Duke Energy’s proposed 15-year resource plan, called the Carbon Plan Integrated Resource Plan (CPIRP), was filed at the NC Utilities Commission on October 1, 2025. This plan must be filed every two years, and it outlines Duke Energy’s recommended infrastructure and program investments over the next two years (called the Near-Term Action Plan, or NTAP) and the long-term (the next 15 years). The 2025 CPIRP has been reviewed and scrutinized by the Public Staff and intervenors like SACE for the past six months through discovery questions and independent modeling and analyses. Twelve intervening organizations filed their own testimony on March 30, but all eyes were on the Public Staff. And the Public Staff did not disappoint.
The Public Staff of the North Carolina Utilities Commission is an independent state agency charged with scrutinizing utility filings on behalf of “the using and consuming public” — otherwise known as ratepayers — and its role in the utility dockets carries significant weight. The ratepayers — the people who ultimately pay for whatever Duke builds — did indeed appear to be front of mind when the Public Staff concluded in its pre-filed testimonies that:
- The Commission should not include Duke’s proposed combined cycle plants (called CC4 and CC5) in the Near-Term Action Plan (NTAP), and as such, Duke should not seek certificates for them at this time.
- The Commission should not include Duke’s proposed combustion turbines (CT6 and CT7) in the NTAP, and Duke should not seek certificates at this time.
- The “Enhanced Liquefied Natural Gas” (ELNG) that Duke proposes to provide fuel security for each of the proposed CCs is “First of a Kind” technology and carries significant risk that should not be placed on ratepayers.
- Duke’s cost estimates for the CCs are too low.
- Duke’s load forecast is likely too high and subject to considerable uncertainty.
- Duke’s modeling included constraints that they did not communicate, “obfuscating the fact that Duke is funneling the model toward prescribed outcomes, rather than allowing it to select the most economic path forward.” (Michna, p. 24)
- Duke failed to continue to pursue the onshore wind development they were ordered to pursue in the last CPIRP. This would have amounted to 1,200 MW by 2033.
- Duke didn’t procure the amount of solar they were ordered to in the last CPIRP.
- Duke didn’t continue to develop an increase in capacity at the Bad Creek pumped storage facility.
- Duke keeps pushing back in-service dates for new nuclear (from 2034 to 2037 — it seems like it is always just over the 10-year horizon, perpetually).
Public Staff expressed concern with Duke spending to maintain the coal fleet while also building new gas, “as if Duke considers the coal plants to be ready for failure. In aggregate, the ratepayer will see an increase in costs for what is potentially an overbuilt system.” (Michna, p. 42)
Once large resources such as gas plants are approved and built, they are on the system and costing ratepayers for 35 or more years. Gas resources also subject ratepayers to rising fuel cost risks. Public Staff recognized this when it noted the following: “Based on its investigation, and given the potential risk and cost to ratepayers, the Public Staff does not see the same urgency for these CCs and CTs as that presented in Duke’s NTAP.” (Michna, p. 43)
The Public Staff said “no” a lot in their testimony. What they said “yes” to — what they recommend for a Near Term Action Plan — is shown below in comparison to Duke’s proposed NTAP.
Public Staff based this NTAP on its own modeling, and notably, it included a Large Load Demand-Side Management program in that modeling that Duke includes in its electric service agreements with prospective large load customers but did not include in its own modeling. The Public Staff found that modeling Large Load Demand-Side Management helps delay gas plant construction, saving ratepayers more than $1 billion over the next 10 years.
Duke will file rebuttal testimony by May 14. The NC Utilities Commission will conduct a hearing beginning June 9, and the Commission must issue a final order by December 31st.
SACE will dive deeper into the testimony filed by Public Staff and by our own experts in the coming weeks.
