RALEIGH, N.C. - As North Carolinians rang in the New Year, state regulators released long-anticipated rules for solar power in the state. Solar developers wanted expanded eligibility for contracts, and utilities proposed measures that would limit access.

The state Utilities Commission rejected both proposals and kept the basic framework for solar the same. Legal counsel with NC WARN, John Runkle, says the issue at hand is the real value of solar is not being recognized, and the rules allow Duke Energy to slow-walk contract and interconnection negotiations.

"A contract might take six months, eight months, nine months," he says. "It's a pretty well understood technology. As much money as you want to spend on solar, there's someone willing to put up a good solid solar system for you."

Runkle says the price of solar has gone down considerably, and there is great potential to expand it around the state. But, he adds, without timely contracts and consistent rates, investors can become discouraged and turn away from profitable solar projects.

Duke has been cited as saying it does support solar development, and a spokesman recently pointed to the 278 megawatts of solar capacity the utility has contracted to build or buy power from this year. But Runkle says just four percent of Duke's projected total sales are solar, and he adds that much more solar power would be available if the company would offer standard contracts in a timely fashion.

"Last year NC WARN and some other organizations put solar panels on 250 rooftops," says Runkle. "If there were a way to do that more efficiently we could easily double that, triple that, and the big companies could put on a considerable more amount of solar."

According to a recent report from Environment North Carolina, solar grew 127 percent between 2010 and 2013. It also found the state has the potential to produce more than 30 times as much electricity from solar power as the state consumes each year.

Reporting for this story by North Carolina News Connection in association with Media in the Public Interest. Media in the Public Interest is funded in part by Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation.


get more stories like this via email

Michigan taxpayers may end up footing the bill to keep an aging coal plant open.

The J.H. Campbell plant was scheduled to close on May 31, but a last-minute order from the Department of Energy is forcing it to stay open.

The owner of the plant, Consumers Energy, says it wants the facility shuttered, but its hands are tied.

Dennis Wamsted, energy analyst with the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, said the Trump administration can use the Federal Power Act to force aging coal plants to stay open under emergency conditions.

"A really severe winter storm requires plants to continue to operate above what might be their normal generation levels," said Wamsted. "So there are provisions to operate plants or order them to remain online if there's a real emergency. This was not a real emergency."

Since 2021, Consumers Energy has built new solar and wind generation resources and purchased a natural gas-fired power plant.

These moves were made to replace energy produced by the J.H. Campbell plant and for a complete transition from coal production by the end of 2025.

President Donald Trump issued an executive order in April authorizing the Department of Energy to keep plants open using the Federal Power Act.

Trump said he wants to meet a rise in electricity demand due to an anticipated surge in domestic manufacturing and the construction of artificial intelligence data processing centers.

Wamsted said he believes the taxpayer burden to support J.H. Campbell is unfair and expensive.

When estimating the plant's operating costs, he cited an example from 2023, when the owners of a West Virginia coal plant were forced to keep a site open.

Monthly operating costs were at $3 million. Wamsted called that a "good figure" for J.H. Campbell's operational costs.

"They have to pay the staff to keep the plant there," said Wamsted. "They have to pay to run the pipes and keep the turbine so it can actually produce electricity. So you end up paying that $3 million or more just to keep the plant able to operate."

Wamsted said he is not aware of any legal action taken to force the plant's closure, move upkeep expenses out of taxpayers' hands, or recover the money at a later date.

He said things could change if there's a filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which would allow outside intervenors to force the plant to close or challenge a tariff.

Pennsylvania's U.S. Senators are being asked to do what they can to safeguard federal clean energy tax credits, which are on the chopping block in the big budget reconciliation bill in Congress.

The nonpartisan think tank Energy Innovation said repealing these credits could lead to a loss of 26,000 jobs in Pennsylvania by 2030 and even more by 2035.

Robbie Orvis, senior director of modeling and analysis for Energy Innovation, said losing tax credits from the Inflation Reduction Act would make clean energy manufacturing and clean power projects less viable and increase household energy bills.

"In Pennsylvania in particular, we found that the loss of the clean energy tax credits would lead to $60 per year in higher household energy bills by 2030 growing to $80 per year by 2035," Orvis reported. "That amounts to more than $2 billion more in spending on energy for Pennsylvanians between 2025 and 2035."

He added the lost incentives would also mean $5 billion in lost state gross domestic product by 2030, and $6 billion by 2035. In Congress, Senators are divided over whether to keep the Biden-era tax credits.

Aaron Nichols, solar policy and research specialist for the Bucks County system installer Exact Solar, said solar allows thousands of Pennsylvania homes and businesses to save on energy bills and gives them a choice beyond big utilities. The tax credits make the switch easier.

"Solar energy made up 66% of the new electricity-generating capacity added to the grid last year," Nichols pointed out. "As people have taken advantage of these incentives, the solar industry has grown, creating thousands of good-paying jobs."

Mike Zimmerman, senior attorney for electrification at the advocacy group EDF Action in Pittsburgh, said they have seen more than $1 billion in clean energy investments in the state from battery manufacturing in Turtle Creek to solar manufacturing in Leetsdale and grid technology production in Williamsport. He added 27 gigawatts of mostly solar, wind and battery projects are waiting to connect to the grid.

"These facilities are doing much more than creating jobs," Zimmerman emphasized. "They're cutting energy costs for families, meeting growing energy demand and reducing the pollution that threatens our health and our state's natural resources."

Backers of keeping the clean energy tax credits said repealing them would lead to more fossil fuel use, which worsens air quality and is linked to serious health problems.

An influx of data center infrastructure in neighboring Virginia will likely leave Mountain State residents with higher energy bills, according to a new report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.

Regional grid operator PJM has proposed building two new high-voltage transmission lines to increase power capacity for data centers beginning in 2027. Both lines would cut through parts of West Virginia.

Cathy Kunkel, energy consultant at the institute, said data centers are massive computing facilities used by artificial intelligence, cloud computing and other large-scale computing industries.

"We found that West Virginia ratepayers are going to be contributing over $440 million to the cost of those transmission lines, even though the benefit is to data centers and the tech industry," Kunkel reported.

West Virginia ratepayers are served by subsidiaries of two utilities, FirstEnergy and American Electric Power. Kunkel noted the multimillion dollar price tag for the lines was determined by estimating the annual cost or revenue requirement of each of the two transmission lines during their useful life and then allocating the costs to the utilities.

Kunkel added the West Virginia Public Service Commission will have to decide whether the transmission lines ultimately serve the interests of residents.

"I do think it's unfair that data centers are imposing all these costs on the electrical grid and not fully paying for them," Kunkel asserted.

According to the report, as of 2023, data centers already account for 26% of Virginia's total electricity consumption. Power demand in Virginia's "Data Center Alley" transmission zone is expected to double over the next two decades.