RALEIGH, N.C.—The Ratepayer Protection Act, advancing through the North Carolina legislature, combines two conflicting objectives: restricting data centers’ energy use while removing limits on Duke Energy’s fossil fuel usage.
The first section of Senate Bill 730 would prevent data center developers from using eminent domain to acquire land for their projects. It would disallow local governments from offering economic incentives to data center developers, known for high water, electricity, and tax break demands. It also aims to protect North Carolinians from increased electric bills due to data center operations.
“I couldn’t ask for more in this political climate than what is in part one,” said state Rep. Pricey Harrison, a Guilford County Democrat. “It’s great.”
However, Harrison noted, the bill contains “a bunch of bad stuff” designed to appeal to conservative Republicans.
Part two of the measure could significantly alter state energy policy and potentially reverse nearly 20 years of climate change efforts by fast-tracking permits for fossil fuel projects, delaying coal plant retirements, and possibly nullifying Duke Energy’s carbon neutrality goal by 2050.
“It’s the terrible combined with the good,” commented Shelley Robbins from the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. “They should be two separate bills.”
SB 730 is new, leaving lawmakers, environmental advocates, and even Duke Energy to fully understand its implications.
Duke Energy did not answer specific questions about the bill but released a statement:
“Duke Energy is committed to its customers and communities and will continue working with policymakers and regulators to deliver reliable and increasingly clean energy while keeping rates as low as possible,” a spokesperson said.
On a Wednesday afternoon in late May, Rep. Harrison attended a House Energy Policy and Utilities Committee meeting where the bill was discussed. The draft was distributed the previous evening, leaving little time for thorough review.
Harrison supported the data center provisions. In April 2025, she and colleagues introduced a similar bill prohibiting costs incurred for data centers from being passed to ratepayers.
The bill had stalled in committee but sparked growing political pressure to regulate data centers. Many local governments have passed or are drafting temporary moratoria on data centers.
“I think Republicans have been genuinely interested in establishing what they see as best practices,” Harrison noted about data center regulation.
SB 730 empowers local governments to require data center developers to conduct site assessments evaluating impacts on nearby homes and schools, water, air quality, farms, parks, historic sites, and forests.
The bill targets data centers with capacities of 100 megawatts or more.
Cyndie Roberson from the National Coalition Against Cryptomining, who relocated from Cherokee County, N.C., to Georgia to escape nearby cryptomines and data centers, praised the bill.
“North Carolina’s bill is so good,” Roberson said, “better legislatively than Georgia. Even if it doesn’t get fully adopted, it is a good start.”
Roberson suggested expanding the definition of data centers to include cryptomines and lowering the threshold to 50 megawatts, aligning with North Carolina’s large-load customer definition.
The bill’s water protections are weak, according to Amy Adams, programs director for Southeast Climate & Energy Network. Closed-loop cooling systems use less water but aren’t completely closed, requiring periodic flushing and having water loss.
“No closed-loop system is 100 percent closed,” Adams said. “Every loop has an entry point. Every loop has its losses. It has chemicals, it’s not magic, it’s not creating water, it’s not purifying water.”
Adams advocated for prohibiting potable water use and setting numeric caps on water withdrawals and discharges.
The bill does not mandate disclosure of data center operations, including tax benefits and water and energy usage, to the public.
“There is zero requirement that says that the public gets to know that the data center won’t impair the water supply,” Adams said. “This should not be a private business decision. It’s a public resource.”
The House committee approved the bill. It now faces the House Commerce and Economic Development Committee, where it met resistance from the data center industry.
Cara Bunder, director of state policy at the Data Center Coalition, representing companies like Google, Amazon, Meta, and Microsoft, expressed concerns about the bill, specifically regarding cooling technology mandates and local government incentive restrictions.
Duke’s Net-Zero Carbon Goal in Jeopardy
Following Duke Energy’s March announcement of a 15 to 18 percent rate increase, citizens have voiced concerns at public hearings about the financial burden.
State Rep. Dean Arp, a Union County Republican, stated that SB 730 aims to reduce energy costs for ratepayers.
Arp did not mention that fuel prices and fossil fuel infrastructure projects largely drive rate hikes, while SB 730 encourages more fossil fuel and nuclear plants.
The bill would speed up fossil fuel construction by offering expedited permitting for a fee for projects involving energy generation and distribution.
This resembles the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s proposal to allow more natural gas projects to qualify for streamlined permitting.
“Expediting a permitting process is usually code for minimizing public input while simultaneously increasing burden on agency staff,” Robbins from the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy noted.
The bill does not differentiate between types of energy infrastructure eligible for fast tracking.
Beyond expediting gas plant permits, SB 730 would prevent the N.C. Utilities Commission from authorizing Duke Energy to retire coal and natural gas plants without first certifying a nuclear facility providing 1 gigawatt or more.
This threshold excludes small modular reactors, ranging from 70 to 350 megawatts. Duke has submitted an early site permit application with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for nuclear technologies at its Belews Creek plant in Stokes County, currently a coal-burning facility.
Rep. Brandon Lofton, a Mecklenburg County Democrat, questioned the cost-effectiveness of prolonging aging coal plants’ lifespan for ratepayers.
“Help me get nuclear going then,” Arp replied. “That’s what we’re trying to do.”
Nuclear power supporters argue it offers the best return on investment among energy options.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates advanced nuclear power costs at $110 per megawatt-hour compared to $55 for solar photovoltaic energy.
EIA figures are based on Levelized Costs of Electricity, evaluating the present costs of power throughout a facility’s lifespan.
Last year, legislation eliminated Duke Energy’s interim goal of a 70 percent carbon reduction by 2030 while retaining its 2050 net-zero target. Supporters claimed cost savings that have not materialized.
SB 730 could potentially remove the 2050 decarbonization goal. It requires a study on rate impacts of achieving net zero, overseen by the Legislative Services Office and involving the Utilities Commission.
“Once we receive that data, then we can have these other discussions about how that information will change our energy policy,” Arp stated.
Conducting another study “is a big waste of taxpayer money,” Harrison told Inside Climate News. Climate change impacts are evident, but “the urgency of that is not hitting my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.”
Original Story at insideclimatenews.org