A bill that would eliminate North Carolina’s 2030 carbon-cutting deadline and expand utilities' ability to charge customers for future power plants advanced in the state Senate on Tuesday, despite concerns about risks to ratepayers and the state’s climate goals.
The proposal would remove a key provision of House Bill 951, North Carolina’s landmark 2021 energy law, which requires utilities to cut carbon emissions 70% from 2005 levels by 2030. It would also expand the use of Construction Work in Progress, or CWIP — a mechanism first authorized under a 2007 law — to allow utilities like Duke Energy to begin charging customers for nuclear and natural gas plants before those plants are completed or generating power.
State Sen. Paul Newton, R-Cabarrus, a former Duke Energy president and the bill’s lead sponsor, said removing the 2030 target would help protect ratepayers from rising costs and give utilities more flexibility to build large, reliable power plants.
"This bill is about lowering costs and protecting ratepayers," Newton said, calling the 2030 deadline “arbitrary” and arguing that growing demand requires a mix of baseload power such as nuclear and natural gas.
Newton cited estimates from public staff that the bill could save ratepayers $13 billion. The modeling behind that figure included questionable assumptions — such as a nonexistent $10,000-per-ton carbon tax and an incorrect assumption that natural gas would no longer be available as a resource in North Carolina after 2034.
Democratic lawmakers raised concerns about both the modeling and the risks to customers, warning that allowing utilities to charge for power plants before they are built could leave ratepayers responsible for billions if projects are delayed or canceled.
“There are real concerns about what we're asking ratepayers to take on here,” said state Sen. DeAndrea Salvador, D-Mecklenburg, who urged lawmakers to pause the bill and review the modeling. "I don’t want to vote on a bill that promises things and we can’t see how that was made."
Salvador and others pointed to South Carolina's V.C. Summer nuclear project, which was abandoned after years of construction, leaving customers to pay more than $9 billion for a plant that was never finished.
State Sen. Lisa Grafstein, D-Wake, questioned why ratepayers — not Duke Energy shareholders — should shoulder the risk for these projects, noting that Duke is already guaranteed a profit under state law.
"Why not let shareholders take on that risk?" Grafstein asked.
Although supporters of the bill focused heavily on affordability, critics said it could have the opposite effect by locking in more reliance on expensive, volatile fossil fuels.
Natural gas prices have been one of the biggest drivers of recent energy cost spikes in North Carolina. A 2024 analysis by EQ Research found that between 46% and 67% of Duke Energy’s residential rate increases since 2017 were tied to rising gas prices.
“At a time of rising energy costs, this bill is a bad deal for ratepayers,” said Will Scott, director of Southeast climate and clean energy for the Environmental Defense Fund. “Our recent analysis showed that North Carolina does not need any more baseload gas power plants, yet this bill fast-tracks those plants’ costs onto North Carolinians’ power bills. Let’s stick to our goals to reduce harmful power plant pollution and minimize customer exposure to volatile gas prices.”
Some lawmakers also raised concerns that eliminating the 2030 carbon-cutting target would undermine the state’s efforts to address climate change.
"You can’t just flip a switch in 2049 and suddenly have a zero-carbon grid," Grafstein said, adding that interim goals help ensure steady progress and prevent costly last-minute decisions.
Newton, however, dismissed the urgency of near-term emissions cuts.
"There's not a scientist on the globe that will tell you we're harming the environment by moving to 2050," Newton said. "We can shut down North Carolina today entirely and walk away — it will have no impact on the climate."
Still, climate scientists with the United Nations have warned that cutting global carbon emissions in half by 2030 is critical to avoid the worst effects of climate change. The United States is the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases.
While current law already allows utilities to recover some construction costs through rate cases, Senate Bill 261 would allow Duke and others to seek approval to recover those costs outside of a general rate case.
Newton noted that spreading out costs during construction would prevent “rate shock” when plants come online and avoid potential credit downgrades that could make borrowing more expensive.
But sate Sen. Julie Mayfield, D-Buncombe, said customers in other states have ended up paying the price when similar pre-funding policies led to projects that failed or ran wildly over budget.
“I don’t want us to be in the same situation as Georgia’s Vogtle plant or South Carolina’s V.C. Summer,” Mayfield said, referencing two nuclear projects plagued by delays and ballooning costs.
In a statement to WRAL News, a Duke Energy spokesperson said: “Policies that enable more timely recovery of investments in modern infrastructure help keep overall costs down for customers and result in more predictable energy prices by avoiding sudden spikes. This process would be subject to regulatory oversight to ensure the protection of customers’ interests.”
The bill passed the Senate Agriculture, Energy, and Environment Committee on Tuesday and now heads to the Senate Rules Committee for further consideration.
© 2025 Copyright Capitol Broadcasting Company