En el Asunto de Solicitud de Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Cliffside), Orden que otorga Certificado de Conveniencia P\u00fablica y Necesidad con Condiciones, NC PUC, Expediente No. E-7, Sub 790 <\/p>\n
\nLa Comisi\u00f3n de Servicios P\u00fablicos de Carolina del Norte deneg\u00f3 la solicitud de Duke Energy de construir plantas el\u00e9ctricas gemelas alimentadas con carb\u00f3n de 800 MW, diciendo que la empresa no hab\u00eda podido demostrar que ambas plantas fueran necesarias para satisfacer la demanda. (Duke Energy hab\u00eda planeado vender la energ\u00eda de una de las plantas). En cambio, la comisi\u00f3n estatal aprob\u00f3 una planta. La Comisi\u00f3n tambi\u00e9n condicion\u00f3 su aprobaci\u00f3n al compromiso de la empresa de retirar las instalaciones de generaci\u00f3n de carb\u00f3n m\u00e1s antiguas e invertir un peque\u00f1o porcentaje de sus ingresos minoristas anuales de electricidad en eficiencia energ\u00e9tica. Orden E-70, Sub.790, p. 9.<\/p>\n
<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In the Matter of Application of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Cliffside), Order Granting Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity with Conditions, NC PUC, Docket No. E-7, Sub 790 The North Carolina Utilities Commission denied Duke Energy’s request to build twin 800 MW coal-fired power plants, saying that the utility had failed to prove that both […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","resource-topic":[190,61],"resource-type":[528],"resource-category":[30097],"content-for-websites":[30102],"region":[539,642],"class_list":["post-12617","resource","type-resource","status-publish","hentry","resource-topic-coal-and-gas-power-plants","resource-topic-energy","resource-type-cases","resource-category-legal","content-for-websites-coal","region-north-america","region-united-states-of-america"],"blocksy_meta":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource\/12617","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/resource"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12617"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12617"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"resource-topic","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource-topic?post=12617"},{"taxonomy":"resource-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource-type?post=12617"},{"taxonomy":"resource-category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource-category?post=12617"},{"taxonomy":"content-for-websites","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/content-for-websites?post=12617"},{"taxonomy":"region","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/region?post=12617"}],"curies":[{"name":"gracias","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}