By Dan Gearino for Inside Climate News.
Broadcast version by Joe Ulery for Indiana News Service reporting for the Solutions Journalism Network-Public News Service Collaboration

Duke Energy is proposing a three-year extension for the Gibson power plant in southwest Indiana, the second-largest coal-fired power plant in the country.

Gibson, originally scheduled to close in 2035, would remain open until 2038 and would get a retrofit to be able to run on natural gas or coal, according to a plan the utility released this week.

Duke said the proposal, if adopted by state regulators, will give it the resources and flexibility needed to handle a projected increase in electricity demand. At the same time, environmental advocates said the plan reflects an overreliance on fossil fuels and is a retreat from what they already saw as a weak approach to reducing emissions.

The dynamics in Indiana are similar to other states as the growth of data centers and regulatory backlogs in building renewable energy are making utilities more cautious about closing fossil fuel power plants.

But Indiana is a special case for a few reasons, including its history of coal mining and its heavy use of coal for producing electricity. The state ranks fourth in the country in electricity generation from coal, behind Texas, West Virginia and Kentucky, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Just a few years ago, Indiana was notable for taking steps away from coal. One of its utilities, NIPSCO, got national attention for its plan to close all its coal plants by 2028. Three years ago, the utility AEP said it would close the Rockport coal plant, the second-largest in Indiana and among the 10 largest in the country, by 2028.

The new Duke plan, which covers its Indiana power plants through 2044, is likely to add to concerns that Indiana utilities are backsliding on the progress they seemed to be making.

“These utility commitments are not really commitments,” said Ben Inskeep, program director for Citizens Action Coalition, a consumer and environmental advocacy group based in Indianapolis. “When the utility says they’re doing X by Y year, you know, if there’s no law forcing them to do so, they can change those plans on a dime.”

Indiana law requires electricity utilities to issue long-term plans for power plants every three years. Regulators will review the filing, take testimony from interested parties and then issue comments.

Nathan Gagnon, Duke’s managing director for Midwest resource planning, explained the proposal during an hours-long video meeting with interested parties. He spoke about a summary of the plan, with a more detailed filing to come in November.

“Coal drops off pretty steeply,” he said about the later years under the proposal. “There’s not much coal in the mix after ‘31 when you get down to it.”

He fielded questions from viewers, including members of the public, who had concerns about climate change and also wanted the company to explore developing new nuclear plants.

His answers highlighted that it takes years to implement big changes to electricity resources and that the company is looking for scenarios that have low costs while still meeting customers’ needs and following federal emissions rules.

Duke, based in North Carolina, is one of the country’s largest utilities, with customers in the Carolinas, Florida, Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio.

It is proposing various changes to the five generating units at Gibson, which together have a summer generating capacity of 3,132 megawatts. Southern Co.’s Plant Bowen in Georgia, with capacity of 3,200 megawatts, is the only coal-fired plant that’s larger.

Under Duke’s preferred planning scenario, Gibson units 1 and 2 would be retrofitted by 2030 to be able to burn both coal and natural gas. Units 3 and 4 would be replaced by natural gas generating units by that same year and have no timetable for closing. Unit 5 would close by 2030.

Duke also is proposing to convert the Cayuga and Edwardsport coal plants to run on natural gas. (Edwardsport is unlike the other coal plants in that it uses a “coal gasification” technology that Duke once promoted as highly efficient, and now would be replaced by a less expensive process.)

Duke’s plan includes several gigawatts of new wind and solar, but most of this is in the last few years of the timeline.

The slow rollout of renewables is a detail that jumped out to Brendan Pierpont, director of electricity modeling for the think tank Energy Innovation. He said Duke’s modeling of future costs of renewables look high to him, and creates a distorted picture.

“That’s a clear place where they have put their thumb on the scales,” he said.

He said Duke’s lack of near-term progress on renewables detracts from the company’s credibility when it talks about reducing emissions.

Duke issued this statement along with the plan:

“Duke Energy’s carbon emissions reduction goals remain unchanged, but our progress will not be linear as we retire coal and bring new generation resources online. Over time our diverse energy mix will enable us to reach our 2050 net-zero carbon emission ambitions.”


Dan Gearino wrote this article for Inside Climate News.


get more stories like this via email

Backers say a law adding nuclear power to the definition of "green" energy will give Ohioans another option to cut carbon emissions but some environmentalists are skeptical.

House Bill 308, signed in December by Gov. Mike DeWine, is designed to open the state to nuclear power research and development. However, critics are concerned it could be used to diminish the roles of renewables, such as wind and solar energy in reaching future climate goals.

Rep. Sean Brennan, D-Parma, is a co-sponsor of the bill. He is unsure the state can reach its climate goals with the current mix of renewables.

"My belief is that if we're ever going to wean ourselves off of coal and natural gas, fossil fuels, we've got to expand our nuclear portfolio in Ohio. We just have to do it," Brennan asserted. "Wind and solar just aren't going to do it for us."

Environmental groups such as Earthjustice say the measure is similar to a controversial 2022 law classifying natural gas as green energy despite the fact its use creates hydrocarbon emissions. Critics also fear the language could be used to divert public funding from renewable energy projects.

Brennan noted the bill does not promise any financial incentives for nuclear power or divert public funds from renewable energy projects. He argued opening up to nuclear energy, which does not emit carbon into the atmosphere, will help attract jobs and federal funding.

"We need to continue to expand on solar and wind," Brennan contended. "I truly believe we have to do that, but I believe nuclear is going to be hugely important for our future energy independence, and hopefully, Ohio will become an exporter of electricity in the future."

Ohio ended its renewable energy standard in 2019 in the midst of a corruption and bribery scandal involving nuclear and coal-powered energy plants in the state. Brennan emphasized Ohio needs to move forward in its efforts to fight climate change.

"I decided to join the legislation because I believe it's a good idea to send a message to stakeholders that Ohio is open to explore expanding nuclear, whereas some states have moratoriums on nuclear," Brennan added. "I think it's going to be important to our future energy needs in Ohio."

This story is based on original reporting by Kathiann M. Kowalski for Energy News Network.


get more stories like this via email

Many contend Utah, like the greater United States, is facing an energy crisis, and the fast development and expansion of artificial intelligence could make the problem even worse.

It is estimated AI data centers will require 14 gigawatts of new power capacity by 2030. Estimates show one gigawatt alone is enough energy to power about 750,000 homes.

Gov. Spencer Cox announced Operation Gigawatt late last year, an initiative he said will double Utah's energy production over the next decade. The main goals of the initiative are to increase transmission capacity, expand and develop more energy production, enhance Utah's policies and invest in Utah research.

Cox argued the state needs more energy.

"We've looked at the future and where we are headed," Cox explained. "We've made a determination that we have to do something bold. We have to change the way we develop power in the state of Utah, and we are so fortunate to live in a state where we have these opportunities."

Coal fuels almost 50% of Utah's total electricity net generation, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Natural gas accounts for about 34% and the rest primarily comes from renewable energy. Cox and others want to diversify the state's energy portfolio and bring nuclear and geothermal power into the mix. Opponents of nuclear power said it is expensive and dangerous.

Dusty Monks, deputy director of the Utah Office of Energy Development, said while nuclear power has a smaller footprint and is a zero-emissions energy source, getting nuclear power to Utah could be a long and complicated challenge. The state does not currently have a nuclear reactor at a commercial scale.

"We need to make sure that we have a policy pathway, policies that allow for us to align with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that we are not an obstacle but we're in line with," Monks outlined. "Then as we talk about energy, or nuclear, we actually need to deploy a project."

Monks added his office will bring local, regional and national resources over the next year to consider what would be required to build a nuclear project in the Beehive State.


get more stories like this via email

The Department of Energy is taking a close look at the economic and environmental impacts of liquefied natural gas exports, which some experts argue are driving up household energy costs and worsening climate challenges.

The report comes as LNG export projects rapidly expand, with U.S. demand at record levels and expected to grow as new facilities open.

In Virginia, household natural-gas bills have increased 50% since 2016, far outpacing inflation, said Jeremy Symons, principal at Symons Public Affairs. He attributed the increase to growing LNG exports, which limit domestic supply and drive energy costs.

"A single LNG plant - the controversial CP2 facility that's being proposed for Louisiana - would export twice as much gas every day than Virginia consumes," he said. "That means that, even though it's happening on the other side of the country, it drives up energy prices across the country."

The Chesapeake Climate Action Network Action Fund has gathered more than 5,000 signatures urging the Biden administration to pause LNG export licenses until a full review is completed.

Supporters of these exports argue that expanding infrastructure bolsters U.S. energy independence and strengthens global energy markets.

Symons encouraged the public to use the 60-day comment period to ensure that affected communities are heard.

Quentin Scott, federal policy director for the Chesapeake Climate Action Network Action Fund, emphasized the environmental risks and called on the Biden administration to act decisively.

"Secretary [Jennifer] Granholm said it in her own words," he said, "that continuing to export LNG at the scale and the trajectory in which the United States has been exporting LNG over the last few years is unsustainable and not good for consumers, not good for businesses, not good for our environmental and climate goals."

As Virginia faces rising costs and environmental pressures, the debate over LNG exports has become more urgent. Scott said he hopes the Department of Energy's findings and public comment period will bring attention to the local and national implications of America's growing liquefied natural-gas industry.