North Carolina’s legislature overturned Gov. Josh Stein’s veto of a sweeping energy bill Tuesday, wiping out the state’s 70% carbon‑cutting deadline and giving Duke Energy new power to charge customers in advance for future plants.

The Senate moved first to override the veto 30 to 18 and the House followed, voting 74 to 46, comfortably clearing the threshold to make Senate Bill 266 law.

Other WRAL Top Stories

Just before the vote, Milltrene Newell, a retiree from Franklin County, stood with Gov. Stein at a press conference and held up two Duke Energy invoices.

“In May my bill was $252,” she said. “Today it’s $765. On a fixed income that is devastating… and the last thing we can afford is a law that will skyrocket costs even more.”

What the new law does:

  • Repeals the interim 2030 target adopted in 2021; the 2050 net‑zero mandate remains.
    • Authorizes “construction work in progress,” or CWIP, letting Duke recover financing costs for gas and nuclear plants before they come online.
      • Shifts more fuel‑price risk onto residential customers by revising the state’s cost‑recovery formula.

        Supporters, who dubbed the measure the “Power Bill Reduction Act,” say it will keep electricity affordable as data centers and new factories drive demand.

        “It is written in a way to explicitly save ratepayers dollars,” said Rep. Dean Arp, R‑Union, during a House committee hearing in early June.

        Senate leader Phil Berger, R‑Rockingham, says the policy could save consumers $13 billion and keep power reliable.

        Sticker shock or savings?

        Recent analyses forecast the opposite. A memo released Monday by two researchers at Duke University’s Nicholas Institute estimates that greater reliance on natural gas could add up to $23 billion in household fuel costs by 2050. “The bill makes customers more exposed to gas‑price volatility,” said Martin Ross, a senior economist and co‑author.

        A June brief by Joseph DeCarolis, an NC State University professor and former administrator of the U.S. Energy Information Administration, reached a similar conclusion. “High gas prices alone could wipe out the bill’s promised savings and leave ratepayers on the hook for billions,” DeCarolis said.

        Both universities stress that the memos are individual research and do not reflect the views of the institutions.

        A separate study by BW Research for the N.C. Sustainable Energy Association projected 50,700 fewer energy‑sector jobs each year and $47.2 billion in lost investment if the 2030 target disappears.

        The conservative John Locke Foundation disputes those projections, saying they rely on worst‑case fuel prices and ignore capital and reliability savings from delaying the 2030 deadline. “North Carolina families and businesses deserve energy policy rooted in least‑cost planning, not political posturing,” said Donald Bryson, the foundation’s chief executive.

        Critics say costs shift to families

        “Constituents keep telling me they see a bill marketed as a power‑bill reduction that will actually raise their bills and shift the burden from large users to working households,” said Rep. Phil Rubin of Wake County, who opposed the measure.

        “When your power bill goes up next year, remember this vote and the legislators who shifted risk and cost onto households,” said Will Scott, Southeast climate and energy director at the Environmental Defense Fund.

        Chris Herndon, director of the North Carolina Sierra Club, called the decision “corporate greed winning over the public interest.”

        Ceres, a nonprofit that works with investors, said in a statement that the move “undermines policy certainty and makes the state less attractive for investment.”

        Duke Energy Response

        Duke Energy, which can now recover financing costs before projects are finished, says customers will benefit from lower borrowing expenses and more reliable “always‑on” resources.

        “We appreciate bipartisan efforts to keep costs as low as possible for customers and enable the always‑on energy resources like carbon‑free nuclear power our communities need,” Duke spokesperson Garrett Poorman said.

        What happens next

        Duke Energy must file a revised long‑term resource plan later this year, likely proposing more gas generation and possible delays to coal‑plant retirements. Consumer advocates say they will press regulators to scrutinize any CWIP requests and account for the price risks flagged in recent studies.

        Stein, in his veto message, argued the bill would raise customer costs and on Tuesday said lawmakers had “shifted billions in risk onto working families.” Republican leaders maintain the new law gives Duke the flexibility it needs to keep rates stable.

        For Newell, the issue remains personal. “People already have to choose between medicine and electricity,” she said after the vote. “I hope legislators remember us when the next bill comes.”