North Carolina lawmakers finalize bill that would scrap 2030 carbon reduction goal
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — North Carolina legislators finalized a bill Thursday that would eliminate an interim greenhouse gas reduction mandate set in a landmark 2021 law, while still directing regulators to aim to cancel out power plant carbon emissions in the state within the next 25 years.
With some bipartisan support, the state Senate voted to accept the House version that would repeal the 2021 law's requirement that electric regulators take 'all reasonable steps to achieve' reducing carbon dioxide output 70% from 2005 levels by 2030. The law's directive to take similar steps to meet a carbon neutrality standard by 2050 would remain in place.
The bill's Republican supporters pushing the new measure say getting rid of the interim goal benefits ratepayers asked to pay for future electric-production construction and is more efficient for Duke Energy, the state's dominant electric utility.
The bill now goes to Democratic Gov. Josh Stein, who can veto the measure, sign it or let it become law without his signature. Stein previously expressed concerns about the Senate version of the measure, worried that it could hurt electricity users and threaten the state's clean-energy economy. His office didn't immediately provide comment after Thursday's vote.
With over a dozen House and Senate Democrats voting for the final version, the chances that any Stein veto could be overridden are higher. Republicans in charge of the General Assembly are only one House seat shy of a veto-proof majority.
The bill also contains language that would help Duke Energy seek higher electric rates to cover financing costs to build nuclear or gas-powered plants incrementally, rather than wait until the project's end.
The 2021 greenhouse gas law marked a rare agreement on environmental issues by then-Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper and Republican lawmakers.
At least 17 other states — most controlled by Democrats — have laws setting similar net-zero power plant emissions or 100% renewable energy targets, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. North Carolina and Virginia are the only ones from the Southeast.
The legislation came about as President Donald Trump's administration has proposed rolling back federal environmental and climate change policies, which critics say could boost pollution and threaten human health. Republicans are promoting them as ways to reduce the cost of living and boost the economy.
The state Utilities Commission, which regulates rates and services for public utilities, already has pushed back the 2030 deadline — as the 2021 law allows — by at least four years. The panel acknowledged last year it was 'no longer reasonable or executable' for Duke Energy to meet the reduction standard by 2030.
Bill supporters say to meet the goal would require expensive types of alternate energy immediately. If the interim standard can be bypassed, GOP bill authors say, Duke Energy can assemble less expensive power sources now and moderate electricity rate increases necessary to reach the 2050 standard.
Citing an analysis performed by a state agency that represents consumers before the commission, GOP lawmakers say removing the interim goal would reduce by at least $13 billion what Duke Energy would have to spend — and pass on to customers — in the next 25 years.
Bill opponents question the savings figure given uncertainty in plant fuel prices, energy demand and construction costs, and say the interim goal still holds an aspirational purpose to while Duke Energy agreed in 2021 to meet.
Wednesdays
Columnist Jen Zoratti looks at what's next in arts, life and pop culture.
Provisions in the measure related to recouping plant construction expenses over time would reduce accumulated borrowing interest.
Environmental groups argue the financing option would benefit Duke Energy financially on expensive projects even if they're never completed, and the bill broadly would prevent cleaner energy sources from coming online sooner.
'This bill is bad for all North Carolinians, whether they're Duke Energy customers or simply people who want to breathe clean air,' North Carolina Sierra Club director Chris Herndon said after the vote while urging Stein to veto the measure.
Bill support came from the North Carolina Chamber and a manufacturers' group, in addition to Duke Energy.
'We appreciate bipartisan efforts by policymakers to keep costs as low as possible for customers and enable the always-on energy resources our communities need,' the company said this week.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vancouver Sun
an hour ago
- Vancouver Sun
In Alberta, separatism is on the ballot in a rural byelection on Monday
OTTAWA — Cameron Davies, the leader of the separatist Republican Party of Alberta and the party's candidate for Monday's Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills byelection, admits that his party's name and MAGA red branding are causing some confusion at the doors . 'It certainly has come up in conversation,' Davies told the National Post on Thursday. 'People want to know more about it, what it means and that's just an opportunity to explain why the word 'republican' and why a constitutional republic is something we want to look at.' Davies' Republican party isn't formally aligned with the more well-known one south of the border — notably swapping out the latter's elephant for a more local buffalo as its logo — but it does aspire to make Alberta an independent republic governed similarly in principle to the U.S. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. 'The form of government Canada has doesn't work for Alberta, and the form of government we have here in Alberta doesn't work for Alberta,' said Davies. Davies, an ex-UCP organizer , is one of two separatist candidates who'll be on the ballot in Monday's byelection in the south-central Alberta riding, where the governing United Conservative Party won more votes than anywhere else in the province in 2023's provincial election . The other is employee benefits specialist Bill Tufts, running under the banner of the Wildrose Loyalty Coalition. Under normal circumstances, the byelection would be a tap-in for first-time UCP candidate Tara Sawyer. But these are anything but normal circumstances, with support for Alberta separatism spiking on the heels of the federal Liberals fourth straight election win. What's more, Davies and Tufts have a fortuitous piece of Alberta election lore to point to. Western Concept candidate Gordon Kesler notched a surprise 1982 byelection win in predecessor riding Olds-Didsbury, briefly becoming the first and only separatist to hold a seat in Alberta's legislature. Kesler is still active in the area's politics and is backing Davis in the byelection . Ex-Alberta MLA Derek Fildebrandt, whose now-defunct riding of Strathmore-Brooks crossed into the riding's east end, says he expects the Republicans to place a strong second, possibly even pushing the UCP below a majority vote share. 'Based on my gut, nothing hard,' said Fildebrandt. The UCP's Nathan Cooper won in dominant fashion with 75 per cent of the vote in 2013. Davies says he'd be happy with 20 per cent of the riding's vote, around what the populist Wildrose party got in its first election in 2008 . '(Wildrose) got around 20 per cent of the vote, and that was after being a party for close to a year,' said Davies. The Alberta Republicans, formerly the Buffalo Party of Alberta, formally launched on February 11 . Davies was acclaimed as leader two months later in April. 'Anything at or above 20 per cent is a significant gain, given how short of a runway we've had,' said Davies. Davies, who lives just outside the riding in south Red Deer, says he typically gets between 12 and 18 volunteers each day and has knocked on 20,000 doors in the riding, which is home to about 50,000 people. Tufts, for his part, says he's in it to win it. 'Well, we would like to win,' said Tufts. Tufts said that the contest's timing, outside of a general election, gives him an opening. 'Byelections can be quite tumultuous events, typically because of the low voter turnout. So I think we've had an opportunity to go out there and work hard, knock on the doors and explain our position.' Tufts pointed out that both Kesler and Alberta's first Wildrose MLA Paul Hinman won office in byelections. He said he was optimistic that his party's brand recognition would propel him past Alberta Republican candidate Davies and into the winner's circle. 'The Wildrose has been around for a long time … so I think there's a lot of credibility with the name, the recognition of our brand and our policies that resonate with a lot of voters,' said Tufts. The populist Wildrose Party merged with the rival Alberta Progressive Conservatives in 2017 to form the UCP but Tufts' Wildrose Loyalty Coalition lives on as a splinter group. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith led the Wildrose Party from 2009 to 2014 before defecting to the PCs in a disastrous floor-crossing. Tufts says that a revitalized Wildrose caucus could hold the UCP to account and keep it from getting weak-kneed in seeing through the results of a successful referendum on independence, drawing a comparison to the recent Liberal-NDP supply and confidence agreement . 'Look at who the most powerful party in Ottawa was over the last few years: that was the NDP,' said Tufts. Katherine Kowalchuk, a separatist who lives in the riding, says she'll be voting Republican. 'The sense that I get from Cam (Davies) is that he's prepared, he has conservative viewpoints on things… and I think that he has the ability to stand by those convictions,' said Kowalchuk. 'We need to fight for our strong Alberta heritage rooted in family and freedom, and Cam is really the only candidate that's talking about this.' Kowalchuk ran in the riding for the Alberta Independence Party in 2023, winning 4.7 per cent of the vote. Pollster Dan Arnold, an executive with Pollara Strategic Insights says that Alberta's budding separatist movement could hardly have picked a better time and place for its first electoral test. He noted that support for Alberta independence among committed voters was at 24 per cent in mid-May, the highest level his firm has seen since it started polling Albertans on the topic in 2011. 'My assumption is the reason you're seeing the numbers edging up is because (separation) is now in the spotlight,' said Arnold. He said that the UCP will likely get spooked if the separatist vote breaks the double-digits. '10 per cent can grow over time to 20 per cent and then you're getting into vote split territory,' said Arnold. Arnold noted that Smith has dialled up the rhetoric against Ottawa's equalization program in recent days, likely in an effort to shore up soft separatists in the province. 'In our past polling, we've generally found that nobody really knows what equalization is but, at least in Alberta and Saskatchewan, they think it's unfair to their province.' Smith said on Monday that Quebec, the program's biggest recipient, should develop a resource 'royalty framework to wean them off the equalization that comes from western Canada.' Arnold said that 35 per cent of UCP voters see Smith as a separatist. Ironically, this could be a problem for her with polls showing that over half of UCP voters would vote 'yes' in a referendum on independence. Sawyer says she's not a separatist and believes in a strong Alberta within a united Canada. She told National Post that she's not playing the over/under game. Instead, she's focused on earning the trust of voters and winning the seat. 'We are working hard and earning every vote,' said Sawyer. Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills is one of three byelections scheduled for Monday, with the NDP tipped to win two Edmonton-area races. National Post Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here .
Winnipeg Free Press
2 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
With loss upon loss, I'm truly at a loss
Opinion I wonder if everyone, as they age, develops a feeling of terminal loss not just for people we've known, but for places, too. I've seen it in others, and sometimes, it's quite pronounced: the sense all the good is washing out of the world, leaving only bones. But I didn't expect to feel it so keenly myself, so soon and on so many fronts. In the last six months or so, I've written about the loss of dear friends, the loss of a property in a wildfire, and the loss of my ability to travel, with a clear conscience, to parts of the United States — notably, parts of the western desert like the Black Rock Desert — I have visited many times and dearly love. Now, I feel like I'm getting to be one of the many witnesses to irreversible change that's only speeding up. Russell Wangersky/Free Press The Black Rock Desert at sunset The latest little click of that clock? A budget bill addition in the U.S. Senate that will order the sale of millions of acres of public lands in western states, effectively to the highest bidder. The bill, if passed, will order the sale of lands currently held by the Bureau of Land Management and the National Forest System in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington state and Wyoming. It's ostensibly to build housing. Truth be told, though, it's probably designed to be for the profit of the modern-day carpetbaggers and robber barons, the people who have the money to snap up under-priced public assets and convert them for their own profit or pleasure. Guardrails are few. Most of the legal requirements of the sales are set or defined by the decision of cabinet appointees. Like: 'A tract of covered Federal land disposed of under this section shall be used solely for the development of housing or to address associated community needs as defined by the Secretary concerned.' Now, there's a gap you can drive a bus through. And the plan has some interesting features: it wants to give priority for sale to federal lands that are close to existing infrastructure, adjacent to developed areas and suitable for residential development — which all sounds good for building housing — but the government only expects to collect US$10 billion in revenue, meaning the property is expected to sell in the range of US$3,030 an acre. That's startling. The average cost of developable land in the U.S. runs at around US$18,000 an acre, and developable land adjacent to already-developed areas and close to existing infrastructure can hit US$100,000 an acre. So someone's going to make a lot more money than the U.S. Treasury will on this deal. Russell Wangersky/Free Press Deer Creek, near the Modoc National Forest As a percentage, the amounts of the land sales are small — just 0.5 per cent to 0.75 per cent of the lands held by the two agencies. But just that tiny fraction of federal land holdings is equal to 2.2 million to 3.3 million acres of federal lands — in Canadian terms, at the high end, 2.4 times the size of Prince Edward Island. It makes you think that many in government — both in the U.S. and Canada — spend little time in the outdoors, and more time calculating measurable short-term economic returns. That's very much the way Republicans seem to be pitching the selloff: Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee argued the move would turn 'federal liabilities into taxpayer value,' tacitly voicing the concept that forest lands have value only as a commodity, and that stewarding them for future generations is necessarily a loss. And don't get me started on the sales of wood from existing U.S. National Forest lands — the bill also would increase cutting, saying, 'For each of fiscal years 2026 through 2034, the Secretary shall sell timber annually on National Forest System land in a total quantity that is not less than 250,000,000 board-feet greater than the quantity of board-feet sold in the previous fiscal year.' By fiscal 2028, that would be a 25 per cent annual increase in wood cut on National Forest land. It's funny — when I think about the quiet beauty of the Modoc National Forest in California, walking on the deep cushioned mat of pine needles beneath the huge trees, the air hanging still in a way that engenders something close to reverence, I don't think of how much more valuable it would be as a housing development or mall, or even how much the wood is worth. Heading up to the Fandango Pass above Goose Lake, Calif., even travelling through the recovering burn scar of a forest fire that raced up the western face of the mountains of the Warner Range, the wildflowers rampant with all the new sunlight that's now cast down beneath and through the burnt-black pines, I don't think of board-feet of lumber. In the Black Rock Desert, I see the great open skies and the shoulders of the hills, not mineral reserves waiting to be harvested. Weekday Evenings Today's must-read stories and a roundup of the day's headlines, delivered every evening. Why, some might say, it's only a trim around the edges of natural reserves. There's lots. Russell Wangersky/Free Press View through the Fandango Pass, California Until there isn't. And once gone, many things never come back. I think that's something you learn for keeps as you grow older. Russell Wangersky is the Comment Editor at the Free Press. He can be reached at Russell WangerskyPerspectives editor Russell Wangersky is Perspectives Editor for the Winnipeg Free Press, and also writes editorials and columns. He worked at newspapers in Newfoundland and Labrador, Ontario and Saskatchewan before joining the Free Press in 2023. A seven-time National Newspaper Award finalist for opinion writing, he's also penned eight books. Read more about Russell. Russell oversees the team that publishes editorials, opinions and analysis — part of the Free Press's tradition, since 1872, of producing reliable independent journalism. Read more about Free Press's history and mandate, and learn how our newsroom operates. Our newsroom depends on a growing audience of readers to power our journalism. If you are not a paid reader, please consider becoming a subscriber. Our newsroom depends on its audience of readers to power our journalism. Thank you for your support.
Winnipeg Free Press
5 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
How Senate Republicans want to change the tax breaks in Trump's big bill
WASHINGTON (AP) — House and Senate Republicans are taking slightly different approaches when it comes to the tax cuts that lawmakers are looking to include in their massive tax and spending cuts bill. Republicans in the two chambers don't agree on the size of a deduction for state and local taxes. And they are at odds on such things as allowing people to use their health savings accounts to help pay for their gym membership, or whether electric vehicle and hybrid owners should have to pay an annual fee. The House passed its version shortly before Memorial Day. Now the Senate is looking to pass its version. While the two bills are similar on the major tax provisions, how they work out their differences in the coming weeks will determine how quickly they can get a final product over the finish line. President Donald Trump is pushing to have the legislation on his desk by July 4th. Here's a look at some of the key differences between the two bills: Tax break for families The child tax credit currently stands at $2,000 per child. The House bill temporarily boosts the child tax credit to $2,500 for the 2025 through 2028 tax years, roughly the length of President Donald Trump's second term. It also indexes the credit amount for inflation beginning in 2027. The Senate bill provides a smaller, initial bump-up to $2,200, but the bump is permanent, with the credit amount indexed for inflation beginning next year. Trump campaign promises Trump promised on the campaign trail that he would seek to end income taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security benefits. Also, he would give car buyers a new tax break by allowing them to deduct the interest paid on auto loans. The House and Senate bills incorporate those promises with temporary deductions lasting from the 2025 through 2028 tax years, but with some differences. The House bill creates a deduction on tips for those working in jobs that have customarily received tips. The House also provides for a deduction for overtime that's equal to the amount of OT a worker has earned. The Senate bill comes with more restrictions. The deduction for tips is limited to $25,000 per taxpayer and the deduction for overtime is limited to $12,500 per taxpayer. The House and Senate bills both provide a deduction of up to $10,000 for interest paid on loans for vehicles made in the United States. And on Social Security, the bills don't directly touch the program. Instead, they grant a larger tax deduction for Americans age 65 and older. The House sets the deduction at $4,000. The Senate sets it at $6,000. Both chambers include income limits over which the new deductions begin to phase out. More SALT The caps on state and local tax deductions, known in Washington as the SALT cap, now stand at $10,000. The House bill, in a bid to win over Republicans from New York, California and New Jersey, lifts the cap to $40,000 per household with incomes of less than $500,000. The credit phases down for households earning more than $500,000. The Senate bill keeps the cap at $10,000. That's a non-starter in the House, but Republicans in the two chambers will look to negotiate a final number over the coming weeks that both sides can accept. Medicaid providers The House bill prohibits states from establishing new provider taxes or increasing existing taxes. These are taxes that Medicaid providers, such as hospitals, pay to help states finance their share of Medicaid costs. In turn, the taxes allow states to receive increased federal matching funds while generally holding providers harmless through higher reimbursements that offset the taxes paid. Such taxes now are effectively capped at 6%. The Senate looks to gradually lower that threshold for states that have expanded their Medicaid populations under the Affordable Care Act, or 'Obamacare,' until it reaches 3.5% in 2031, with exceptions for nursing homes and intermediate care facilities. Industry groups have warned that limiting the ability of states to tax providers may lead to some states making significant cuts to their Medicaid programs as they make up for the lost revenue in other ways. The Medicaid provision could be a flashpoint in the coming House and Senate negotiations. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was highly critical of the proposed Senate changes. 'This needs a lot of work. It's really concerning and I'm really surprised by it,' he said. 'Rural hospitals are going to be in bad shape.' Tax breaks for business The House bill would allow companies for five years to fully deduct equipment purchases and domestic research and development expenses. The Senate bill includes no sunset, making the tax breaks permanent, which was a key priority of powerful trade groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Clean energy tax credits Republicans in both chambers are looking to scale back the clean energy tax credits enacted through then-President Joe Biden's climate law. It aimed to boost the nation's transition away from planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions toward renewable energy such as wind and solar power. Under the Senate bill, the tax credits for clean energy and home energy efficiency would still be phased out, but less quickly than under the House bill. Still, advocacy groups fear that the final measure will threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs and drive up household energy costs. Monday Mornings The latest local business news and a lookahead to the coming week. Odds and ends The House bill would allow millions of Americans to use their health savings accounts to pay for gym memberships, with a cap of $500 for single taxpayers and $1,000 for joint filers. The Senate bill doesn't include such a provision. The House reinstates a charitable deduction for non-itemizers of $150 per taxpayer. The Senate bill increases that deduction for donations to $1,000 per taxpayer. Republicans in the House bill included a new annual fee of $250 for EV owners and $100 for hybrid owners that would be collected by state motor vehicle departments. The Senate bill excludes the proposed fees. ___
