Fight the power: Residents oppose Duke rate hike as business leaders break ranks
At a packed public hearing in the Haywood County Justice Center on April 14, residents lined up to argue that everyday customers—especially seniors and families on fixed incomes—shouldn’t be asked to shoulder higher electric bills to cover growing demand from big business and data centers, storm recovery, environmental liabilities, and rising executive pay.
What Duke is asking for
The hearing was one of several statewide sessions held by the North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC) to gather testimony on Duke Energy’s latest request. Filed in November 2025, the application seeks a multiyear increase in electric rates, performance-based regulation, and new cost-recovery mechanisms.
According to the commission’s scheduling order, the plan could raise Duke’s North Carolina retail revenues by as much as $728.6 million over two years—roughly a 15% cumulative jump. For a typical home using 1,000 kilowatt-hours a month, that would mean about $28 more per month in year one and another $6.59 in year two.
Duke reported about $32 billion in revenue and $4.9 billion in profit in 2025, amid steady load growth tied in part to data centers and AI-related demand. Recent years have also seen a pattern of increases—roughly 7% in 2023–24, 3.4% in 2024, and 3.2% in 2025—putting a typical $140 monthly bill in 2023 on track to approach $190 by 2029. The company’s chief executive earned about $14 million in total compensation in 2025.
Duke says the new revenue is needed for grid modernization, reliability, and compliance with environmental rules, including coal ash cleanup. Company representatives pointed to local investments—new overhead lines, substation upgrades, and related work—as the region grows.
The NCUC’s Public Staff, which represents ratepayers, told attendees its analysts are reviewing the filing and will submit testimony in July. The NCUC acts like a court, weighing sworn evidence, expert analysis, and legal arguments to set “just and reasonable” rates for monopoly utilities.
Politics, procedure, and public trust
Commission leadership drew scrutiny from some speakers after a power shift in 2024 gave Republicans a majority on the NCUC. At the Haywood hearing, Chair Bill Brawley emphasized that outcomes would be based on testimony and evidence, not impromptu argument. That formality did little to cool public sentiment as dozens of residents came with bills, stories, and pointed questions about who pays and why.
Affordability versus accountability
Residents said the proposed increases fall hardest on those least able to absorb them. Many argued that residential customers face jumps of 18–20%, while large commercial and industrial customers would see far less. Others objected to paying for coal ash liabilities and storm costs they view as the result of corporate choices, and warned that climate change and extreme weather are already straining household budgets and grid resilience.
AARP North Carolina urged the commission to pare back the plan, reject higher fixed monthly charges and new riders, and protect older adults on fixed incomes. Layered increases and new fees, they argued, shift financial risk from the utility to customers.
Several Helene survivors described losing homes, livelihoods, and savings. One social worker from Waynesville said Western North Carolinians “don’t have anything left to give,” calling the increase part of a long pattern of extractive practices in Appalachia that leave communities footing the bill while corporate profits remain strong.
Business leaders break ranks
Amid the chorus of opposition, two prominent economic and business voices spoke in support of Duke’s position, saying competitive power prices and reliability are critical to job growth and disaster recovery.
Former legislator and regional workforce official Nathan Ramsey, speaking personally, argued that North Carolina’s electric rates are significantly below the national average—an edge he said helps recruit employers. He acknowledged concerns about affordability but framed the case around long-term competitiveness and partnership.
David Francis, a local chamber leader and economic development figure also speaking personally, praised Duke’s storm response and logistics, citing the replacement of tens of thousands of poles and transformers and millions of feet of wire after recent disasters. Reliability and rapid restoration, he said, require investment—just as any business must maintain its ability to serve customers.
Storm costs and who pays
Duke’s post-Helene efforts included targeted grants to Western North Carolina nonprofits for housing repair, debris removal, and mental health support. At the same time, the company has pursued regulatory tools—such as securitized bonds and dedicated riders—to recover far larger infrastructure and restoration costs through customer bills over time. Critics at the hearing said essential disaster response is part of a utility’s core duty and should not be used to justify steep increases, especially when profits and executive compensation remain robust.
One Clyde resident with experience in public administration and emergency management called on Duke to be a “good citizen,” arguing that environmental and operational expenses should be absorbed through corporate resources where possible, not shifted onto families still rebuilding after Helene.
What happens next
The April hearing closed without a ruling, as required by the NCUC’s process. In the coming months, intervenors—including the Public Staff and advocacy groups—will file expert testimony. Duke will submit rebuttals, followed by an evidentiary hearing in August in Raleigh. Commissioners will then deliberate and issue a final order deciding how much, if any, of the proposed increase is approved—and how the costs are allocated between residential, commercial, and industrial customers.
For many who testified, the bottom line is simple: keep the lights on, keep the grid resilient, and keep power affordable—without asking the people least able to pay to carry the heaviest load.
