{"id":24122,"date":"2024-06-17T10:13:28","date_gmt":"2024-06-17T15:13:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/?p=24122"},"modified":"2025-12-02T15:30:10","modified_gmt":"2025-12-02T20:30:10","slug":"north-carolina-carbon-plan-why-dukes-gas-bet-is-a-risk-to-ratepayers-and-how-offshore-wind-can-carry-the-load","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2024\/06\/17\/north-carolina-carbon-plan-why-dukes-gas-bet-is-a-risk-to-ratepayers-and-how-offshore-wind-can-carry-the-load\/","title":{"rendered":"North Carolina Carbon Plan: Why Duke\u2019s gas bet is a risk to ratepayers and how offshore wind can carry the load"},"content":{"rendered":"

On May 28, the Environmental Defense Fund, along with several other parties, filed expert testimony<\/a> with the North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC) in North Carolina\u2019s Carbon Plan proceeding. The outcome of these regulatory proceedings, which include hearings over the summer and a Commission order by end of year, will shape over $100 billion in long-term investments proposed by Duke Energy, and ultimately largely paid for by North Carolina electricity customers. This is a huge decision point for the state\u2019s energy future, as I described in a recent op-ed<\/a> published by NC Newsline.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Duke Energy\u2019s proposal is heavy \u2014 very heavy \u2014 on gas power plants. Duke\u2019s proposal earns the unfortunate superlative of being one of the largest and costliest investments in new fossil fuel power plants in the country. But we are optimistic that the NCUC will see Duke Energy\u2019s plan for what it is: a boon to utility shareholders and an unnecessary and expensive risk to North Carolina electricity customers. Indeed, its near term action plan (NTAP) alternative, North Carolina\u2019s consumer advocate, the Public Staff, recommended nearly 80 percent less gas<\/a> (see \u201ccombustion turbines\u201d and \u201ccombined cycle\u201d in the chart below) than Duke\u2019s proposed plan.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Source: Testimony of Public Staff Witness Metz<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

You may notice that the Public Staff proposal does not include 1:1 replacement of gas with clean energy. That is because independent analysis by the Public Staff also suggests that much of the huge growth in energy demand that Duke Energy has projected may not come to pass.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Source: Testimony of Public Staff Witness Lawrence<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The figure above<\/a> shows that energy demand is expected to grow over the coming decade, but perhaps not as quickly or as much as Duke Energy claims. Racing to build a fleet of new, expensive, polluting power plants to serve energy demand that may never materialize is a bad deal for customers and the environment. The good news is that North Carolina has huge potential to tap a variety of new clean energy sources in time to meet growing energy demand.<\/p>\n

In expert testimony, we highlight the financial and pollution risk that stems from heavy gas investment and reliance on currently-unavailable hydrogen technology. We also elevate the many benefits and provide a framework to bring new clean energy resources online more quickly and strategically to meet growing electricity demand in North Carolina. In our testimony, we point specifically to the opportunity to harness North Carolina\u2019s abundant offshore wind energy potential \u2014 an important resource that can play a much more significant near-term role.<\/p>\n

Offshore wind can carry the load<\/h3>\n

Duke Energy\u2019s proposal includes some investment to begin deploying offshore wind to help meet North Carolina\u2019s growing need for reliable, affordable clean energy. So even the utility recognizes that wind energy \u2014 offshore wind energy in particular \u2014 has an important role to play in North Carolina\u2019s energy future. On that, we don\u2019t disagree. But our expert analysis finds that Duke Energy\u2019s plans to harness offshore wind for North Carolina are needlessly slow, limited, and inefficient. Our testimony offers a different, more ambitious course. We present a roadmap to speed deployment of offshore wind so that North Carolina households and businesses can benefit from the costs-savings of this large-scale, clean source of energy as quickly as possible.<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s what we found in our analysis:<\/p>\n

1.\u00a0 Duke\u2019s offshore wind plan would move far more slowly than comparable projects on the East Coast.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The good news: For the first time in a filing with the NCUC, the company\u2019s most recent preferred portfolio actually includes offshore wind. The bad news: Duke doesn\u2019t plan to get offshore wind online until 2035.<\/p>\n

There are three offshore wind areas off the North Carolina coast, but Duke Energy doesn\u2019t propose taking any concrete steps to develop them. Other East Coast states, like Virginia, have shown that if the state orders utilities to develop offshore wind, projects can be delivering energy to customers within six years. Taking concrete steps toward deploying offshore wind in existing lease areas positions North Carolina as an early-mover in the region and avoids putting us at the back of the line.<\/p>\n

2.\u00a0 Duke proposes only to use one-third of the wind areas that are available and ready to go along North Carolina\u2019s coast.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The three sites off North Carolina\u2019s coast are already leased to wind energy developers, but Duke\u2019s proposal would only bring one of them online in the next decade. Choosing not to leverage the state\u2019s full potential has consequences:<\/p>\n