In the fall of 2020, Duke Energy filed its Integrated Resource Plans (IRP) for North Carolina. These plans were the first filed since Duke Energy committed to net-zero emissions by 2050 - a significant goal, given the utility's role as the largest electricity generator and second-largest utility emitter of carbon dioxide in the United States.
Under North Carolina's regulatory framework, Duke Energy must release an updated IRP every two years that outlines the next 15 years of the company's generation planning. Its latest IRP includes significant build-out of new gas-fired generation. These investments involve facilities that will operate for decades, and this natural gas generation stands in stark contrast to the company’s commitment to net-zero carbon by 2050.
It appears though that the North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC), like the Public Service Commission of South Carolina, is not entirely on board with Duke Energy's natural gas plans. South Carolina's regulators rejected the utility's IRP on June 17 because it was not consistent with the requirements of the South Carolina Energy Freedom Act. This week, the NCUC said it will delay IRP approval in order to take a closer look at Duke’s gas plans. This pushback in both states is unprecedented.
Fracked Gas Problems
The Sierra Club opposes the use of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. While fracked gas does emit 50 percent to 60 percent less carbon dioxide than coal plant emissions when burned, its climate-friendliness stops there.
Fracked gas extraction, where pressurized liquid is injected to fracture shale reserves and extract gas from wells, has many downfalls. It results in methane leakage, and the harms of methane cannot be underestimated. While carbon dioxide is the greenhouse gas that gets most traction in climate discourse, at least one-quarter of planetary warming is attributed to methane. Methane has more than 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide in its first 20 years after emission and is 34 times stronger at trapping heat over a 100-year period.
And it's not just the methane that's the problem. The fracking process is also extremely harmful to the local environment and to human health. Fracking's damaging effects include water supply depletion, water contamination and chemical leaks, damage to rock formations and aquifers, air pollution, earthquakes near wells, and degradation from industrial development (pipelines, roads, traffic, etc.).
What's more, fracking harms communities where the activity is located. Many drilling sites are located in poor and rural areas, which often overlap with communities of color.
Going Straight to Renewables
There are abundant reasons to skip right over the antiquated fracked gas "bridge" and take the exit ramp straight to renewable energy. As climate-friendly policies are adopted at the federal level and in many states, output from natural gas facilities will no longer make the cut economically. While fracked gas may be cheaper than coal right now, solar energy is rapidly outpacing dirty fuels to become the least expensive source of electricity.
As renewable energy deployment and use grow and newer technologies become available, they hold massive potential to meet global electricity needs. A 2020 report from University of California-Berkeley, noted that the U.S. electric grid alone could get 90 percent of its power from clean energy by 2035 with no greenhouse gas emissions. The report envisioned increases in renewables, energy storage, and transmission lines; closure of coal plants; and reducing fracked gas usage by 70 percent. Notably, the study projects that its scenario would actually lower electricity rates for customers.
Individuals across industrial sectors, political spectrums, and economic levels are on board with moving away from fracked gas. This is evidenced by intense opposition to fracked gas infrastructure development, and the cancellation of pipeline projects such as the Atlantic Coast Pipeline.
We have seen such fights in North Carolina - for example, opposition to the extension of the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) into the state. The MVP Southgate project is shrouded in uncertainties, given that even the main part of the pipeline has had issues obtaining permitting for construction. The Southgate project is even more problematic in that its construction would run right through Indigenous lands and other vulnerable communities. As of April 2021, the NC Department of Environmental Quality has twice rejected pipeline permitting.
However, these victories don't mean that utilities aren't still pushing for fracked gas expansion. Duke Energy’s IRP outlines a variety of scenarios to cut carbon emissions, but almost every option includes some form of new fracked gas plant construction. This contradicts its earlier stated initiative to be net-zero carbon by 2050.
In recent weeks, the utility has pushed for new gas plants by promoting a controversial energy modernization bill before the NC General Assembly. The bill would require closing some coal plants and replacing them with gas plants. If the state is to meet the targets set by Governor Cooper's Clean Energy Plan and President Biden’s policies, then Duke Energy is off the mark.
Attempting to make climate progress while simultaneously building fracked gas infrastructure is a nonstarter. Implementing more dirty fossil-fueled plants will yield negative climate results. New plants will continue polluting long past dates for net-zero targets, upending climate goals, and plants that shut down due to policy changes will close before the end of their useful life and become obsolete assets, saddling consumers with the burden of paying for stranded costs.
Marketing fracked gas as a "bridge" to a cleaner world is a fable. Clean, affordable, renewable energy is available right now. There is no need to waste precious time and resources on dirty and harmful fossil fuels.