Bad News for Ratepayers and the Environment
Newly rewritten legislation in the NC House presents a double dose of bad news for North Carolina ratepayers and the environment. The bill would require keeping “baseload” power plants, such as coal plants, operating until the approval of new nuclear plants to replace them. Coal power represents one of the worst-polluting electricity sources, while nuclear replacement is the slowest to build and most expensive.
Renamed the so-called “Ratepayer Protection Act,” the bill in question is the proposed House committee substitute for SB 730. While the modified legislation also includes restrictions on data centers, it is illogically paired with limits on coal plant retirements. These two issues do not have to be addressed in the same legislation.
Duke’s eight remaining coal units can generate nearly 6.2 gigawatts of power, which would require at least five new large nuclear power plants to replace. Duke’s current resource plan, filed in 2025, plans retirement of multiple coal-fired plants starting in 2031. However, Duke’s only current nuclear pre-application is for a small plant (“small modular reactor”) which couldn’t be finished until 2036—IF Duke’s evaluation process concludes it would be worth it.
Limiting access to renewable, fast, and cost effective energy
“At a time when North Carolina households are continuing to struggle with record-high electricity bills, this proposal puts much needed relief further out of reach by forcing families and businesses to rely on outdated, expensive, polluting coal plants,” said Will Scott, North Carolina Policy Director for the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). “Limiting North Carolina’s access to the lowest cost and fastest-to-build sources of power — solar, wind and battery storage – guarantees higher bills and more health-harming pollution for communities. North Carolina made a commitment to pursue affordable and reliable power — this proposal takes us in the wrong direction.”
As noted by the NC Conservation Network’s weekly legislative update, some House members questioned the wisdom of the part two provisions during committee debate. Rep. Pricey Harrison (D-Guilford) noted that the bill would “extend the life of coal-fired power plants at a time when we absolutely need to be reducing our carbon emissions.” Rep. Maria Cervania (D-Wake) addressed the long lead time for approving and building new nuclear plants. Despite these concerns, the modified bill was approved by the House Energy and Public Utilities Committee and has gone to the House Rules Committee, which is typically used by current House leadership as a parking place for bills until they are ready to bring them to the House floor for a vote.
