2025: Jennifer Balkcom Voted Twice For A Bill That Was Projected To Cost Duke Energy Ratepayers Up To $23 Billion Through 2050, Cutting Electricity Costs For Corporations At The Expense Of North Carolina Families

June 2025: Balkcom Voted For S.B. 266, Which Was Projected To Cost North Carolina Ratepayers Up To $23 Billion Through 2050 Due To Higher Fuel Costs

June 2025: Balkcom Voted For S.B. 266, “An Act To Eliminate The Interim Date For Carbon Reduction By Certain Electric Public Utilities, To Allow An Alternative Cost Recovery Mechanism For The Financing Costs Of Construction Work In Progress For Baseload Electric Generating Facilities, To Modify The Statutes Governing Cost Recovery For Fuel-Related Charges And Performance-Based Ratemaking, And To Codify A Provision Authorizing Securitization Of Costs For Retirement Of Coal-Fired Generating Units.” In June 2025, Balkcom voted for S.B. 266, “An act to eliminate the interim date for carbon reduction by certain electric public utilities, to allow an alternative cost recovery mechanism for the financing costs of construction work in progress for baseload electric generating facilities, to modify the statutes governing cost recovery for fuel-related charges and performance-based ratemaking, and to codify a provision authorizing securitization of costs for retirement of coal-fired generating units.” The motion passed by a vote of 75-36-0-9. [North Carolina General Assembly, S.B. 266, 6/10/25]

• S.B. 266 Would Eliminate The Carbon Emissions Reduction Target In The NC Carbon Plan. “Higher Natural Gas Costs from Removing the Interim Target: When considering North Carolina Senate Bill 266, which eliminates the interim carbon emissions reduction target in the NC Carbon Plan, policymakers have cited potential cost savings as a key justification. However, our analysis finds that removing the interim target could expose ratepayers to significant financial risk, particularly if natural gas prices rise.” [North Carolina State University, 10/30/25]

North Carolina State University: S.B. 266 Was Projected To Cost North Carolina Ratepayers Up To $23 Billion Through 2050 Due To Higher Fuel Costs. “Higher Natural Gas Costs from Removing the Interim Target: When considering North Carolina Senate Bill 266, which eliminates the interim carbon emissions reduction target in the NC Carbon Plan, policymakers have cited potential cost savings as a key justification. However, our analysis finds that removing the interim target could expose ratepayers to significant financial risk, particularly if natural gas prices rise. Based on modeling by the Public Staff, eliminating the interim target would increase natural gas generation by nearly 40 percent between 2030 and 2050. If natural gas prices follow the ‘high’ trajectory from the Carbon Plan docket, the shift would raise total natural gas costs paid by ratepayers by $23 billion, compared to a scenario that retains the interim target. (In present value terms, this equals approximately $13 billion, assuming a 5% discount rate.) These additional fuel costs are borne directly by customers. Maintaining the interim goal helps limit exposure to volatile fuel markets and protects ratepayers from sharp increases in electricity bills.” [North Carolina State University, 10/30/25]

North Carolina State University: “Removing The Interim Target Could Expose Ratepayers To Significant Financial Risk, Particularly If Natural Gas Prices Rise.” “However, our analysis finds that removing the interim target could expose ratepayers to significant financial risk, particularly if natural gas prices rise. Based on modeling by the Public Staff, eliminating the interim target would increase natural gas generation by nearly 40 percent between 2030 and 2050. If natural gas prices follow the ‘high’ trajectory from the Carbon Plan docket, the shift would raise total natural gas costs paid by ratepayers by $23 billion, compared to a scenario that retains the interim target.” [North Carolina State University, 10/30/25]

North Carolina State University: “Based On Modeling By The Public Staff, Eliminating The Interim Target Would Increase Natural Gas Generation By Nearly 40% Between 2030 And 2050.” “However, our analysis finds that removing the interim target could expose ratepayers to significant financial risk, particularly if natural gas prices rise. Based on modeling by the Public Staff, eliminating the interim target would increase natural gas generation by nearly 40 percent between 2030 and 2050. If natural gas prices follow the ‘high’ trajectory from the Carbon Plan docket, the shift would raise total natural gas costs paid by ratepayers by $23 billion, compared to a scenario that retains the interim target.” [North Carolina State University, 10/30/25]

July 2025: Balkcom Voted To Override The Governor’s Veto Of S.B. 266 Even Though He Said It “Shifts The Cost Of Electricity From Large Industrial Users Onto The Backs Of Regular People”

July 2025: Governor Josh Stein Vetoed S.B. 266, Saying “This Bill Not Only Makes Everyone’s Utility Bills More Expensive, But It Also Shifts The Cost Of Electricity From Large Industrial Users Onto The Backs Of Regular People -- Families Will Pay More So That Industry Pays Less.” “Today Governor Stein signed seven bills and vetoed three bills. Governor Stein made the following statement on his veto of Senate Bill 266: ‘This summer’s record heat and soaring utility bills has shown that we need to focus on lowering electricity costs for working families -- not raising them. And as our state continues to grow, we need to diversify our energy portfolio so that we are not overly reliant on natural gas and its volatile fuel markets. Recent independent analysis of Senate Bill 266 shows that this bill could cost North Carolina ratepayers up to $23 billion through 2050 due to higher fuel costs. This bill not only makes everyone’s utility bills more expensive, but it also shifts the cost of electricity from large industrial users onto the backs of regular people -- families will pay more so that industry pays less. Additionally, this bill walks back our state’s commitment to reduce carbon emissions, sending the wrong signal to businesses that want to be a part of our clean energy economy. My job is to do everything in my power to lower costs and grow the economy. This bill fails that test.” [North Caroline Office of the Governor, Press Release, 7/2/25]

July 2025: Balkcom Voted To Override The Governor’s Veto Of S.B. 266, “An Act To Eliminate The Interim Date For Carbon Reduction By Certain Electric Public Utilities, To Allow An Alternative Cost Recovery Mechanism For The Financing Costs Of Construction Work In Progress For Baseload Electric Generating Facilities, To Modify The Statutes Governing Cost Recovery For Fuel-Related Charges And Performance-Based Ratemaking, And To Codify A Provision Authorizing Securitization Of Costs For Retirement Of Coal-Fired Generating Units.” In June 2025, Balkcom voted to override the Governor’s veto of S.B. 266, “An act to eliminate the interim date for carbon reduction by certain electric public utilities, to allow an alternative cost recovery mechanism for the financing costs of construction work in progress for baseload electric generating facilities, to modify the statutes governing cost recovery for fuel-related charges and performance-based ratemaking, and to codify a provision authorizing securitization of costs for retirement of coal-fired generating units.” The motion passed by a vote of 74-46-0-0. [North Carolina General Assembly, S.B. 266, 7/29/25]

S.B. 266 Was Projected To Result In A 4% Jump In Energy Bills For Households With Duke Energy, Costing North Carolina Residents $87 Million More A Year For Electricity

Canary Media: S.B. 266 Would Result In A 4% Jump In Household Energy Bills. “Residential customers of Duke Energy in North Carolina could pay $87 million more per year for electricity under a proposal rocketing through the state legislature, a new study shows. The figure represents about a 4% jump in household bills. The legislation, Senate Bill 266, would change how Duke distributes the cost of electricity it buys to supplement generation from its own power plants — significantly hiking the share paid by residential consumers and cutting the portion paid by industrial electricity users, like chemical manufacturers and textile mills.” [Canary Media, 6/11/25]

Canary Media: Under S.B. 266, Residential Customers Of Duke Energy In North Carolina Could Pay $87 Million More Per Year For Electricity. “Residential customers of Duke Energy in North Carolina could pay $87 million more per year for electricity under a proposal rocketing through the state legislature, a new study shows. The figure represents about a 4% jump in household bills. The legislation, Senate Bill 266, would change how Duke distributes the cost of electricity it buys to supplement generation from its own power plants — significantly hiking the share paid by residential consumers and cutting the portion paid by industrial electricity users, like chemical manufacturers and textile mills.” [Canary Media, 6/11/25]

S.B. 266 Changed How Duke Energy Distributed The Cost Of Electricity By Decreasing The Amount Corporations Paid For Electricity At The Expense Of Household And Residential Users

Canary Media: S.B. 266 Changed How Duke Energy Distributed The Cost Of Electricity, Increasing The Share Paid By Residential Consumers And Cutting The Portion Paid By Industrial Electricity Users.

“Residential customers of Duke Energy in North Carolina could pay $87 million more per year for electricity under a proposal rocketing through the state legislature, a new study shows. The figure represents about a 4% jump in household bills. The legislation, Senate Bill 266, would change how Duke distributes the cost of electricity it buys to supplement generation from its own power plants — significantly hiking the share paid by residential consumers and cutting the portion paid by industrial electricity users, like chemical manufacturers and textile mills.” [Canary Media, 6/11/25]

North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association: S.B. 266 Shifted 19% More Of The Fuel Cost Burden Onto Residential Customers From Commercial And Industrials. “The bill was originally filed by now-retired Sen. Paul Newton as Senate Bill 261 ‘Energy Security and Affordability Act.’ SB266 went through several iterations before being passed. Gov. Josh Stein vetoed the bill because of concerns about energy affordability. A study from NC State University shows removing the interim target set in HB951 ‘could cost ratepayers up to $23 billion in added fuel expenses through 2050.’ In addition, the bill shifts 19% more of the fuel cost burden onto residential customers (from commercial and industrials), according to an analysis by EQ Research. Despite these studies, the legislature voted to override the governor’s veto of SB266 in July.” [North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association, accessed 11/14/25]

Energy and Policy Institute: “S. 266 Would Also Shift Costs From Large-Load Customers To Residential Users.” “S. 266 would also shift costs from large-load customers to residential users. Currently, Duke Energy’s residential customers in North Carolina use just over 40% of all the power the company purchases, rather than generates itself, and they pay for about 41% of the costs. An analysis by EQ Research found that under S. 266 residential customers would continue to use the same 40% of purchased power but would bear almost 49% of the costs. This cost shift to smaller-load users is being considered as a growing number of power-hungry data centers are eying North Carolina for expansion.” [Energy and Policy Institute, 7/25/25]

S.B. 266 Was Projected To Cost North Carolina Billions Of Dollars In Lost Investments And More Than 50,000 Jobs Annually

July 2025: Canary Media Headline: “Energy Bill Could Cost North Carolina Billions In Lost Investments And Jobs: As Lawmakers Decide Whether To Override The Governor’s Veto Of SB 266, New Research Estimates The Massive Economic Toll Of The Legislation.” [Canary Media, 7/25/25]

BW Research: S.B. 266 Was Projected To Stifle Job Creation In North Carolina, Resulting In Nearly 50,700 Fewer Jobs Annually. “Passing SB266 would have the following effects on North Carolina: […] Nearly 50,700 fewer jobs annually, on average, in the power sector (304,200 job years between 2030 and 2035). Slowing down the growth of power generation capacity by 2035 would result in decreased investments in the construction and operation of power plants. This, in turn, leads to fewer job opportunities in the state.” [BW Research, 7/22/25]

BW Research: S.B. 266 Rolled Back Investments In Wind And Solar Projects, Effectively Cancelling Thousands Of Expected Construction And Operations Jobs Annually. “The gap in job generation in North Carolina is largely attributed to SB266 diminishing installation of utility-scale solar, which under the Status Quo scenario, supports more than 25,200 jobs annually between 2030 and 2035, and nearly 53,600 jobs in 2033. The Status Quo scenario projects 14.9 GW in additional solar capacity installed between 2030 and 2035, compared to the 8.8 GW under SB266, which generates significant employment in the construction and operation of these projects. This gap means that on average, about 36,200 annual jobs stemming from solar investments do not materialize. The Status Quo scenario also projects 2.3 GW in Onshore Wind and 4.4 GW in Offshore Wind capacity by 2035. The SB266 scenario will not have these technologies developed by 2035. By 2035, the Status Quo scenario has an additional Advanced Nuclear capacity of 600 MW, compared to 300 MW under SB266. The development of nuclear energy represents a significant investment in both the construction and operation phases, and generates important economic activity due to the high wages in the jobs involved.” [BW Research, 7/22/25]