Back
POLITICS: Project 2025, the conservative blueprint for what supporters want to see from a Trump presidency, calls for dismantling U.S. EPA regulations, cutting program funding, and otherwise undoing much of the Biden administration’s climate and clean energy progress. (E&E News, Grist)
ALSO:
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE:
GRID: Louisiana and Mississippi commissions sue federal regulators over an order that sets requirements for long-term electric grid planning, one of the first challenges since the U.S. Supreme Court opened up ambiguous agency decisions to lawsuits. (E&E News)
UTILITIES: As Duke Energy prepares to face North Carolina regulators and defend its plan to invest in 9 GW of natural gas plants and delay meeting an emissions reduction mandate, it makes small concessions in a proposed settlement and wins support from the state’s ratepayer advocate. (Energy News Network)
SOLAR:
TRANSITION: In 2023, more than 90% of pipeline and refinery companies said in an industry survey that they had clean energy transition goals; today, that number has fallen to around three quarters. (The Hill)
ELECTRIFICATION: Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson’s proposal to ban gas hookups in new homes and buildings is dead after a majority of city council members rejected the idea amid stiff union opposition. (Sun-Times)
LITHIUM: Mining lithium needed for batteries and clean energy components can use and potentially contaminate significant water supplies, a newly published study finds. (Inside Climate News)
OIL & GAS: The U.S. EPA and Colorado regulators accuse a Denver-area petroleum refinery of continuing to violate clean air laws by releasing benzene and other pollutants into the air and water. (Colorado Sun)
ALSO:
EMISSIONS: Researchers launch a comprehensive investigation aimed at detecting and monitoring large greenhouse gas emissions sources in northeastern Colorado’s oil and gas fields. (Colorado Sun)
UTILITIES:
SOLAR:
BATTERIES:
MICROGRID: A western Colorado county begins construction on a battery-powered microgrid designed to enhance resilience to wildfires and outages. (Aspen Public Radio)
ELECTRIC VEHICLES: Oregon launches an effort to use federal funds to expand its electric vehicle charging network. (OPB)
ELECTRIFICATION: A Washington state initiative seeking to block natural gas hookup and appliance bans and restrictions garners 500,000 signatures, likely qualifying it for November’s ballot. (Tri-City Herald)
COMMENTARY: A California editorial board celebrates the oil and gas industry’s withdrawal of a ballot measure aimed at overturning drilling restrictions, and urges state regulators strictly enforce the rules. (Los Angeles Times)
CLIMATE: Montana Republican officials urge the state Supreme Court to overturn a lower court’s decision ordering regulators to consider climate impacts when reviewing proposed fossil fuel projects. (Associated Press)
OIL & GAS:
UTILITIES:
SOLAR:
WIND: A developer proposes a 500-600 MW wind power facility on private ranchland in southeastern Wyoming. (Cowboy State Daily)
STORAGE: A central California county advances a proposed 3,000 MW stand-alone battery energy storage system on 260 acres of private land. (Energy Storage News, subscription)
GRID:
MINING: A company prepares to begin producing uranium at its northeastern Wyoming processing plant. (Cowboy State Daily)
COURTS: A Baltimore City Circuit Court judge throws out the city’s climate accountability lawsuit against several major oil companies, saying the case sought to go “beyond the limits of Maryland state law.” (Reuters; E&E News, subscription)
BATTERIES:
PIPELINES: A federal court of appeals says Pennsylvania’s Environmental Hearing Board has the authority to review permits to expand a gas pipeline network in that state and New Jersey. (E&E News, subscription)
HYDROPOWER: Rumford, Maine, says it’s “largely supportive” of the license renewal process for the hydroelectric dam operated by Brookfield Renewable Partners on the Androscoggin River. (Sun Journal)
GRID:
SOLAR:
UTILITIES:
WIND: Vineyard Wind says it will hire a carbon-free cement startup in Holyoke, Massachusetts, to provide 2,000 tons of the substance for the Vineyard Wind 2 offshore wind project. (Mass Live)
CLIMATE:
COMMENTARY: A climate advocate and a Harvard Medical School professor write that Massachusetts’ legislature should use building codes to phase out the state’s gas system, citing the “deadly explosions and climate-harming leaks” that threaten residents’ health and community wellness. (Energy News Network)
POLICY: Virginia’s Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin has unilaterally disregarded multiple state climate laws passed by the Democratically controlled legislature, creating a legal crisis that could delay implementation for years. (E&E News)
OFFSHORE WIND:
CLIMATE:
UTILITIES: At least 60 neighbors have emailed North Carolina regulators to oppose Duke Energy’s plans to build two natural gas turbines on the site of an existing coal-fired power plant. (News & Observer)
EFFICIENCY:
GRID: An Austin energy consultant discusses the state of Texas’ power grid, including how solar is helping it meet summertime demand. (Texas Observer)
SOLAR:
COAL: Virginia’s efforts to clean up abandoned mine lands have been supercharged by federal funding under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. (Virginia Mercury)
CO2 STORAGE: As Texas opens more offshore areas for carbon sequestration projects, experts foresee the Gulf Coast becoming a global hub for underground disposal of greenhouse gases. (Inside Climate News)
PIPELINES: Virginia organizers mark the fourth anniversary of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline’s cancellation with a celebration and book release about the pipeline fight. (Daily Progress)
COURTS: The U.S. Supreme Court overturns the 40-year-old Chevron deference, restoring stronger judicial power over federal agencies and likely curbing their ability to institute sweeping environmental and energy actions. (Grist, E&E News)
ALSO:
CLIMATE:
GRID:
OFFSHORE WIND: The federal government announces an offshore wind energy lease sale that will include areas off the coast of Delaware, Maryland and Virginia. (WRDE)
POLICY: Virginia’s Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin has unilaterally disregarded multiple state climate laws passed by the Democratically controlled legislature, creating a legal crisis that could delay implementation for years. (E&E News)
OIL & GAS:
CO2 STORAGE: As Texas opens more offshore areas for carbon sequestration projects, experts foresee the Gulf Coast becoming a global hub for underground disposal of greenhouse gases. (Inside Climate News)
ELECTRIFICATION: A fossil fuel trade group plans to file a lawsuit seeking to block Denver, Colorado’s building codes restricting natural gas appliances in commercial and multifamily buildings. (CPR)
OVERSIGHT: Ohio Lt. Gov. Jon Husted continues to deny knowledge of FirstEnergy’s scheme to secure a $1 billion bailout for its unprofitable power plants as text messages show he led the push to pass the 2019 law. (Ohio Capital Journal)
The following commentary was written by Sagar Sane, an advisory board member with the Environmental Defense Fund in North Carolina. See our commentary guidelines for more information.
Western North Carolina is no stranger to the increasingly-felt effects of climate change. From devastating and historic flooding in Canton last August, to wildfires that ravaged more than 5,500 acres in Cherokee County in 2023, it all hits uncomfortably close to home. The good news? There are steps we can take to address how much worse climate change gets. The bad news? Not everyone is committed to taking those steps. Case in point: Duke Energy.
Proceedings are underway now for Duke Energy to present its Carbon Plan to the North Carolina Utilities Commission. Many groups across the state have already reviewed Duke’s plan and are pushing back against it. Hundreds of members of the public showed up at public meetings in the spring. Energy experts, including those representing Environmental Defense Fund, submitted testimony detailing the faults in Duke’s plans and offered data to support an alternative path. Those experts will get their “day in court” to share their perspectives with the commission in July.
So what’s the big problem with Duke’s proposed Carbon plan?
First, the company is relying heavily — much too heavily — on risky and expensive natural gas, with plans for one of the largest gas plant buildouts in the country. Even though Duke knows there are cleaner, more affordable, more sustainable options that won’t be as burdensome for customers, the company is stubbornly standing by natural gas.
Second, the Duke plan comes with a hefty dose of sticker shock for ratepayers, and no financial obligation on Duke’s end. It not only gets to recoup every dollar of the power plant construction costs from ratepayers, it also gets to pocket a return of about 10% on top. While current state law entitles Duke to this perk, it means the company will likely prioritize more spending and building, in an effort to generate greater returns for their shareholders.
Third, under the proposed plan, we as the power bill payers would also be forced to cover every single dollar of the costs associated with fueling the plants themselves.
Fourth, Duke’s Carbon plan fails to fully leverage the Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment Program, an existing source of federal funding allowing utilities to refinance loans for their retiring coal plants, which in turn could help significantly lower ratepayer costs.
Simply put: under Duke’s plan, our state’s clean energy transition is slowed, our power bills go up — and the company makes even more profit.
Frustratingly, Duke Energy is still backing its proposal despite the factits own data shows that gas costs have been the primary driver of residential bill increases in recent years. But instead of supporting predictably-priced clean energy options that save us real money on our bills, they want to pursue a course that would maximize their short-term profits.
Thankfully, there is a better path forward.
For customers, it would be a huge relief if we had low-cost or no-cost fuel sources. If Duke instead moved forward with more offshore wind on a faster timeline, we could be saving meaningfully on our monthly power bills. Just last year in Virginia, Dominion Energy began implementing an offshore wind program anticipated to generate over $3 billion in savings for customers over the next decade. Here in North Carolina, sources like this exist in abundance — but Duke’s current proposal doesn’t take advantage of those options, at least not to the extent they could.
Protecting North Carolinians from suboptimal investments is part of the Utility Commission’s remit, and ratepayers should demand our Commissioners hold Duke accountable. By forcing Duke to rethink and modify its proposed Carbon plan to include a cleaner, more predictable and more affordable mix of power sources, the Utilities Commission can help accelerate our state’s clean energy transition, while also protecting ratepayers’ wallets.
The first blow to the Biden administration’s pollution-cutting rules came Thursday, when the court ruled 6-3 to block the U.S. EPA from enforcing its “good neighbor” emissions regulation. The rule was finalized last year and aimed to restrict power plant and industrial pollution that travels over state lines.
The second came in the 5-4 ruling overturning the Chevron deference, which has its origin in a fossil-fuel-related case 40 years ago. The Natural Resources Defense Council had challenged the Reagan administration’s polluter-friendly interpretation of the Clean Air Act, and the Supreme Court ruled that judges should generally defer to federal agencies when statutes are ambiguous. Now, the case’s reversal opens a new legal playbook for challenging federal regulations if they venture beyond the letter of the law, potentially delaying or derailing efforts by the U.S. EPA to curb power plant emissions or FERC to spur new transmission lines.
Two other rulings could meanwhile invite more lawsuits over longstanding federal rules, and make it harder for agencies to fine rule violators.
In one, the conservative majority found a hedge fund manager facing Securities and Exchange Commission fraud charges was first entitled to a jury trial. Legal observers tell E&E News that the ruling could make it harder for federal energy regulators to levy civil penalties, especially against well-funded energy companies.
And in another 6-3 ruling, the court decided companies affected by federal rules could challenge them in court, even if they’ve been in place for decades. In her dissent, Justice Katanji Brown Jackson warned it could open up regulatory agencies to a “tsunami of lawsuits.”
None of these rulings are a surprise given the conservative supermajority on the court. But they’re likely to be a problem as the Biden administration continues to roll out and preserve its climate agenda — especially if a new administration takes over next year.
🏭 Pausing the LNG pause: A federal judge halts the Biden administration’s pause on new liquified natural gas export approvals, siding with industry and 16 Republican-led states that had challenged the freeze. (E&E News)
🧾 Offputting offsets: A group of climate scientists says the market for carbon credits needs to adopt significant oversight and reforms after finding many offsetting markets didn’t deliver their promised climate benefits. (The Guardian)
☀️ Community solar delivers: A peer-reviewed study finds “community solar is delivering on its promise” of delivering clean energy to multifamily buildings, renters, and lower-income households. (Canary Media)
⚛️ Nuclear optimism: The eventual — but stalled and over-budget — success of Georgia’s Plant Vogtle is sparking optimism in the state and beyond, especially after the passage of $900 million for small nuclear development. (E&E News)
🔌 What’s stopping new chargers: An industry survey finds 75% of charging station developers and operators say grid interconnection issues are stalling deployment, forcing some to install fossil fuel generators. (Utility Dive)
🦕 The debatable war on coal: As the coal industry’s influence fades, former President Trump’s campaign has drifted from his promise to end “the war on coal.” (E&E News)
🕳️ Capturing controversy: Louisiana officials announce two new carbon capture projects, frustrating residents who say the technology will prolong the use of fossil fuels. (Associated Press)
🛢️ Plugging problems: A study finds more than half of the 47,000 oil and gas wells in Colorado don’t generate enough money to pay for their end-of-life plugging and remediation, potentially saddling taxpayers with the tab. (Colorado Sun)
CLIMATE: Economists say former President Trump’s plans to repeal Biden administration climate policies would put U.S. manufacturing investments at risk and send jobs back overseas. (New York Times)
ALSO:
STORAGE: Energy storage capacity installations jumped 84% in the first quarter of 2024 from the year before, with utility-scale installations more than doubling year-over-year. (Utility Dive)
CLEAN ENERGY:
ELECTRIC VEHICLES:
WIND: With 21 of its planned 62 wind turbines completely installed, Vineyard Wind claims to now be the largest operating wind project in the country, pushing 136 MW to the grid. (electrek)
OIL & GAS:
POLITICS: As the coal industry’s influence fades, former President Trump’s campaign has drifted from his promise to end “the war on coal.” (E&E News)
CARBON CAPTURE: Louisiana officials announce two new carbon capture projects, frustrating residents who say the technology will prolong the use of fossil fuels. (Associated Press)
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: Black residents in Louisiana’s “Cancer Alley” call on the U.S. Justice Department to protect them against the ongoing expansion of the region’s petrochemical industry and its pollution. (Floodlight)
NUCLEAR:
Duke Energy’s plan to zero out its carbon pollution all but ignores a federal loan program that could save ratepayers hundreds of millions of dollars and enable more clean energy, the state’s ratepayer advocate said in recent filings.
And since the loans run out in September 2026, state Public Staff and clean energy advocates say time is running out for Duke to correct course.
“This is a singular bite at the apple that they’re going to get,” said Jeremy Fisher, principal adviser for climate and energy at the Sierra Club. “So, we’re not in a position to sit here and say, ‘hey Duke, in your next [long-term plan], you should model it.’ This is the moment.”
Public Staff called attention to the $250 billion federal Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment Program in its assessment of Duke’s proposed biennial carbon reduction plan, the first of which was approved by state regulators at the end of 2022, months after the surprise passage of the Inflation Reduction Act.
In accepting Duke’s plan that year, regulators noted: “it is appropriate for Duke to incorporate the impacts of the Inflation Reduction Act… and other future legislative changes… into its [Carbon Plan and long-range generation] proposal that it will file with the Commission on or before September 1, 2023.”
But Public Staff and other intervenors say the utility did not fully do so, at least when it comes to the Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment Program.
“The Public Staff has concerns regarding Duke’s failure to model the [loan] program,” wrote Jeff Thomas, an engineer with the agency. The program, he added later, “represents a significant opportunity for cost savings for ratepayers tied to the deployment of new clean energy resources.”
The loans are perhaps less well known than the Inflation Reduction Act’s tax incentives for everything from electric vehicles to solar panels to offshore wind turbines.
But they’re just as important, if not more so, especially in light of the North Carolina law that requires Duke to reduce its carbon emissions in a “least cost” manner.
Fisher said utilities can take advantage of the program to varying degrees, with proportionate savings for ratepayers.
In the “ideal use of this program,” Fisher said, utilities can refinance outstanding loans for their retiring coal plants and combine them with new clean energy investments, all for a low interest rate. Then there’s a “lesser version,” in which a utility doesn’t transfer its balance on old coal plants but does finance new clean energy projects through the federal government. Finally, he said, there’s “one more step down.” That’s where a company like Duke essentially switches to the government debt it would otherwise owe a bank.
In a recent paper, the clean energy think tank Rocky Mountain Institute explained why this last option is least desirable for ratepayers.
“If utilities do nothing more than use [Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment] loans to displace corporate debt,” researchers wrote, “overall ratepayer savings will be minimal, since most utilities can already borrow at reasonably attractive interest rates without the added complication and expense of participating in a government program.”
Yet, Fisher said, testimony from the state-sanctioned customer advocate suggests this “stepped down” version of the loan program is what Duke envisions.
Michelle Boswell, director of Public Staff’s accounting division, relayed an example of a Missouri utility that could maximize the Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment program and save its customers over $900 million. “While these ratepayer benefits come at the expense of lower earnings for the utility,” Boswell noted, “they are consistent with the least-cost mandate contained in [state law].”
At a technical hearing last week before regulators, Thomas reiterated that position. “As the ratepayer advocate, cost is a major concern,” he said. “We believe there are ways to control costs. One proposal is that Duke should take aggressive advantage of the Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment loan program.”
Doing so could save ratepayers more than $400 million through 2032, Thomas said last week, and lead to increased renewable and storage deployment.
Testifying on behalf of Attorney General Josh Stein, expert witness Edward Burgess stressed the loan program could be utilized to cover transmission upgrades needed to connect more solar and storage to the grid.
“Reconductoring of transmission lines could allow for significantly greater renewable resource availability,” Burgess wrote. “This could be done much more cost-effectively with assistance from the Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment program.”
Indeed, advocates say the federal program doesn’t just promise to lower ratepayer costs for the clean energy Duke currently proposes. By changing the economic calculus, the loans could spur the company to invest in more storage and solar and retire its coal plants sooner.
Duke’s proposed 1,360-megawatt gas plant outside Roxboro in Person County is a case in point.
In theory, rather than replace coal smokestacks on Hyco Lake with gas-fired units, Duke could build battery storage and clean energy on the site instead.
That investment would qualify the utility for an additional 10% federal tax incentive, since it would be located within 30 miles of a retiring coal plant. Much of the outstanding debt on the old fossil fuel plant and the solar and battery investments could be leveraged into a low-interest loan through the federal government.
Testifying for several clean energy advocacy groups, expert witness Maria Roumpani said that Duke may not be taking full advantage of this additional 10% incentive, since it assumes that 60% of its new standalone batteries will be sited at retired coal sites.
“Although the approach seems reasonable,” Roumpani wrote, “it might lead to the analysis overlooking certain opportunities to replace coal capacity.”
The Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment Program and the 10% bonus credit for former coal plant communities could also work in concert with so-called securitization of Duke’s coal-fired power plants, in which the remaining book value of plants is paid off through bonds backed by ratepayers.
The same state law requiring Duke to zero out its carbon pollution also calls for only half of the book value of its least efficient coal plants to be securitized. Theoretically, advocates say, the remainder could be paid off through the federal loan program.
Asked about Public Staff’s assertion that the utility didn’t account for the federal loan program in its latest proposal for phasing out carbon, spokesperson Bill Norton said Duke was still reviewing the filing.
He added, “we have already engaged with the Department of Energy and other utilities to learn more about the… program and see if it provides benefits to our customers. We will pursue all federal funding that we believe can reduce energy transition costs for our customers in a manner that protects reliability, supports our coal plant communities and accommodates North Carolina’s growing economy.”
Public Staff and others say time is of the essence. The loan program has a limited amount of funds, and records suggest other utilities have already applied for nearly half the total. That means Duke needs to begin applying for the loans as soon as possible, and, critics argue, should have already started.
“By failing to examine this option,” the attorney general said in its filing, “Duke may be missing out on a once-in-a-decade opportunity to save millions for its customers.”
.svg)
