The Duke Climate Action Plan sets out ambitions goals for future energy reductions. Using a wedge based approach to classify opportunities, the Energy Sub Committee of the University Campus Sustainability Committee, or CSC, has identified significant emissions reductions on campus over a projected 40-year time horizon.
The largest wedge in the energy analysis pie estimates Duke Energy will be responsible for 60% of emissions reductions in 2050, 40 years out. Tavey Capps, Duke’s sustainability coordinator, told me in an email that the CAP assumes these reductions based on information provided by Duke Energy, a publically traded company.
As a consequence of being publically traded, she rightly points out that Duke Energy must comply with state and federal regulations on carbon emissions. Included in the CAP are the near-term reductions Duke Energy must adhere to under the North Carolina Renewable Portfolio Standards, which require “the use of renewable energy sources for 12.5 percent of electric power generation by 2021 for investor?owned utilities.”
Also according to the CAP, Duke Energy has identified as part of its future reductions plans, emissions savings from bringing two nuclear power plants online before 2050. While the CAP cites disposal issues that are unresolved, we must also note the nuclear climate of the day.
Within the past month, President Obama announced guaranteed financing for a nuclear project in Burke, Georgia. According to a press release out of the White House, the new facility will be the first new nuclear plant in over three decades. One of the major hurdles to a successful nuclear energy industry is the capital investment required to build a plant. Other hurdles include public opposition, and regulatory hurdles.
On that point, also within the last month, the Vermont State Senate made an unprecedented move, voting to block the renewal of permits for that state’s nuclear power plant, Vermont Yankee, after discovery and controversy relating to a tritium leak in underground piping. Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen.
And on the day this column is published, Duke, in conjunction with NC State University will be hosting the final day of the National Academy of Engineering’s Grand Challenges Summit in Raleigh. Of the 14 Grand Challenges identified by NAE, the event will focus on the challenges of energy sustainability, better medicines, nuclear security and safeguards. Invited guests include nationally recognized academic experts on the nuclear issues, CEOs of companies like General Electric and Kristina Johnson, undersecretary of energy at the U.S. Department of Energy.
If these events and high profile conversations result in a significant shift in the country’s energy portfolio going forward, that will be a definitive change in an industry that has seen stagnant growth in the past 15 years.
In addition to the planned expansion into nuclear energy, Duke Energy has also outlined reductions between 2029 and 2050 in line with U.S. Climate Action Partnership targets. From what I can tell, the U.S. CAP is a lobbying organization whose members include titans of U.S. Industry. According to the U.S. CAP website, its members have “come together to call on the federal government to quickly enact strong national legislation to require significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.” Without time to fully understand and digest the regulatory proposals put forth, it’s only fair to note the related reductions cited by Duke Energy are not in play until after Duke University’s climate neutrality target date of 2024, and even that’s more than a decade in the future.
With so much riding on Duke Energy’s success in meeting its reduction targets, the question that must invariably be raised is: How does Duke University make sure DE meets its stated goals, in 40 years, and in the near term as they align with our goals?
Capps wrote to me that the “CSC Energy subcommittee’s role right now, in regards to the Duke Energy goals, is monitoring and tracking. We are in regular contact with our Duke Energy account representative and he provides data annually on the carbon content of their fuel mix specific to this region. This data informs the University’s annual [greenhouse gas] inventories that track our progress on the CAP.”
In the case of federally mandated carbon emissions standards, DE, as well as other regulated entities, which would presumably include the University, will be required to comply with any act by Congress. Unfortunately, the country is still in the dark on when or what that legislation will look like when passed. Here at Duke, we can use institutionally based players like the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions to inform our understanding of the potential outcomes, but it will come down to the politics in Washington.
When plied on how the CAP changes with different legislative outcomes, the response has largely been the same from University leaders, “Duke’s CAP is meant to be an iterative plan that adapts over time to changing external and internal conditions,” Capps wrote in her e-mail.
While palatable at the administrative level, it’s hard to evaluate at this point if that will be an effective plan for maintaining clear communication and accountability into the future. Allowing the University community to track and critique progress will encourage the investment of serious intellectual capital in this potentially vague and moving target.
Suffice it to say we may be standing in the light, but the future looks dimly lit. Duke must keep the eyes wide open as we plunge into the dark.
Liz Bloomhardt is a graduate student in mechanical engineering. This particlar column is an online exclusive.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.