Appeals Court won’t force N.C. regulators to permit new solar plant | Beaufort County Now | The N.C. Court of Appeals has affirmed state regulators’ ruling against a proposed solar energy plant for North Carolina.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
    Publisher's Note: This post appears here courtesy of the Carolina Journal. The author of this post is CJ Staff.

    The N.C. Court of Appeals has affirmed state regulators' ruling against a proposed solar energy plant for North Carolina. Appellate judges accepted regulators' argument that the plant would have forced overly costly upgrades to the state's electric grid.

    "North Carolina has made significant strides in generating and employing alternatives to carbon-emitting fuels," wrote Judge Lucy Inman for the three-judge panel's majority. Inman is a Democratic candidate for an open seat on the N.C. Supreme Court this year.

    "We rank fourth in the nation in solar installations, with solar making up nearly eight percent of our state's electricity," Inman added. "Our legislature has enacted clean energy goals including a 70 percent reduction in carbon emissions by the year 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2050. The southeastern region of the state, in particular, has attracted several solar energy facilities. But growing production has strained the region's existing electric grid. A dispute over the cost and timing of upgrading the grid gives rise to this appeal."

    New solar energy plants require government permission, Inman noted. "Energy plants cannot spring up like many restaurants, fitness centers, or dry cleaners, even if consumer demand would support the increased supply," she wrote. "In this way, government regulation influences the energy market."

    An independent energy company called Friesian Holdings sought a permit from the N.C. Utilities Commission to build a solar plant and to use the existing electrical grid. "Citing the cost of upgrading the region's electric grid to accommodate additional transmission, the Commission denied Friesian's application," Inman wrote. The Utilities Commission made that decision in June 2020.

    Friesian's appeal argued that the decision "unfairly favors larger energy utilities and squelches competition, to the detriment of consumers."

    The Appeals Court rejected all three of Friesian's arguments: that federal law preempted the Utilities Commission's action, that the commission used "arbitrary and capricious" cost analysis, and that the commission made a mistake in ruling there was no demonstrated need for the new solar plant.

    The electrical grid upgrade associated with the project would have cost close to $250 million, according to the court opinion. Federal policy would have prompted Duke Energy to pass along those costs through "higher rates charged to its wholesale and North Carolina retail customers."

    "Witnesses for the [Utilities Commission] Public Staff testified, and one of Friesian's witnesses conceded, that the facility would do little to supplement Duke's solar energy supply during the peak winter season, and that Duke had not previously identified the transmission lines in question as needing upgrades due to reliability issues," Inman's opinion continued.

    The commission ended up determining that the costs were "unreasonably high." "[T]he Commission compared the unprecedented magnitude of upgrade costs to

    be borne by ratepayers to accommodate Friesian's proposed facility with the facility's expected output, and concluded they were too burdensome to be in the public convenience,"
Inman wrote.

    Judge Toby Hampson concurred with Inman's opinion. Judge Hunter Murphy agreed with the result but wrote separately.

    "While I have surmised potential winning arguments for [Friesian] Appellants, such arguments were not made by them and have not been made a part of this adversarial proceeding," Murphy wrote. "I would not consider our opinion today to foreclose future litigants from making additional or refined arguments on the issues presented by this case."

    Without a dissent in the case, the N.C. Supreme Court would face no obligation to take an appeal.
Go Back

HbAD0

Latest Op-Ed & Politics

new Biden Dept, of Agriculture reg - will Beaufort County schools knuckle under?
bills to prohibit biological men participating in womens sports advance
Following the failed vote on pro-abortion legislation proposed by Democrats, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez has issued a statement that democracy has failed and that our nation may never recover.
Several employees who worked at the Mayfield, Kentucky, candle factor that was destroyed by Friday night’s tornadoes said they were told they would be fired if they left their shifts early.

HbAD1

Super-model Gisele Bündchen, wife of NFL legend Tom Brady, revealed how she was traumatized at the age of 18 when she was made to wear a breast-baring outfit at a fashion show.
The Monkeypox pandemic has finally breached the shores of the United States, with the CDC confirming a staggering 1 infections so far.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) said in a report on Tuesday that numerous FBI officials had sex with prostitutes while overseas and that most of them lied to investigators when confronted about the allegations.
62% say they would take up arms to fight while 12% said they would not
fewer deaths per 100,000 than most of Europe
The North Carolina General Assembly convened the 2022 short session Wednesday, May 18 after the longest long session in state history concluded in March.

HbAD2

A small clique is trying to control the local GOP and circumvent the duly elected Executive Committee

HbAD3

 
Back to Top