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.

Commentary: Duke carbon plan harms ratepayers, slows transition while boosting company profits. There’s a better path forward. is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.