Duke Energy’s latest integrated resource plan proposes building two new natural gas plants and extending the life of existing coal facilities to meet projected electricity demand from data centers that have not yet materialized, a strategy that shifts financial risk onto South Carolina ratepayers if the anticipated load growth fails to appear. The plan, filed with the South Carolina Public Service Commission, treats speculative economic development as a firm capacity justification, effectively asking consumers to pre-pay for fossil infrastructure that may prove unnecessary. This approach inverts the traditional regulatory compact: instead of the utility bearing the risk of overbuilding, the public absorbs the cost of stranded assets if data center commitments fall through.
The filing reflects a broader tension rippling through utility resource planning across the Southeast. As hyperscale data center campuses proliferate in states like Virginia, Georgia, and the Carolinas, utilities are forecasting step-change load growth that dwarfs historical trends. But many of these projects remain in early negotiation stages, contingent on power availability, permitting timelines, and corporate sustainability commitments that increasingly favor renewable supply. Duke’s own documents acknowledge the uncertainty, yet the selected portfolio doubles down on dispatchable fossil generation rather than pursuing a more modular mix of solar, storage, and demand-side resources that could scale with actual load.
South Carolina’s regulatory framework gives the Public Service Commission authority to reject or modify utility plans that fail the least-cost, least-risk standard. Intervenors have already signaled they will challenge the assumption that gas and coal extensions represent the most prudent path, particularly given federal tax incentives that now make clean energy portfolios economically competitive without fuel price exposure. The commission’s decision will set a precedent for how southeastern regulators treat speculative industrial load — a question that will only grow more urgent as AI-driven compute demand collides with state decarbonization goals and aging generation fleets.
For investors and industry observers, the Duke filing is a bellwether. Utilities that anchor long-lived capital decisions to uncommitted load risk regulatory disallowance, shareholder write-downs, and reputational damage in a market where ESG scrutiny is intensifying. The alternative — planning for flexibility, securing firm renewable contracts, and using tariff structures that align cost recovery with actual usage — offers a more resilient model. Whether South Carolina’s commission embraces that logic will determine if the state’s ratepayers become the backstop for a data center boom that may never fully arrive.
Read the full report at CleanTechnica.