< Previous page
The reasons for historically lower energy prices in North Carolina are many, but they are largely based on a reliance on existing nuclear and coal plants, which are comparatively economical to operate.
Lack of deregulation has proven another advantage, as is public policy that allows companies such as Progress and Duke to operate predictably and efficiently by owning power plants and transmission lines in a monopoly service area.
Compared with North Carolina electricity prices, residents in New York and New England pay about 80 percent more. Californians on average pay 50 percent more.
But now some of this state's assets are potential liabilities.
The state's generating capacity is being quickly absorbed by surging population growth. And North Carolina, which relies on coal for 60 percent of its electricity, could be disproportionately affected if Congress passes laws that limit greenhouse gas emissions and penalize violators.
Coal plants are among the nation's leading sources of carbon dioxide, the gas thought to contribute to global warming.
Even without carbon dioxide limits, operation of coal plants is being squeezed by global energy demand, which has driven up the price of coal by 50 percent in the past five years. Since 1991, increased fuel costs have raised electricity costs by 14 percent for Progress' residential customers in this state and 8 percent for Duke's customers.
Future costs depend on the interaction of many factors, all unpredictable. The effect on North Carolina of any congressional remedies for global warming is unclear. The costs of using renewable energy could drop over time. Utilities could negotiate favorable contracts with nuclear vendors and contractors. Some power plants might not need to be built.
"There is a fair amount of anxiety simply because of the uncertainty," said Edward Finley Jr., chairman of the state Utilities Commission, which regulates utility rates. "The unpredictability of it is one of the major factors that has people concerned."
< Previous page