Duke’s proposed blueprint largely aligns with how experts predicted the company would behave without the 2030 deadline to curb greenhouse gas emissions. “This is just about what we expected,” said Will Scott, Southeast climate and clean energy director with the Environmental Defense Fund.
The plan also reflects the federal government’s increasing hostility to renewable energy — and its unrelenting push to accelerate fossil-fuel use.
At the same time, Trump has tried to prop up coal — the nation’s most expensive and polluting source of power — including via a Monday announcement of $625 million for the industry. As Duke notes in its plan, the administration has also relaxed other rules around carbon emissions and toxic ash from coal plants, although a future president could reverse course.
Duke is responding accordingly. The company now wants to keep 4.1 gigawatts of its coal fleet running longer than it previously planned, instead of investing in proven clean-energy technology, said Mikaela Curry, manager for Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign. “It’s just so frustrating,” she said.
“It’s clear that national political sentiment is making its way into this plan,” said Brooks. “I don’t know what else accounts for prolonging coal, because the economics are certainly not on its side.”
Before the rollback of the state climate law, cuts to federal incentives for renewables, and Trump’s particularly vicious attacks on wind energy, Duke had planned to add 13.2 gigawatts of solar and 4.5 gigawatts of onshore and offshore wind by 2035, according to the state’s nonpartisan customer advocate, Public Staff. Now, the utility envisions 9.2 gigawatts of solar — and no wind at all until at least 2040.
“That’s clearly a response to political winds and not our resource winds,” Brooks said. “In a rational world, we’re going to have wind development in North Carolina.”
The Oct. 1 blueprint from Duke is a first draft. Now, clean-energy advocates begin the arduous work of combing through the utility’s modeling assumptions and dozens of portfolios. They and other stakeholders have six months to offer written responses. The state’s Utilities Commission has until the end of next year to approve or amend Duke’s plan.
With increased reliance on gas and coal sure to hit customers’ pocketbooks, critics say they’ll put rate impacts front and center. “We’re very sensitive to any portfolio that leaves ratepayers exposed to unnecessary fuel volatility and supply risks,” said Brooks.
Great Job Elizabeth Ouzts & the Team @ Canary Media Source link for sharing this story.
