North Carolina bill would prop up coal until new nuclear is approved

North Carolina’s Republican-led House of Representatives passed a sweeping energy bill last week called the Ratepayer Protection Act, with backers saying it would reduce energy costs for families across the state.

But Democrats and other critics of the legislation, Senate Bill 730, are skeptical of that claim, for one main reason: The measure prevents Duke Energy, the state’s predominant utility, from retiring any of its old, expensive coal plants unless and until it gets a state permit for a new nuclear facility with at least 1 gigawatt of capacity.

“Sometimes the name of something is the opposite of what it is,” Rep. Abe Jones, a Democrat from Raleigh, said to his colleagues on the House floor. Jones predicted the coal plant provision, among others, could cause electric bills to rise. ​“I want to be wrong about that, but I bet you a dime to a doughnut they’re going up.”

To justify the bill’s title, most SB 730 supporters point to its treatment of data centers, which threaten to raise electricity rates and overwhelm the grid in North Carolina. The measure would require tech companies to pay Duke a minimum amount for infrastructure, prohibit local tax incentives for the facilities, and take other steps to shield consumers.

Those provisions are good, if insufficient, first steps, many Democrats said last week. But they don’t make up for the language in the legislation that could both prolong the life of coal and lead to the elimination of a 2050 deadline for Duke to zero out its carbon emissions.

“There’s no connection between the two sections of the bill,” said Rep. Robert Reives, the Democratic minority leader from Chatham County, during last week’s floor discussion. ​“I’ve not heard any counter-debate to say that Section 2 isn’t going to raise people’s energy rates.”

Duke’s own data shows the high cost of its coal plants. The utility operates 13 coal-burning units at five different sites across the state, and the majority are at least 50 years old. An analysis by EQ Research of four years of Duke filings shows these plants are 30% more expensive per megawatt-hour than clean energy, and in 2024–2025 exceeded the cost of gas plants.

“They’re just not very efficient,” said Jason Hoyle, EQ’s director of research. ​“There are maintenance issues, and they’re at the age when people retire.”

That economic reality helps explain why the nation as a whole is moving away from the fossil fuel: Last year, wind and solar generated more electricity in the U.S. than coal did.

President Donald Trump has attempted to reverse that trend. Just last week, the Trump administration said it would grant Duke $28.4 million to ​“modernize and enhance” two coal-burning units in Person County, near the Virginia border.

Still, Duke plans to retire most of its coal units, which don’t run very often, within 10 years.

If those power plants stay online past their scheduled closure dates because of the proposed legislation, customers could pay more in fuel costs than they might otherwise. The plants could also occupy capacity on the grid that might go toward cheaper wind, solar, and batteries — or even the spate of new natural gas plants Duke wants to build.

“This bill might have consequences that are not fully considered, and those could result in higher costs,” Hoyle said. ​“If you’re still running those coal plants, that’s probably going to cost more to operate than a new natural gas plant.”

The bill could also have the effect of saddling consumers with extra costs for nuclear power. 

Duke has floated a plan of obtaining a state permit for a nuclear facility by 2028 — among the first steps in what is at least a decade-long process.

However, consumer advocates point out that a large nuclear facility could get its state license but never come to pass — or drag on for years at the expense of Duke’s customers. Thanks in part to a Republican bill that became law last year despite a veto from Gov. Josh Stein, a Democrat, the utility can charge customers for some nuclear plant construction costs before the reactors begin delivering electricity — and even if they never do.

“It’s like writing a blank check that ratepayers are going to have to pay,” said Claire Williamson, senior energy policy advocate with the North Carolina Justice Center.

To be sure, nuclear is a carbon-free resource, and there’s a nonzero chance that Duke could pursue a large plant, receive a permit, and begin producing power from it in the next decade without extra costs to customers. It’s also true that SB 730 comes amid a surge of interest in nuclear energy from the Trump administration as well as state lawmakers nationwide.

Yet the recent track record for nuclear power, especially in the Southeast, is mixed at best. Two large-scale, AP1000 reactors were permitted and finally came online in Georgia in 2023 and 2024, seven years behind schedule and some $20 billion over budget. A third AP1000, in South Carolina, broke ground but was never completed; consumers there are still paying for the failed plant.

“I think there’s like a half dozen people in federal prison over that project,” Hoyle said. (Only a slight overstatement: After years of investigation, four executives were sentenced for fraud or other criminal violations.)

It’s also not clear Duke is eager to invest in new nuclear power — AP1000 or otherwise. In its latest proposed long-range plan, the company pushed back its timeline for small reactors by three years, despite earlier orders from regulators, saying it’s still evaluating whether to pursue small or large reactors first.

Asked about its position on SB 730 and the provision on nuclear and coal in particular, Duke offered a general response.

“Duke Energy is committed to its customers and communities,” company spokesperson Craig Wilson said over email, ​“and will continue working with policymakers and regulators to deliver reliable and increasingly clean energy while keeping rates as low as possible.”

The legislation cleared the House 69 to 44, with all Republicans and unaffiliated lawmakers in favor and all but two Democrats against. It now sits in the Senate, which is also controlled by Republicans. Both chambers have an effective veto-proof majority.

Still, the bill could be changed, and its critics hold out some hope that legislators will ultimately coalesce around stronger guardrails for data centers.

“There are two big pieces of the bill: What do you do about data centers, and what do you do about coal plants?” said Will Scott, North Carolina policy director for the Environmental Defense Fund. ​“Those are both important questions to take on. It’s good to see they’re being debated, but the language on both could use improvement.”