# New report from North Carolina Energy Policy Task Force shows a more affordable future if data centers bring their own new, clean energy. *Published:* 2026-10-28 *Author:* Will Scott *Key Takeaways:* - **NC Energy Policy Task Force report finds a cleaner, more affordable power sector is possible**: The Power Pathways analysis of Duke Energy’s North Carolina territories through 2050 finds the state can meet rising electricity demand reliably while cutting pollution and costs. It also finds that heavy reliance on new gas plants is neither inevitable nor the lowest-risk path for customers. - **North Carolina should plan for committed large-load demand, not speculative forecasts:** Limiting new demand to projects already in the interconnection process cuts needed capacity by about 6 GW by 2035 and saves $34.25 billion through 2050. - **Large customers that are both flexible and clean deliver the biggest benefits**: Flexibility alone slightly raised emissions, but the Clean Flexible Large Load scenario cut 153 million tons of CO2 and saved $20 billion dollars. It is also the only modeled case where 2050 gas capacity falls below today’s level. North Carolina’s latest Power Pathways analysis delivers a clear message: the state can meet growing electricity needs reliably while cutting pollution and reducing costs, but only if it makes deliberate choices now about large new energy users, clean energy deployment, and transparency. The study, commissioned by the Governor’s Office with input from the [NC Energy Policy Task Force](https://governor.nc.gov/NCEPTF), evaluates possible electricity futures for Duke Energy’s North Carolina service territories through 2050. Its findings arrive at a pivotal moment. Electricity demand is [projected to rise sharply](https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/politics/governor-josh-stein-energy-task-force-electricity-affordablity-report/275-3b841f29-0441-4ead-a3d6-ebdb97e5978f) as coal and older gas plants retire and as large customers, including data centers, seek to connect to the grid. The challenge is real, but the report shows that *a heavy, default reliance on new gas plants is riskier and more expensive than requiring data centers to bring their own new clean energy.* **Large-load forecasts are the biggest swing factor** ----------------------------------------------------- The report laid out several different energy scenarios: 1. The **Flexible Large Load** scenario models a program where all new large load customers opt in to some level of flexible operation. 2. The **Clean Large Load** scenario, which assumes half of all new large customers (5.13 GW of demand) meet a 100% clean target by 2040, requires major clean energy build-out, though that build-out is associated specifically with and could be exclusively paid for by those customers opting into the program. 3. The **Clean Flexible Large Load** scenario, which combines both large load approaches, requires the most substantial build-out of clean energy resources in the near-term, again associated with participating customers. Here’s how the scenarios stack up in terms of cost and emissions: [![Chart comparing six NC Power Pathways scenarios to Duke's base case through 2050. Planning only for committed data center demand saves the most: $34.25B and 285 million tons of CO₂.](https://blogs.edf.org/climate411/wp-content/blogs.dir/7/files//alt_image-1-1024x768.png)](https://blogs.edf.org/climate411/wp-content/blogs.dir/7/files//alt_image-1.png)The report’s base case assumes Duke’s forecast of dramatic demand growth, with annual electricity needs increasing from 165 terawatt-hours in 2026 to 265 terawatt-hours in 2050. Large new customers, like data centers, account for 5.8 gigawatts of added demand by 2035 in that case-almost as much as all North Carolina households currently use. But these speculative forecasts carry serious financial consequences. When the analysis limited new large-load demand to projects that had actually begun the interconnection process – a marker for load growth that is actually happening – the system needed 6 GW less new capacity by 2035. Over the full study period, this alternative reduced projected costs by $34.25 billion and avoided 285 million tons of carbon dioxide pollution-equivalent to the annual emissions of 75 large coal fired power plants-compared with the base case. The significant financial, health and climate risks at stake underscore the need for responsible planning. **North Carolina families and existing businesses should not be required to finance expensive new power plants based on speculative demand projections.** Utilities and regulators should prioritize demonstrated, contractually committed projects and ensure that large new customers bear an appropriate share of the infrastructure costs they create. **An earlier clean-energy transition can save money** ----------------------------------------------------- The report also rebuts the false choice between reducing climate pollution and reducing costs. In the Path to Net Zero scenario “designed to simulate a future where Duke begins work toward its 2050 carbon goal earlier and where a set of policies are modified to support that transition”, North Carolina begins making steady emissions reductions in 2035 rather than delaying most of the work until the late 2040s. The scenario combines an earlier, more orderly transition with increased energy efficiency and demand response, expanded solar and storage deployment, earlier wind availability, retirement of certain coal units, and lower interconnection costs through grid-enhancing technologies. The result is compelling: **the Path to Net Zero scenario costs $14.62 billion less than the base case and reduces carbon dioxide emissions by 149 million tons through 2050.** It also builds less new gas capacity in the near term: 5.4 GW rather than 7.1 GW. This is a practical lesson in good planning. Waiting until the last minute to meet North Carolina’s statutory 2050 carbon-pollution target risks locking customers into unnecessary fossil infrastructure in the next few years, assuming we can catch up later. Starting sooner allows the state to build clean resources when they are most cost-effective, take advantage of efficiency and grid upgrades, and avoid a disruptive rush later. [![Stacked bar chart of 2050 generating capacity by resource type across seven NC Power Pathways scenarios. The clean data center scenarios build far more solar and storage, while planning only for committed demand needs the least capacity.](https://blogs.edf.org/climate411/wp-content/blogs.dir/7/files//image-5-1024x745.png)](https://blogs.edf.org/climate411/wp-content/blogs.dir/7/files//image-5.png)Source: Energy Futures Group, Energy Policy Pathways Report, p. 9**Large customers can support a cleaner grid** ---------------------------------------------- The analysis identifies especially promising opportunities for large new customers to help manage the grid impacts they create. Flexible electricity use, where participating customers reduce or shift demand during periods of peak grid stress, can reduce the need for new gas plants. **The Flexible Large Load scenario avoided 3.7 GW of gas capacity by 2050 and saved $7.86 billion versus the base case.** Flexibility alone, however, does not guarantee cuts in pollution. The report finds that this scenario produced slightly higher emissions because the system relied more heavily on existing fossil generation. That means flexible-load programs must be paired with strong clean-energy standards and carefully designed operational rules. The Clean Flexible Large Load scenario points toward that integrated approach. It assumes some large data-center customers meet 100% clean-energy commitments by 2040 while also providing flexible demand. **Under this scenario, non-data center customers’ system costs fall by $20.41 billion relative to the base case, participating clean-load customers’ costs fall substantially compared with a clean-only approach, and emissions decline by 153 million tons.** It is also the only modeled case in which gas capacity in 2050 falls below today’s level. Reliability must remain non-negotiable. The report finds that flexibility-based scenarios can meet Duke’s reliability threshold when large-load flexibility is dispatched before battery storage. But this depends on customers being able and willing to curtail demand for extended periods, potentially up to 15 hours in one modeled example. Programs must therefore include enforceable performance obligations, transparent compensation, and safeguards to ensure that backup generation – like the [600+ diesel generators at Amazon’s campus in Richmond County](https://www.wral.com/news/state/amazon-data-center-richmond-county-hearing-nc-july-2026/) — do not undermine pollution reductions and harm the health of nearby communities. **Gas dependence creates avoidable risk** ----------------------------------------- The report underscores a major vulnerability in a gas-heavy strategy: fuel-price volatility. **With the same base-case resource portfolio but higher gas prices, total modeled costs rise by $25.47 billion.** A 30% increase in the capital cost of new gas plants – similar to what we’ve seen in [just the last three years](https://gasoutlook.com/analysis/gas-plant-costs-rise-new-study/) – adds another $5.42 billion. Those costs would ultimately be borne by customers on their household bills. North Carolina should not expose ratepayers to decades of fuel-price and construction risk when efficiency, solar, storage, wind, transmission improvements, and customer flexibility can deliver reliable capacity without the same risk exposure. The study also reveals why public scrutiny is essential. Because Duke did not publicly disclose key capital and operating-cost assumptions, the independent model could not precisely replicate the utility’s plan. Its base-case cost estimate was $247.99 billion, compared with Duke’s published $164.1 billion estimate. While the study appropriately does not treat this difference as a direct comparison of plans, it demonstrates that transparent assumptions are indispensable for sound regulatory decisions. North Carolina has the tools to build a dependable, affordable and cleaner grid. The evidence supports a strategy that forecasts large loads conservatively, requires major new customers to contribute clean and flexible resources, accelerates energy efficiency and grid modernization, and avoids overcommitting to costly gas infrastructure. The decisions that state and utility leaders make now will determine whether the energy transition protects North Carolina families’ budgets and health for decades to come.