Duke study: Scrapping carbon goal could add $23 billion to NC power bills

North Carolina’s near‑term climate goal is on the chopping block again this week, and fresh research suggests the move could be costly.

A Duke University analysis released Monday says North Carolina households could pay up to $23 billion more for energy bills through 2050 if lawmakers scrap the state’s near‑term climate target.

"What we are finding fairly consistently is the increase in vulnerability and growth in risk to fluctuating gas prices that would really hit ratepayers quite directly in their electricity bills, both from household levels to commercial levels," said Jackson Ewing, co-author of the study and director of energy and climate policy at the Nicholas Institute of Energy, Environment & Sustainability at Duke University.

The finding lands just as the General Assembly prepares to vote on whether to overturn Gov. Josh Stein’s veto of Senate Bill 266.

The measure, passed by Republican majorities in June and vetoed by the Democratic governor on July 2, would erase a 70% carbon‑reduction goal set for 2030, allow Duke Energy bill customers in advance for power plants not yet built, and shift more fuel‑price risk onto residential ratepayers.

What the new research says

Economists at Duke’s Nicholas Institute modeled what happens if utilities lean more heavily on natural‑gas plants after the 70% benchmark disappears. Under gas‑price scenarios they consider plausible, total fuel spending would rise by as much as $23 billion over the next quarter‑century, or roughly $13 billion in today’s dollars.

The study comes on the heels of two other studies:

- BW Research, in a report last week for clean‑energy nonprofits, projects that slower growth in solar, wind and battery projects would mean about 50,700 fewer power‑sector jobs each year between 2030 and 2035 and $47.2 billion in lost investment.

- North Carolina State University researchers, in a June brief, found that increased gas use could expose customers to similar long‑term price shocks.

“This study reaffirms the cost risks to North Carolina households, expenses that are risk‑free to the utilities and passed directly on to customer bills,” said Will Scott, Southeast climate and energy director for the Environmental Defense Fund.

The cost impact debate

Opponents argue the bill shifts risk from shareholders to families and could leave residents paying for unfinished projects, pointing to South Carolina’s abandoned VC Summer nuclear plant, which saddled customers with $9 billion in charges when construction collapsed. Stein has said the measure “shifts the cost of electricity from large industrial users onto the backs of regular people.”

Latonia Holbrooks, a ratepayer and mother of three in Charlotte, said Monday that the bill is bad for the environment and that Duke Energy's financial burden should not land on ratepayers' shoulders. "I don't know why they think we can afford to pay for their costs, because I can barely afford to pay the electric bill already," Holbrooks said.

Republican sponsors see it differently. Rep. Dean Arp, R‑Union, calls SB 266 “written in a way to explicitly save ratepayers dollars.” Senate leader Phil Berger, R‑Rockingham, has pegged potential savings at $15 billion and accused Stein of blocking “affordable power” to advance climate priorities. The conservative John Locke Foundation says the bill strikes a sensible balance between environmental goals and economic growth.

Duke Energy, which supplies power to most of the state, supports the legislation. Lobbyist Ryan Minto told lawmakers last month that the company is “committed to powering our state’s continued success while keeping costs as low as possible for our customers.”

How SB 266 would work

- Repeals the 70% emissions‑reduction target while leaving a 2050 carbon‑neutral mandate intact.

- Authorizes construction work in progress (CWIP), allowing Duke to charge customers for new gas or nuclear plants before those facilities come online.

- Revises the fuel‑cost recovery formula in a way critics say would push a larger share of volatility onto residential bills.

What happens next

Republicans hold the three‑fifths supermajorities needed to override the veto, but absences or defections could change the outcome. 

If the veto is overturned, Duke Energy could revisit its long‑term resource plan later this year, potentially extending coal‑plant retirements and adding gas capacity. Consumer advocates say they will urge regulators to scrutinize any requests to recover advance construction costs.