Send a comment to the North Carolina Utilities Commission

Scroll down to submit a written comment to the NCUC about what you think should be in the carbon plan

  1. Enter your name and email
  2. Enter docket number #E-100 Sub 179CS
  3. Copy and paste a few of the talking points below into the comment box, and edit them or add your own message to make a personal and powerful comment.

Talking points:

  • This plan should be written by the Commission, not Duke. The Commission is a policy-making body, not a rubber stamp. You should take an independent look at the data from all parties involved, request outside support if needed, and offer your own plan.
  • Duke Energy ‘s plan barely mentions the climate crisis or the need for emissions reductions, not just shifts in power suppliers — despite the enabling legislation HB 951 having been written specifically to reduce climate change emissions.
  • Duke’s plan is an improvement over their latest Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), in that it calls for more solar and battery storage. But Duke’s plan is still selling clean energy short:
    • The amount of offshore wind in Duke’s plan is less than the amount for which leases have already been sold, and much less than Governor Roy Cooper’s target.
    • The amount of solar is improved, but nowhere near North Carolina’s actual potential for solar power.
  • Duke’s plan extends the life of multiple coal plants beyond 2029, which is outrageous and unnecessary. Every expert from the IEA to DOE to Duke’s own previous IRP agree that getting off of coal quickly is the only way to meet the carbon reduction goals established by HB 951.
  • Duke’s plan relies too heavily on methane gas. Building new gas infrastructure risks climate catastrophe due to leaking methane, threatens to saddle ratepayers with billions in stranded costs, puts us at the mercy of gas price volatility, and requires destructive pipelines that may never be permitted. Duke’s plans to build more than 4,000 MW of new gas, will increase costs, doom our climate, and fail to meet the emissions reduction goals in HB951.
  • The plan also proposes to build too many new power plants, while refusing to consider options for conservation and efficiency. New gas and nuclear plants are much more expensive than investing conservation, demand management, and efficiency. The NCUC should require-cost pathways to reduce carbon — again, you are not a rubber stamp and you do not work for Duke. You do not have to, and should not try to, choose options that maximize shareholder profit for Duke.
  • Duke’s plan will raise rates, and make energy less affordable. Today’s rates are already too high for the thousands of people struggling to pay their bills and even being disconnected for the inability to pay. While the Low-Income Affordability Collaborative and others are also working on this problem, the carbon plan should at least discuss and address affordability.
  • Duke’s plan does not invest in a just transition. Low income communities of color suffer more health impacts and adverse impacts to local economies than other communities. To ensure a just transition, the carbon plan must acknowledge these historic injustices and ensure frontline, black, and indigenous communities have a voice and a role in creating a carbon reduction plan that specifically invests in their communities.
  • Duke Energy’s draft carbon plan is too dependent on new power plants and centralized infrastructure, as opposed to rooftop solar, microgrids and vehicle-to-home storage applications. As a result it lacks the transparency needed for communities to build just, democratic, locally controlled clean energy.

Don’t forget to:

  1. Enter your name and email
  2. Enter docket number #E-100 Sub 179CS