CHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Duke Energy’s proposed process for procuring new solar power projects would unreasonably discriminate against the resource’s growth, clean energy advocates explained in comments submitted to the North Carolina Utilities Commission. The Southern Environmental Law Center submitted comments on behalf of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, the Sierra Club, and Vote Solar.
To meet the growing demand for electricity, Duke opens a competitive bidding process to add new solar power to the grid every year. The amount of new solar to be added each year is set in a regular long-term planning process designed to find the least-cost way to meet electricity demand. In the planning process, Duke’s modeling consistently selected up to the limits it imposed on solar resources, demonstrating that absent those limits, the model would select more solar.
In April, the monopoly utility proposed a “volume adjustment mechanism” that allows it to lower the amount of solar that it procures annually by up to 30 percent if the price of solar power deviates by even 5 percent from a price that Duke estimated two years ago. Duke’s unreasonable “volume adjustment mechanism” does not apply to any other energy resource, including polluting methane gas, which faces volatile fuel price spikes that are paid by customers.
Nick Jimenez, senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, said, “Duke Energy’s proposal ultimately protects fossil fuels – not billpayers’ wallets or health, the grid’s reliability, or our collective safety from climate impacts. At a time when Duke has projected growing energy demand, throttling the development of a clean, least-cost resource like solar power could undermine reliability and raise customer bills by locking North Carolinians into more expensive, polluting infrastructure.”
In their comments, clean energy advocates recommended capping annual solar power reduction at 10 percent and considering “all-source procurement,” which lets the market identify the most cost-effective mix of energy options rather than allow a utility to pick winners and losers.
Stacey Washington, clean energy and equity director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy said, “Outside of the technical aspects of Duke’s ‘volume adjustment mechanism,’ it is an attempt to slow the growth of solar power. Solar power is competitive, affordable, and in demand – yet Duke is trying to weigh it down to protect outdated, polluting, and more expensive resources. This kind of manipulation is the opposite of competition and energy freedom for North Carolinians.”
Mikaela Curry, campaign manager with Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign in North Carolina, said, “It’s reprehensible that Duke is singling out solar while giving a free pass to methane gas, a harmful fossil fuel with a history of price spikes that the utility monopoly’s customers bear. As Duke continues to forecast massive growth in energy demand, intentionally slowing solar power threatens to lock North Carolinians into decades of funding more polluting, expensive, and unreliable infrastructure.”
Jake Duncan, Southeast regulatory director with Vote Solar said, “North Carolina communities all over the state are already experiencing extreme impacts from climate change. Yet in a moment when common-sense, bipartisan state law requires action, Duke’s policy for procuring new energy resources would slam the brakes, putting our communities and future generations at even greater risk.”
