Duke Energy's Climate U-Turn: Removing Language, Building Gas Plants

Duke Energy, one of the largest electric power holding companies in the United States, has recently removed climate-related language from its website, raising eyebrows among environmental advocates and stakeholders. This move comes as the company plans to build more natural gas plants, including two hydrogen-capable plants in Person County, North Carolina. This article explores the strategic reasons behind Duke Energy's decision, the potential economic and environmental impacts, and how these compare to the benefits of investing in renewable energy sources.



Duke Energy's decision to remove climate language from its website can be attributed to strategic reasons, such as avoiding potential regulatory or political backlash and aligning with the new administration's policies. This move may have been a response to the Trump administration's rollback of environmental regulations and its skepticism towards climate change. By removing climate language, Duke Energy may have aimed to avoid controversy and maintain a more neutral stance, which could help it navigate the regulatory landscape more effectively.

However, this decision does not align with Duke Energy's long-term sustainability goals. The company has previously committed to reducing its carbon emissions and transitioning to cleaner energy sources. For instance, in its 2019 Sustainability Report, Duke Energy stated its goal to reduce carbon emissions by 50% by 2030 compared to 2005 levels. This commitment is in line with the Paris Agreement's objectives, which the company had previously acknowledged on its website. By removing climate language, Duke Energy risks undermining its own sustainability goals and the progress it has made in reducing its carbon footprint.

Moreover, Duke Energy's decision to remove climate language from its website is at odds with the growing demand for corporate responsibility and transparency on environmental issues. Many investors, customers, and stakeholders expect companies to take a stand on climate change and demonstrate their commitment to sustainability. By removing climate language, Duke Energy may face criticism and potential reputational damage, which could ultimately harm its long-term interests.



Duke Energy's decision to build more gas plants, while a step towards reducing coal usage, has potential economic and environmental impacts that need to be considered. The company has not provided a projected cost for the two natural gas plants in Person County, but it plans to invest $145 billion over the next 10 years for critical energy infrastructure, with 85% of that funding the generation fleet transition and grid modernization. This includes approximately $40 billion for zero-carbon generation, which suggests that the cost of the gas plants could be significant.

An economic impact study conducted by EY found that Duke Energy's 10-year capital investment plan will support more than 20,000 additional direct, indirect, and induced jobs annually. However, this includes jobs related to renewable energy and grid modernization, not just gas plants. The study also found that the company's activities will generate over $5 billion in additional property tax revenue over the next 10 years, supporting schools, first responders, roads, and other infrastructure and essential services in local communities.

However, the environmental impacts of building more gas plants are concerning. While natural gas is cleaner than coal, it is still a fossil fuel that emits greenhouse gases. Duke Energy's decision to build more gas plants may slow down the transition to a cleaner energy mix. The company has promised to limit emissions at the new gas plants, but it has also asked the EPA for relief from certain emissions rules, which could potentially weaken environmental regulations.

Investing in renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind, would have more significant long-term economic and environmental benefits. Renewable energy projects can create more jobs than fossil fuel-based power plants, stimulate local economic development, and significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Duke Energy has set a goal to double its renewable energy portfolio within five years, which would help accelerate the transition to a cleaner energy mix.

In conclusion, Duke Energy's decision to remove climate language from its website and build more gas plants raises concerns about the company's commitment to sustainability and the environment. While the economic benefits of these decisions are clear, the environmental impacts are concerning. Investing in renewable energy sources would have more significant long-term economic and environmental benefits, including job creation, local economic development, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and minimal environmental impacts. As Duke Energy moves forward with its energy transition strategy, it is crucial for the company to prioritize sustainability and the environment alongside economic considerations.