzero carbon emissions by 2050.
It also could mean customers could see a significant increase in their monthly bills.
Clean energy advocates say Duke can meet the 2030 goal and keep any future rate increases to a more reasonable level by embracing more renewable energy sources, like wind and solar, instead of focusing an adding “dirty” natural gas plants and unproven technologies like small modular nuclear reactors and hydrogen.
“While their new addition of offshore wind resources is commendable, Duke Energy’s buildout of renewable energy is insufficient for the Carolinas’ energy future,” said Michelle Carter with the N.C. League of Conservation Voters. “Duke has dragged its feet on reliable and renewable energy like solar and wind in favor of profits for its shareholders. This updated carbon plan is no exception.”
More demand
Duke officials say that by 2030 energy demand could be 22% above what the company estimated just two years ago, and within a decade it could be 25% greater than previously forecast, prompting the need to add somewhere around 6.8 gigawatts (GW) to the future grid beyond what was in the company’s original carbon plan.
That expected surge in demand is being driven in part by North Carolina’s economic success in luring big manufacturing projects to the state, including Toyota’s battery plant in Randolph County, Boom Supersonic in the Triad, and VinFast’s auto plant in Chatham County, and the projected growth in the number of drivers switching from gas-powered vehicles for electric ones. The number of EVs on N.C. roads is estimated to increase from just over 1% today to nearly 39%, around 4 million vehicles, by 2038.
That’s why Duke is accelerating its plan to add power capacity in pretty much every resource available to it, keeping a diversity of power production sources to ensure reliability and affordability, Bowman said.
Adding offshore wind and small nukes
The push, Duke said, will require the addition of more natural gas plants, more advanced nuclear reactors and the utilization of both onshore and offshore wind facilities. The announcement that the company will officially embrace offshore wind comes after Duke last year sold off its commercial renewable arm, which secured the lease to build a wind farm off Brunswick County.
The new plan proposal also adds more solar energy, reaching 17,500 megawatts within 15 years. Additional battery storage also would be built to store and allow the power to be utilized at night.
As with Duke’s earlier proposals, the updated plan includes several “pathways” for the utilities commission to consider to meet the state’s pollutionreduction goals, with timelines of 2030, 2033 and 2035.
Kendal said 2035 remains Duke’s recommended approach because it is the “most reasonable, least cost and least risk portfolio.”
Higher bills?
But environmentalists chafe at the idea of missing the emission-reduction deadline by five years, noting that adding renewables like solar and wind could easily and affordably be added to the grid today. They also question Duke’s desire to bet on expensive energy infrastructure like new natural gas plants, which emit methane gas, a very harmful greenhouse gas,
“Duke’s latest proposal is to spend ratepayers’ money on risky, unreliable, long-term fossil fuel infrastructure to meet speculative and potentially shortlived electricity demand,” said Maggie Shober, research director with the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.
In its filing with the utilities commission, Duke estimates that construction costs for these additional power resources could significantly increase the average monthly bill for customers − although the number is a moving target considering the potential impacts from technological advances, federal aid to help with the clean energy transition, and future market conditions.
The potential for customer sticker shock is likely to be one of the main focal points of debate as regulators and officials debate Duke’s plan. The utility is already drawing some criticism for its recent rate increase, with N.C. Attorney General Josh Stein, who is running to be the Democratic candidate for governor this fall, announcing that’s he intends to challenge the rate hike − $20 a month for an average Duke customer − that was approved by the utilities commission in December 2023.
What happens now?
The utilities commission has the final say on Duke’s carbon plan, which can be tweaked every two years, with the option to approve, reject or amend the proposal. The agency is expected to issue a decision sometime later this year.
Before that, the proposal will be subject to several hearings scattered around the state where the public will be allowed to comment.
The commission has scheduled a public hearing in Wilmington for 7 p.m., April 29, in Room 317 at the New Hanover County Courthouse, 317 Princess St.
Reporter Gareth McGrath can be reached at GMcGrath@Gannett.com 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.