In North Carolina, utility rate cases follow a specific procedure. Hearings are set. Testimony is filed by expert witnesses. Concerned citizens show up to speak; they are typically both irate and worn out. Next, a number emerges from the other end. The figure was 9.5% this time.
Following months of public opposition, commissioner testimony, and what Duke Energy called “intensive negotiation,” the company came to an agreement with the North Carolina Public Staff, the state organization that officially represents utility customers, to lower its proposed residential rate increase from an initial 18% to a cumulative 9.5% over two years. The first year saw a 5.9% increase, while the second year saw a 3.6% increase. New rates would go into effect on January 1, 2027, if approved by the North Carolina Utilities Commission.
Practically speaking, the average residential customer, who currently pays about $157 per month, would see an increase in their bill of roughly $6.53 in 2027 and an additional $4.66 in 2028. That is actual cash. It matters to a family already burdened by rising rent and grocery costs. “Every single percentage point is behind a family,” stated Veleria Levy, a state House representative-elect from northeast Charlotte who testified against the initial proposal. Simply put, it’s not on a spreadsheet.
A somewhat unusual coalition signed the settlement. Walmart, Microsoft, the NC Sustainable Energy Association, the Carolina Industrial Group for Fair Utility Rates, and North Carolina Public Staff were among the co-signers. Additionally, Duke Energy’s shareholders decided to contribute $10 million to weatherization programs and low-income bill assistance. This concession feels significant, even though it is small given the size of the utility’s operations. Approximately 2.3 million homes and businesses in central and western North Carolina are served by Duke Energy Carolinas.
Not everyone is content. Attorney General Jeff Jackson of North Carolina declined to sign the agreement, claiming that working families could not afford the rate increase. Jackson has also advocated for something more comprehensive: a distinct rate classification for large power consumers, such as data centers, to prevent the costs of grid infrastructure, which are fueled by their enormous energy appetite, from being covertly included in residential bills.
State officials have been skirting the issue for some time because it is a legitimate one. For its part, Duke Energy contends that big clients already cover the expenses they incur and genuinely contribute to lower rates for everyone else. That assertion is credible, but it’s also something to keep a close eye on over the coming years.
In this entire discussion, data centers seem to have emerged as the unseen third party. Large facilities draw massive power loads, and North Carolina has been actively seeking tech investment. A commitment to continue talks on a large load tariff—a possible separate rate structure for heavy commercial users—was included in the settlement, but “continue discussions” is merely diplomatic language for an unresolved issue.
While applauding the decrease from the initial plan, Governor Josh Stein said the figures were still too high. “Too many families are struggling to make ends meet,” he stated. Even those who acknowledged that Duke Energy needs revenue to finance actual infrastructure investments shared this sentiment. In a state where population growth and energy demand are increasing, the utility is working toward a modernized grid. These expenses are real. However, households are also under financial strain.
It’s important to note that Duke Energy may not handle a North Carolina rate case as two distinct entities again after this settlement. The merger of Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress adds yet another level of significance to a process that is already being closely monitored.
This was not a clear win for ratepayers or a dramatic loss for Duke Energy. It was a compromise that was flawed, disputed, and awaiting a final regulatory ruling. The final decision will be made by the Utilities Commission. The public comment period is still open until then, and if this case has shown anything, it is that public involvement in these proceedings truly makes a difference. It wasn’t an accident that the percentage dropped from 18% to 9.5%.
