North Carolina’s House Bill 951, signed into law on October 13, 2021, might not ring a bell for many, but it’s quietly reshaping the state’s energy landscape—and your electric bill. Promising a 70% carbon emissions cut by 2030 and net-zero by 2050, it’s fueled Duke Energy rate hikes—some customers report nearly 14% jumps in under a year—while coal plants like Roxboro limp along, their full closure delayed despite a 2029 gas conversion plan.
The legislative debates:
The bill’s journey began in secrecy. House Republicans—Rep. Dean Arp (R-District 69, Union County), John Szoka (R-District 45, Cumberland), and Destin Hall (R-District 87, Caldwell)—drafted it in closed-door talks with Duke Energy, freezing out Democrats, environmentalists, and consumer advocates until May 2021.
Introduced that month, it sped through the House, passing 61-47 on July 14. Arp pitched it as forward-thinking, while Senate Leader Phil Berger (R-District 26, Rockingham) and Sen. Paul Newton (R-District 34, Cabarrus), a former Duke exec, sold it as inevitable. “Decarbonization is coming globally, nationally, and to North Carolina,” Newton told ABC11. Rep. Pricey Harrison (D-District 61, Guilford) countered, pushing amendments to protect ratepayers from what she saw as a utility-friendly bill, but her efforts fell short.
Digging into the details:
The Senate’s August 10, 2021, Agriculture, Energy, and Environment Committee hearing exposed deep divides. Over two hours of public comments united manufacturers, environmentalists, and ratepayers against it. Frontier Yarns’ rep warned of “devastating” cost hikes—4% annually, potentially 50% over a decade—while Kevin Martin of the Carolina Utility Customers Association decried “costly increases” and a weakened NCUC. Groups like the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy praised the carbon goals but slammed the opaque process and lack of accountability, fearing Duke would profit without delivering. NC WARN called it a “ratepayer rip-off,” noting coal plants like Cliffside 6 still ran past promised retirements. Facing Gov. Roy Cooper’s veto threat, Berger and Cooper negotiated a compromise by October, passing it 57-49 in the House and 28-18 in the Senate, though dissent persisted.
The EPA Endangerment Ruling is federal overreach:
H.B. 951’s carbon targets mirror the 2007 *Massachusetts v. EPA* ruling, where the Supreme Court forced the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases—a decision some call federal overreach. Though state-driven, it feels like Raleigh is preempting EPA mandates, letting Duke justify hikes—like the 15.7% over three years from 2024—for a stalled transition. This raises constitutional flags: if ratepayers fund unfulfilled promises, it could breach the 5th Amendment’s Takings Clause- “Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” It could violate the 14th Amendment due process- “Procedural due process” concerns the procedures that the government must follow before it deprives an individual of life, liberty, or property." Chevron’s 2024 overturning (*Loper Bright*) strips the EPA’s interpretive leeway, weakening Duke’s “federal mandate” defense.
New EPA Administrator:
Enter Donald Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin. Per a February 26, 2025, AP News report, Zeldin’s rewriting the endangerment finding—slashing climate rules and cutting the EPA budget by 65%.
States can push back against overreach:
The Founding Fathers understood the amendment process to be a force that the states could use to push back against an encroaching and even abusive federal government.
Consider these remarks by James Madison. The "father of the Constitution" called the state-led amendment process the "final resort" under the Constitution against federal usurpations and abuses of power.
source: http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/default.xqy?keys=FOEA-print-02-02-02-2138
The Founding Fathers believed that the structures of a limited government would provide the greatest protection of liberty. Not only were there to be checks and balances between the branches of the federal government, but power was also to be delineated between the states and federal government. The latter was to exercise only those “few and defined” powers specifically granted in the Constitution, while the states’ powers were left “broad and undefined.”
The Founding Fathers envisioned a government closer to We the People.
Watch the video:
Sign the petition here
