Split public hearing on Roxboro permit: residents cite health, DAQ staff and local officials emphasize jobs and reliability

RALEIGH, N.C. — North Carolina regulators heard sharply divided testimony on Nov. 12 over a draft air quality permit that would allow Duke Energy Progress to retire coal boilers and build four natural‑gas combined‑cycle turbines at the Roxboro Steam Electric Plant in Person County.

Betsy Huddleston, regional supervisor for the Division of Air Quality and the hearing officer, opened the session and said the Division of Air Quality (DAQ) would accept written comments through Nov. 22, 2024, before forwarding a recommendation to the DAQ director.

Russell Braswell, the DAQ engineer who reviewed the application, summarized the project and the draft permit. He said Duke proposes to retire six coal‑fired boilers in stages and construct four natural‑gas turbines plus supporting equipment, increasing the site’s generating capacity from roughly 2,400 megawatts to about 2,700 megawatts. Braswell said emissions controls — including oxidation catalysts and selective catalytic‑reduction systems — and continuous monitors for nitrogen oxides (NOx) and carbon monoxide (CO) are part of the proposal and that the division’s modeling showed anticipated pollutant levels would remain below applicable ambient limits.

"Duke Energy has proposed emission limits such that this project does not constitute a major modification under PSD," Braswell said, adding that the division’s air‑quality analysis branch approved the modeling on Aug. 9, 2024.

Opponents urged denial or major changes. Multiple residents, health researchers and environmental groups said the permit lacks an enforceable retirement date for the existing coal units and does not require sufficient air monitoring for toxic pollutants. "I ask you to deny the Roxboro Steam Electric Air Quality Permit," Julie Blum Nye said. Juhi Modi, speaking on behalf of several environmental organizations, asked DAQ to reject or delay the permit until Duke demonstrates compliance with Clean Air Act section 111 requirements and to add an enforceable carbon‑dioxide limit.

Thomas Gooding, an associate attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, said the company used an "extended look‑back period" that he contends cherry‑picked historical emissions to avoid stricter permitting standards and urged the department to require enforceable retirement dates and stronger monitoring conditions.

Several speakers stressed local public‑health indicators. Shelley Robbins of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy highlighted elevated emergency‑room visits for asthma in Person County and warned that increased NOx and PM2.5 exposure could harm Woodland Elementary School children, who live and attend school within roughly three‑quarters of a mile of the proposed turbines.

Speakers also tied the permit debate to broader energy policy and planned regional load growth. Some opponents suggested new data‑center developments and pipeline construction could lock the area into long‑lived fossil‑fuel infrastructure and cited Duke’s own estimates that VOCs and CO could be higher from the new plants than from the units they would replace.

Supporters, including Person County officials and business leaders, urged approval on economic and reliability grounds. Gordon Powell, chairman of the Person County Board of Commissioners, said the plants provide significant tax revenue — he said the county’s two facilities represent nearly 20% of the local tax base — and argued new generation is needed to keep the grid reliable as renewable deployment expands. Phil Dowell, chair of the county economic‑development commission, called Duke "our greatest economic partner." Representative Ray Jeffers, a member of the North Carolina House, told the hearing that the proposed project would help meet obligations under the state’s 2022 carbon plan (House Bill 951) while maintaining reliability.

Beth Townsend, a Duke Energy representative, described community investments and said the company pursues an "all‑of‑the‑above" approach that includes solar and onshore wind alongside conventional generation. "These Duke Energy folks look at the needs in our community, and they don't say that's not my job," Townsend said.

Several speakers asked DAQ to strengthen the permit by (a) adding enforceable retirement dates for the coal units, (b) requiring additional and binding air monitoring for specific toxins (including sulfur dioxide, sulfuric acid and arsenic, which speakers named), and (c) clarifying how the project will comply with the Clean Air Act and the state's carbon‑reduction timeline.

DAQ staff repeatedly emphasized that the draft permit includes recordkeeping, reporting and inspection conditions and that the agency’s technical review judged modeled concentrations to be within applicable standards. The hearing officer closed the oral‑comment session and reminded attendees that written comments may be submitted by email, voicemail, postal mail or in the drop box until Nov. 22, 2024, at 5 p.m.; she will make a recommendation to the director based on the hearing record.

Next procedural step: the DAQ will consider the oral and written comments submitted during the public comment period and then the director will issue a final determination on the draft permit.