Proposed Environmental Protection Agency regulatory rollbacks are key to Duke Energy's plan to delay the retirement of three power plants that partially run on coal.
The Biden Administration's EPA proposed a stringent emissions rule that would have effectively required coal plants planning to remain online after 2032 to co-fire with at least 40% natural gas by 2030. That rule also said plants operating after 2038 would need to capture and sequester at least 90% of their carbon dioxide.
Earlier this year, the Trump Administration EPA proposed rolling back that rule entirely, arguing it would save customers nationwide more than $1 billion annually.
In a resource plan filed last week, Duke officials pointed to that rollback and other Trump Administration coal-friendly policies as key to its decision to keep three North Carolina coal plants online longer than previously intended.
"Stringent environmental regulations on air emissions and wastewater discharges have put significant pressure on the viability of aging coal units to remain both cost-effective and compliant over time. However, policies related to coal-fired generation are shifting under the current federal administration," Duke Energy wrote in an appendix to its recent Carolinas Resource Plan.
Duke Energy also warned that future administrations could shift policies again to re-enact more stringent policies.
Critics of Duke's intention to delay coal plant retirements contend that it means the utility will be keeping a dirty, outdated fuel source online at a time when carbon-free resources are widely available. Mikaela Curry, a campaign manager for the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign,
"Coal is not the most economic choice, and it's expensive," Curry said.
In its filing, Duke Energy acknowledges that declining demand for coal could mean rising costs as the coal mining industry consolidates over the coming decade or so. The decreased demand for coal could also, the company said, shrink the mining workforce and make it difficult for remaining producers to ramp up supply when necessary.
Curry expressed specific concern about the longest delay, at Duke's Belews Creek plant, where a co-fired coal and natural gas plant will be allowed to stay online through 2039 to allow more time for the development of a small modular nuclear facility that Duke is proposing for the site.
"They're being delayed because of Duke's insistence to pursue unproven technology that's not available, and to see that happening at the same time that we're seeing Duke fail to bring on proven available technology like solar and battery storage at the pace and scale that we need, it's really frustrating," Curry said.
What is Duke's plan?
For years, Duke Energy has said that it intended to retire all of its North Carolina coal-fired power plants by 2035.
That is changing, though, with demand for electricity rising and Duke scrambling to meet demand for new manufacturing facilities, data centers and residents across the Carolinas.
The three plants where Duke is considering delaying retirements are all capable of burning a combination of coal and natural gas. They include:
- Belews Creek Steam Station in Stokes County, which could run as late as Jan. 1, 2040. The plant was originally set to retire at the end of 2035. By delaying the retirement through 2039, Duke officials said they could replace it with small modular nuclear reactors that are not yet commercially available. It is important for the company's grid, Duke said, that a significant electric generator remain online at that specific point in the system.
- Cliffside Unit 5 in Cleveland and Rutherford Counties, which could operate through 2032 instead of the 2030 data proposed in Duke's previous resource plan.
- Marshall Units 3 and 4 in Catawba County, which could operate through 2033 instead of 2031 as proposed in previous plans.
"This limited extension of retirement dates for these units allows the system more time to integrate incremental new resources by providing additional capacity for a limited period of time while taking on some incremental risk to reliability from the continued operations of these coal units in the interest of supporting the incremental economic development growth assumed by the Advancing Development Load Forecast," Duke Energy wrote in its resource plan.
Basically, delaying coal retirements will give Duke more time to develop nuclear plants, add battery storage and build solar panels. Duke officials believe that will let them meet growing electricity demand for electricity, even if maintaining fuel lines and keeping aging power plants operating adds some different risks.
"These plants are run usually during just periods of very high demand and (for) a limited number of hours throughout the year, but having that flexibility to defer just a couple of the units helps ensure near-term reliability," Glen Snider, Duke Energy's managing director of integrated resource planning, said in an interview.
The N.C. Utilities Commission will hold hearings on Duke's plan next year before issuing an order before the end of 2026. Typically, those orders have directed Duke Energy to take a number of actions over the coming two years based on the direction the utility wants to head in, leaving open the possibility for changes in regulations or technology.
Critiques of Duke's plan
Even if the EPA moves forward with its plan to roll back the Clean Air Act rules, there will likely be lengthy lawsuits around it, David Neal, a Southern Environmental Law Center senior attorney, said in an interview.
The N.C. Utilities Commission finalized Duke's most recent resource plan before the Biden-era EPA finalized the Clean Air Act rules. But, Neal said, earlier versions of Duke's resource plan would already come close to violating those rules if enacted.
"The prior coal retirement schedule in the last approved Carbon Plan was already butting up against some of those 111 rule requirements, but what Duke's put forward now would completely violate those rules," Neal said.
Neal also expressed concern that the delay in retiring coal coincides with Duke Energy's intention to also delay the development of both onshore and offshore wind, as well as the construction of a new hydro pumped storage station.
Put together, he said, that inaction in both directions could mean Duke Energy's state-mandated net zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 are already in peril.
"Duke isn't deploying the fuel-free, carbon-free resources it needs to be on track," Neal said.
Other EPA rollbacks
Under Administrator Lee Zeldin, the EPA has also proposed a repeal of the agency's Biden-era Mercury and Air Toxic Standards for power plants fired by coal and oil.
The proposal would rescind changes made in 2024. Changes would return the rule to previously allowed higher levels of particulate matter emissions, rescinding a requirement that power plants continuously monitor for emissions.
In a news release announcing the rollback, the EPA pointed to North Carolina as one of a dozen states whose coal plants were impacted by the Biden-era rule. EPA officials have said they intend to finalize the new rule by December.
Curry, of the Sierra Club, mentioned pollution as a cost of Duke Energy's decision to delay coal plant retirements.
"There's the cost of these communities and the people who live next to these plants and who are breathing the air or dealing with contaminated water," Curry said.
Instead of holding onto coal, Curry suggested that Duke turn to more emissions-free technologies to help those communities.
