Energy bill could cost North Carolina billions in lost investments and jobs – Canary Media

Report on the Sustainable Development Implications of North Carolina Senate Bill 266

Executive Summary

A legislative proposal in North Carolina, Senate Bill 266 (SB 266), poses a significant threat to the state’s progress toward multiple United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Research indicates the bill would trigger substantial economic losses, undermine climate action, and impede the development of clean energy infrastructure. This report analyzes the bill’s potential impacts, with a specific focus on SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy), SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure), and SDG 13 (Climate Action).

Legislative Context and Procedural Status

SB 266 is a wide-ranging bill passed by the North Carolina Senate that seeks to repeal a key provision of the state’s climate law. The central objective of the bill is the elimination of the 2030 deadline for utility Duke Energy to achieve a 70% reduction in carbon emissions compared to 2005 levels. While the bill leaves a 2050 carbon neutrality goal intact, the removal of the near-term target has profound implications.

• Initial Passage: The Senate passed the bill in March.
• House Approval: The House approved the measure in June.
• Gubernatorial Veto: Governor Josh Stein vetoed the bill on July 2.
• Override Attempt: The legislature is scheduled to hold a vote to override the governor’s veto.

Economic and Employment Setbacks: Contradiction of SDG 8

A new analysis conducted by BW Research highlights the severe economic consequences of SB 266, demonstrating a direct conflict with the principles of SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth). By removing the 2030 climate target, the bill would disincentivize investment in new power plant construction.

Projected Economic Losses (2030-2035)

1. Job Creation: An annual loss of nearly 50,700 jobs.
2. Economic Growth: A forfeiture of over $47.2 billion in investment related to power-plant construction.
3. Public Finance: A reduction of more than $1.4 billion in potential tax revenue.

These findings illustrate that the state’s established climate policy serves as a critical market signal that stimulates job creation and economic activity, aligning with the objectives of SDG 8. The bill’s passage would reverse this progress.

Impact on Energy, Climate, and Infrastructure: Undermining SDGs 7, 9, and 13

The bill’s primary effect would be to slow the transition to sustainable infrastructure, directly undermining SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy), SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure), and SDG 13 (Climate Action).

Key Impacts on Energy and Climate Goals

• Reduced Clean Energy Capacity: Modeling shows that without the 2030 goal, Duke Energy would build approximately 40% less new generation capacity over the next decade. This includes significant reductions in planned solar and wind projects.
• Increased Fossil Fuel Reliance: A separate study by North Carolina State University researchers found that the resulting energy shortfall would necessitate burning almost 40% more natural gas between 2030 and 2050. This directly contravenes the mission of SDG 13 to combat climate change.
• Threat to Energy Affordability (SDG 7): The increased reliance on natural gas could expose consumers to significant price volatility. Under a plausible scenario for gas prices, customers could face an additional $23 billion in fuel costs by 2050, challenging the goal of affordable energy.
• Infrastructure and Competitiveness Deficit (SDG 9): Analysts project that by 2035, the state would have 12 fewer gigawatts of capacity to meet peak energy demand. This limitation on resilient infrastructure hampers the state’s ability to attract energy-intensive industries and undermines its long-term economic competitiveness.

Analysis of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy

• The article directly discusses the state’s energy policy, focusing on a proposed bill that would alter the timeline for reducing climate pollution from energy generation. It contrasts clean energy sources like solar and wind with “aging fossil-fueled units” and natural gas, which are central to SDG 7’s goal of ensuring access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy.

SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

• A primary focus of the article is the economic fallout of the proposed bill. It cites a study that projects significant job losses (“nearly 50,700 fewer jobs annually”), lost investments (“over $47.2 billion sacrificed in power-plant construction”), and reduced tax revenue (“More than $1.4 billion in tax revenue would also be left on the table”). These points directly connect to SDG 8’s aim to promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth and full and productive employment.

SDG 13: Climate Action

• The article’s central theme is the potential repeal of a key climate law in North Carolina. The law mandates that Duke Energy “curb its climate pollution 70% compared to 2005 levels” by 2030. The debate over this bill is a direct example of policy-making related to climate change mitigation, which is the core of SDG 13.

SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

• The article touches on energy infrastructure and reliability, which are critical for sustainable communities. It notes that the proposed changes would result in “12 fewer gigawatts of capacity in 2035 to meet peaks in power demand,” potentially hampering the state’s ability to meet energy needs and undermining its competitiveness. This relates to providing resilient infrastructure for communities.

What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 7.2: By 2030, increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix.
   • The article implies a direct challenge to this target. The analysis shows that without the near-term climate goal, Duke Energy would build “about 40% less new generation capacity,” including “massive amounts of solar and wind.” This represents a move away from increasing the share of renewable energy.
2. Target 8.1: Sustain per capita economic growth in accordance with national circumstances and, in particular, at least 7 per cent gross domestic product growth per annum in the least developed countries.
   • The article highlights a direct threat to economic growth, stating the bill would cause “tens of billions of dollars in lost investments” and specifically “$47.2 billion sacrificed in power-plant construction.” This loss of investment directly undermines sustained economic growth.
3. Target 8.5: By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men, including for young people and persons with disabilities, and equal pay for work of equal value.
   • The article provides a specific projection that contradicts this target, stating that the bill would cost the state “more than 50,000 jobs annually” (specifically “nearly 50,700 fewer jobs annually”). This is a direct measure of negative impact on employment.
4. Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning.
   • The article is centered on this target. The original law mandating a 70% emissions reduction by 2030 is an example of integrating climate measures into state policy. The “controversial bill to unravel North Carolina’s climate law” is a direct attempt to reverse this integration.

Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Percentage of emissions reduction from a baseline year.
   • The article explicitly mentions the state’s climate law, which requires Duke Energy to “curb its climate pollution 70% compared to 2005 levels.” This serves as a precise, measurable indicator for climate action progress (related to SDG 13).
2. Number of jobs created or lost in the energy sector.
   • The study cited in the article provides a clear quantitative indicator of the economic impact, projecting “nearly 50,700 fewer jobs annually.” This can be used to measure progress towards employment goals (related to SDG 8).
3. Amount of investment in energy infrastructure.
   • The article quantifies the financial impact, stating that “over $47.2 billion sacrificed in power-plant construction” would result from the bill. This figure is a direct indicator of investment levels in the energy sector (related to SDG 7 and SDG 8).
4. Share of different energy sources in the generation mix.
   • The article implies changes to this indicator by noting the bill would lead to less “solar and wind” and an increased reliance on “aging fossil-fueled units” and burning “almost 40% more natural gas.” These are all measurable components of the energy mix (related to SDG 7).
5. Cost of energy for consumers.
   • An implied indicator is the financial burden on citizens. The article cites a finding that customers could pay “$23 billion more in fuel costs on their electric bills by midcentury” under a plausible scenario, which is a key measure of energy affordability (related to SDG 7).

Summary of Findings

Source: canarymedia.com