Energy debate highlights cost, reliability divide

As energy demand surges and pressure on the grid grows, a debate is intensifying over how North Carolina can affordably keep the lights on.

This week, Governor Josh Stein spoke at the State Energy Conference at North Carolina State University saying he is “committed to lowering energy costs for families, reducing North Carolina’s dependence on carbon, and expanding the state’s clean energy economy.”

According to a press release from Stein’s office, since 2015 companies with net-zero emissions targets account for nearly half of the total major economic development projects in the state during that period. However, energy policy experts who met Monday for the John Locke Foundation’s Energy Listening Session in Concord argued that continuing to prioritize “clean energy” economic development over building policy around more reliable sources is costing the state time and money as it approaches a potential energy crisis.

“I think our policymakers are beginning to understand the urgency of improving our energy policy, but I’m not sure if they quite grasp the scope of the problem,” said Jon Sanders, head of the Center for Food, Power, and Life at the John Locke Foundation. “It’s impossible to accomplish his (Stein’s) first goal — lowering energy costs — by pursuing the other two goals. He’s admitting as much. The only action he mentions for supposedly lowering energy costs was to expand the Energy Saver NC program to give rebates to people who pay for home efficiency upgrades and buy high-efficiency electrical appliances.”

In February, Governor Stein announced the expansion of the Energy Saver NC program to all 100 North Carolina counties. The program provides rebates on utility bills for home efficiency upgrades and high-efficiency electrical appliances.

“That’s not helping households by producing policies leading to lower energy bills; that’s just a giveaway to wealthier households who can afford major upgrades,” Sanders added.

Competing visions for affordability and reliability

Questions of reliability, affordability, and the state’s long-term energy mix revealed a clear philosophical divide over how North Carolina should meet growing demand while avoiding future crises, such as the Christmas blackouts the state faced in 2022.

Recent extreme weather events, including Hurricane Helene, and rising energy costs have sharpened the urgency of the issue, particularly as policymakers weigh mandates tied to carbon reduction against maintaining a stable power supply. Sanders pointed to historical examples of energy resilience, arguing that traditional baseload sources remain essential during emergencies. Data from those crises show that coal, natural gas, and nuclear energy continue to provide consistent generation that intermittent sources cannot always match.

“As we saw during the heat wave last year and the extreme cold earlier this year, our nuclear plants never wavered,” Sanders told the group. “Without their steady output, we would have suffered tremendously. Duke was able to increase production from natural gas and coal plants, which helped stave off grid problems. Those resources are the most efficient generating sources we have, and they are not dependent upon the weather to produce.”

Brad Muller, who leads government affairs for Charlotte Pipe and Foundry, said nuclear energy should be central to North Carolina’s long-term energy planning.

“Nuclear is where this conversation should go,” Muller added. “The technology is there in the AP1000 reactor design, and the federal government is putting real money behind it. At this point, Washington is practically looking for serious takers, and I’m not sure why it is taking so long for states and utilities to move more aggressively. If North Carolina wants reliable, around-the-clock power for manufacturers, data centers, and families, nuclear has to be part of the energy future.”

Experts also point to increasing demand from data centers and artificial intelligence as a major emerging pressure on the grid. Stein’s Energy Task Force estimates that data centers could account for up to 80% of North Carolina’s electricity demand growth over the next decade, a figure that has become central in debates over grid planning and cost allocation.

“Buy, Bring, Build” and the Data Center Debate

A growing discussion in North Carolina energy policy centers on whether large new electricity users, particularly data centers, should take greater responsibility for powering their operations. The framework, often described as “buy, bring, build,” would require major users to secure long-term power purchases, bring dedicated generation resources, or build new capacity to offset their demand on the grid.

“Data centers are driving nearly 80% of Duke Energy’s projected new demand through 2030—about 6 GW in the Carolinas pipeline,” said Donald Bryson, CEO of the John Locke Foundation, during this week’s meeting in Concord. “North Carolina must plan grid capacity around reliability and least-cost resources like natural gas and nuclear, not arbitrary mandates. Large loads should bring their own generation or pay their full incremental costs so families and small businesses aren’t forced to subsidize hyperscale users.”

Public opinion appears aligned with this approach. A recent Carolina Journal Poll found that 78.2% of respondents agreed that new data center facilities should be required to provide their own energy generation, with 59.8% expressing strong support. Fewer than 10% opposed the requirement.

That level of support suggests a broad expectation that high-demand industrial users should not rely entirely on the existing power system without helping fund or develop the infrastructure needed to serve them. Supporters argue the “buy, bring, build” model could help protect residential customers from bearing the cost of rapid infrastructure expansion driven by a small number of large facilities.

However, some also warn that overly strict requirements could discourage investment or slow the state’s ability to attract major technology projects as other states compete for the same developments.

“Most large customers do not want to be in the energy business,” said Muller. “Look, for manufacturers, energy policy is not theoretical. We have to run equipment, meet orders, and compete with facilities in other states every day, so reliability and cost matter at the same time. North Carolina has historically had an advantage because power was dependable and reasonably priced, but that advantage erodes if very large new loads are added without paying the full cost of the capacity they require.”

Even so, with projections suggesting that data centers could reshape the state’s demand outlook, policymakers are increasingly treating the question not as whether changes are needed, but how quickly they should be implemented and how much responsibility new users should carry in building the system they depend on.

Policy prescriptions and regulatory direction

“Lawmakers should prioritize three things this session: codify ‘bring your own capacity’ rules so data centers pay their own way, remove regulatory barriers to reliable new generation like natural gas and nuclear, and reject any revival of rigid emissions timelines,” said Bryson. “These market-oriented reforms will keep electricity affordable and reliable for North Carolinians without banning data centers that are important in the new economy.”

Bryson argued for rolling back what he described as costly energy mandates, saying state intervention in energy markets has contributed to higher costs for consumers. He warned that mandated transitions to renewable energy could further strain household budgets and business competitiveness.

“Past policies like HB 589, in 2017, and HB 951 subordinated affordability to emissions targets, leading to higher bills through forced renewables, early coal retirements, and costly grid upgrades,” he said. “The result has been electricity costs rising faster than inflation. The 2025 Power Bill Reduction Act was a good start—now we must fully return to least-cost, reliable planning that puts families and businesses first.”

The broader political framing of energy policy means debates often extend beyond economics into questions of environmental priorities and government control, increasing tension between market-driven development and state-imposed carbon reduction targets. Critics of aggressive mandates argue they risk undermining grid stability.

“The main thing they overlook in high-demand or emergency conditions is that renewables aren’t dispatchable,” said Sanders. “You can’t dial up more sunshine when there’s a sudden need for more power. For that matter, you can’t roll the clouds away or turn night into day.”

Reliability remains a recurring issue as the state’s executive branch has focused on renewables over the last decade, alongside ongoing concerns about supply constraints tied to changes in the energy mix.

Muller warned that North Carolina could face similar challenges if policymakers prioritize emissions targets over system resilience. At the same time, the state’s growing energy demand is being driven by population growth, economic expansion, and increased electrification.

“We operate in eight states, and North Carolina had always been among the lowest for energy prices, but now it’s the fastest climbing,” he said. “When energy costs rise faster here than in competing states, it affects where manufacturers invest, expand, and hire. Lawmakers need to look at affordability and reliability as economic-development issues, not just utility issues.”

Balancing growth, cost, and system constraints

As lawmakers enter this spring’s short legislative session, they will likely face increasing urgency to develop a long-term energy solution.

“Policymakers committed to keeping our power bills as low as possible would not want policies that retire working power plants, which are our cheapest producers of electricity, as the Carbon Plan law does,” said Sanders. “Nor would they want their baseload power generation replaced with intermittent power sources like solar facilities that require 1:1 backup generation. Nor, for that matter, would they want the Utilities Commission to price those solar facilities only on the cost of those facilities and not the extra backup generation they cannot be without, especially when those other costs are also added to consumer bills.”

The state legislature convened last week for the spring short session and is expected to wrap up by early July.

“Energy debate highlights cost, reliability divide” was originally published on www.carolinajournal.com.