Third gas plant opposed by NC Utilities Commission staff

Duke Energy-Progress has proposed replacing its coal-fired power plant on Asheville’s Lake Julian, seen here, with a complex of natural-gas plants. Frank Taylor / Carolina Public Press

Article by Frank Taylor
Carolina Public Press

Duke Energy-Progress’ request to replace its coal-fired power plant at Asheville’s Lake Julian with two natural gas units has received a green light from North Carolina Utilities Commission staff. But part of the energy company’s proposal, to obtain permission now for a contingency plant that might be needed by 2024, was rejected as unwarranted at this time.

The Utilities Commission is expected to give its staff recommendations heavy weight when the board meets Monday to decide on the fate of Duke’s petition for a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the project.

“Duke Energy-Progress’ request that the certificate of public convenience and necessity include the construction of a 186 megawatt (winter rating) natural gas-fired contingent … unit at the Asheville plant is problematic,” wrote commission staff in their agenda report for Monday’s session, which was released late Wednesday.

The report notes that such a plant would only take two years to build once it’s approved, which would allow plenty of time for it to be permitted later, should the expected need materialize by the projected date of 2024.

“Not granting a (certificate) for the additional … unit will allow time for advances in generation, transmission and storage technologies that may provide other least costly resource options for the Company to consider …,” the report said.

One of the two signatories on the recommendation, Utilities Commission Electric Division Director James McLawhorn, talked with Carolina Public Press by telephone Wednesday about their reasoning.  “Other technologies could advance and become more mainstream during that time period,” he said.

The staff recommendation parallels the result demanded by many speakers at an Asheville public hearing on the issue in January. Many speakers warned about continued reliance on fossil fuels, which contribute to greenhouse gases and global warming. While several environmental advocates called for outright rejection of the entire proposal, others suggested that denying the contingent plant was an acceptable and reasonable outcome.

But McLawhorn said the staff recommendation is only coincidentally in line with what those speakers demanded. Although he and other staff did attend the hearing and listened to the views of those who addressed the event, current North Carolina law and policy don’t allow for global warming concerns to be a consideration in determining whether Duke gets its certificate, he said.

In this specific case the commission is guided by a statute that prefers the replacement of the coal-fired plant with natural gas-burning plants at the site, McLawhorn noted.

Duke Energy has a considerable stake riding on Monday’s Utilities Commission decision. In addition to approving or rejecting the company’s overall plan, getting the requested certificate will decide whether Duke is allowed a grace period of several years in cleaning up coal ash at Lake Julian. If the project is denied, the deadline for Duke to clean up the ash moves up.

In response to a request for comment from CPP, Duke spokesperson Meghan Musgrave Miles issued the following statement: “We appreciate the Public Staff’s thorough investigation into the Western Carolinas Modernization Project (certificate of public convenience and necessity) application, and look forward to the opportunity to explain the customer benefits of the Duke Energy Progress plan for a smarter, cleaner energy future at the (N.C. Utilities Commission) meeting on Feb. 22.”

Carolina Public Press ( is a nonprofit news organization focused on in-depth and investigative reporting in Western North Carolina.

Editor’s note: for additional background information on Duke Energy’s application and environmental advocates’ responses, please see our article Regulatory process for new Duke Energy plant speeds down fast track.


Thanks for reading through to the end…

We share your inclination to get the whole story. For the past 25 years, Xpress has been committed to in-depth, balanced reporting about the greater Asheville area. We want everyone to have access to our stories. That’s a big part of why we've never charged for the paper or put up a paywall.

We’re pretty sure that you know journalism faces big challenges these days. Advertising no longer pays the whole cost. Media outlets around the country are asking their readers to chip in. Xpress needs help, too. We hope you’ll consider signing up to be a member of Xpress. For as little as $5 a month — the cost of a craft beer or kombucha — you can help keep local journalism strong. It only takes a moment.

About Webmaster
Mountain Xpress Webmaster Follow me @MXWebTeam

Before you comment

The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.

One thought on “Third gas plant opposed by NC Utilities Commission staff

  1. Grant Milin

    Three locals unattached to the usual nonprofits separately took it upon ourselves to enter NCUC Petition to Intervene submittals on these matters. I was one of those citizens. As far as I can tell citizens who are not already energy issues insiders have never done this. I submitted my Petition to Intervene first followed by Brad Rouse and Richard Fireman.

    And that’s part of history!

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.