Duke Energy: 'Net zero' carbon emissions by 2050

The new plan would cut carbon emissions from one of the country's largest electric utilities by at least 50 percent by 2030, compared with 2005 levels. Getting to "net zero" would rely on new technologies that don't all exist, potentially including carbon capture, as well as a continued move from coal to natural gas.

The company said it would at least double the solar, wind and other renewable energy in its portfolio by 2025, and the plan also relies on the continued use of nuclear energy in North Carolina. The company said it's not planning any major expansions, but it wants to renew the operating licenses of the 11 reactors it operates at six nuclear stations in the Carolinas for an additional 20 years. The plants will approach the end of their current operating licenses in the early 2030s.

A Cooper spokeswoman called the company's plan "a step in the right direction."

Duke's announcement came with some praise from clean energy groups Tuesday, several of which provided quotes for the company's release. But environmental and clean energy groups in North Carolina and beyond expressed at least some disappointment on several levels, saying the company's not moving fast enough to retire coal plants, some of which may stay online as late as 2048.

"Duke Energy should be commended for accelerating its carbon-reduction goals, but its new near-term goal falls short of the emissions reductions needed to avoid a climate catastrophe," Gudrun Thompson, an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center who follows the utility sector closely, said in an email.

Some outright condemned the company, with frequent Duke critic NC Warn calling the announcement "a scandalous deception foisted upon the news media, the public and public officials." The Environmental Working Group said it was, "far from a serious commitment to embracing renewable sources of electricity and combating the climate crisis."

“Sadly, we don’t see Duke’s overall approach fundamentally changing that much,” EWG Senior Energy Policy Adviser Grant Smith said in a release.

NC Warn, the EWG and the Sierra Club all said the announcement doesn't seem to jibe with long-term plans the company recently filed with state regulators, which lay out more than a decade of energy plans. Duke Energy North Carolina President Stephen De May said those plans don't reflect the new goal, and that the company will update them next year.

The company's announcement won't change its plans for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, a $7.5-billion-plus investment in fracked natural gas held up by a series of lawsuits and regulatory actions.

De May called natural gas "the only way that we're going to get from today's carbon footprint to net zero."

The solar industry disagrees, pointing to the decreasing costs of their technology and expectations that improving battery storage will boost reliability.

"It appears that Duke is using this carbon commitment to justify their planned massive spending on gas," Peter Ledford, general counsel for the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association, said in an email.

"The United States has crossed the natural gas bridge – it’s time as a transition fuel to renewable energy has come and gone," Ledford said.

Duke's announcement didn't address methane emissions at all. Natural gas is methane, and when it leaks unburned into the atmosphere, it's dozens of times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, trapping heat in the atmosphere.

De May said he didn't see methane leaks as a problem for the company and that it has invested heavily to make sure its pipeline system will hold up. But he acknowledged that the company doesn't control the source for much of the gas for the pipeline: fracking fields in Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

"It is an issue that needs to be kept in the forefront of everyone's minds," De May said. "I just am not under the impression that, as an industry, this is the major issue."

Duke said its plans would be different in each of the six states it serves and that the company would "collaborate with regulators, customers and other stakeholders to determine the right path."

The agreement was far from done, though, and it wasn't clear when the legislature would move forward on it again. The Senate, at least, announced Tuesday a nearly two-week break from voting sessions.

The company's long-term plan also relies on new technology, some within reach and some "technologies that we aren't aware of today," De May said.

"But I would also say much more efficient batteries will be extremely important," said De May, who put the current life for solar batteries at about four hours.

Getting to "net zero" carbon doesn't quite mean no carbon emissions, but De May said the company doesn't plan to buy offsets to get there. Carbon capture plans are more likely, he said.

"We really do believe that technology enhancements will be able to deal with any residual carbon emissions that remain," he said.

This plan, which also includes a grid upgrade the company has been pushing, energy efficiency initiatives and an increase in electric vehicle charging stations the governor has pushed, will cost billions to implement.

De May said he believes it's "an affordable transition," particularly with the company's 2030 reduction goal, as opposed to the Cooper administration's. Going further "will mean making significant tradeoffs," De May said.

Kevin O'Donnell, an energy consultant who works with businesses that use a lot of electricity, said manufacturers can support Duke's move, "but the question is cost." The as-yet-unapproved grid modifications would boost monthly bills as much as 50 percent within the next 10 years, and the new efforts will increase costs further, O'Donnell said, though Duke Energy has said it will pitch a smaller, 3-year plan for grid upgrades.

"At some point, folks simply will not be able to pay for such massive cost increases," O'Donnell said.

De May said the company is trying to move forward on cleaner energy without ratcheting up some of the country's lower electricity rates or affecting reliability. That's a one reason for the move to natural gas: It's predictable and not dependent on wind or sunshine.

De May said Duke is trying to move "along with the sensibilities of energy in the United States."

"Aggressive climate and clean energy goals come at a cost, and perhaps a leaning on the reliability of the system," he said. "Everybody's in favor of clean energy until they can't have reliable power."