NC Attorney General Files Testimony Opposing Most of Duke Energy Progress's Proposed Two-Year Rate Increase
Jeff Jackson's office asks state regulators to cut the utility's requested return on equity and shift more grid costs onto data centers; the Utilities Commission will decide this fall.
A Second Fight Over Duke Energy's Bills, This Time in Eastern North Carolina
On July 15, 2026, North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson intervened in a pending rate case before the North Carolina Utilities Commission, filing expert testimony that opposes most of Duke Energy Progress's proposed rate increase[1][2]. Duke Energy Progress, which serves much of eastern and central North Carolina, is asking regulators to approve an increase of roughly 15% phased in over two years[3][6]. Jackson's office says adopting its recommendations instead would save customers about $960 million over that span, or about $420 for the average residential household[1][3] — though that figure is the Attorney General's own estimate, not something the Commission has yet found or approved.
The dispute will play out over the next several months. The Utilities Commission is scheduled to open evidentiary hearings in August 2026, with a decision expected in the fall; any rates it approves would take effect January 1, 2027[3]. This is a separate proceeding from the recently resolved Duke Energy Carolinas case, in which Duke lowered its own request in mid-2026 after public pushback and Jackson claimed close to $1.4 billion in savings[11][12] — a prior outcome that likely shapes how each side is approaching this second round.
The Number at the Center of It: Return on Equity
Nearly everything in this case turns on a single figure buried in utility-regulation jargon: return on equity, or ROE. Duke Energy Progress is a regulated monopoly — it doesn't compete for customers, so regulators instead set a profit rate the company is allowed to earn on the money its shareholders have invested in poles, wires, plants, and other grid infrastructure. That rate matters because it's how a utility persuades investors to keep funding grid construction in the first place: set it too low, and the theory goes, lenders and shareholders start demanding a premium to keep financing the company, which can raise borrowing costs and ultimately show up on customer bills anyway. Set it too high, and the extra margin becomes pure profit added directly to what every customer pays, whether or not it was needed to attract capital[9].
Duke Energy Progress built its 15% rate request around a 10.95% ROE, which it says reflects grid hardening, Hurricane Helene recovery costs, and the investment needed to serve fast-growing electricity demand[3][6]. Jackson's expert witnesses recommend cutting that to 7.4%, arguing it would still let the company make necessary investments while charging customers far less[1][6]. For context that neither side's public filings emphasized: the national median ROE authorized for U.S. electric utilities in 2025 was about 9.7%, essentially unchanged from 2024, according to the regulatory-research firm RRA/S&P Global. Duke's 10.95% ask matches the single highest ROE awarded to any U.S. electric utility that year — Florida Power & Light also received 10.95% — putting Duke's request at the very top of recent national norms. Jackson's 7.4% counter-proposal, meanwhile, would fall well below any ROE a state regulator awarded in 2025, when even the lowest authorized returns stayed above 9%[13][14]. Duke has argued that a return as low as 7.4% would threaten its credit ratings and raise its cost of borrowing, which it says would ultimately hurt reliability and customers[6][9].
Who Pays for the AI Boom?
A second, related fight is unfolding alongside the ROE dispute: who should pay for the grid capacity being built to serve a surge in electricity demand, much of it driven by data centers. Jackson's office, the Utilities Commission's own Public Staff, and consumer advocacy groups are pushing for a separate rate class — sometimes called a large-load tariff — specifically for data centers and other very large electricity users, so that the cost of building infrastructure for them doesn't get spread across ordinary households[7][8]. Advocates for this approach point to Duke's own projections, which reportedly attribute about 80% of anticipated new demand to data centers even though such projects make up only about a third of the utility's incoming customer pipeline[7]. Their broader concern is that Duke is planning roughly 9.7 gigawatts of new gas-fired generation based on demand forecasts that may not fully materialize, potentially leaving residential customers paying off infrastructure for decades regardless of whether the anticipated AI-driven growth shows up[7][10].
Large-load customers, including data-center operators, generally argue they already pay for the power they consume and bring jobs and tax revenue to the state; they've resisted tariff terms that would require long-term minimum payments or exit fees, arguing such terms could deter the kind of investment North Carolina is trying to attract[7]. Meanwhile, consumer and environmental advocates note that customer disconnections have been rising, and thousands of residents have filed written objections to the rate case, underscoring how directly the ROE and tariff decisions will land on monthly bills[7][10].
How Each Side Frames the Stakes
Jackson's office presents itself as the state's statutory advocate for utility customers, arguing that Duke's requested profit rate is higher than necessary to attract investment and that a 7.4% ROE would still fund a reliable grid while sparing ratepayers roughly $960 million[1][6]. The office frames the case in terms of households, including those on fixed incomes, who it argues shouldn't be subsidizing infrastructure built primarily to serve AI data centers[1]. For an elected Attorney General, pursuing visible savings on utility bills also carries clear political value, building on the perceived win in the earlier Duke Carolinas case[11][12].
Duke Energy Progress, for its part, argues that a 10.95% return reflects what investors actually require to keep funding a capital-intensive grid, and that cutting it to 7.4% would threaten its credit ratings and raise the cost of the borrowing needed to build new capacity[6][9]. The company says the requested increase funds grid hardening, recovery from Hurricane Helene, and generation to meet demand growth it says is real and documented[6]. As a monopoly whose earnings are set almost entirely by its authorized ROE, Duke has a direct financial stake in keeping that number as high as regulators will allow — a structural reality that holds regardless of how either side frames the debate[9].
The Utilities Commission, which shifted to a Republican-appointed majority in 2024 after the state legislature moved one commission appointment from the governor to the state treasurer, frames its own role as balancing "just and reasonable" rates against a utility's right to recover prudent costs and earn a fair return[5][6]. Its independent Public Staff, a separate statutory consumer advocate, has aligned with Jackson's office on the data-center tariff question, arguing existing customers need protection from stranded costs if projected demand doesn't materialize[8].
How the Coverage Has Split
Outlets covering the case have framed it in noticeably different ways depending on their audience and orientation. The North Carolina Department of Justice's own press release led with the $960 million savings figure and language about "saving families" money — a framing that presents a contested regulatory recommendation as though it were already an accomplished outcome[1]. Regional broadcast outlets like WRAL and WECT generally used more neutral language, describing Jackson as "challenging" the increase and attributing the savings estimate to his office rather than stating it as settled fact[2][3].
Public radio outlets such as WUNC and advocacy-oriented outlets such as Canary Media tended to foreground the Utilities Commission's new Republican-appointed majority and the data-center cost-shifting question, framing those as central to understanding the stakes for households[5][7]. Business North Carolina, by contrast, centered its coverage on capital markets, describing Jackson's proposal with language like wanting to "slash" Duke's return on equity — a framing that puts the company's investor relationship and financing costs in the foreground rather than the household bill[9]. The utility-accountability watchdog Energy and Policy Institute went further, juxtaposing Duke's pursuit of higher rates against rising customer disconnections[10]. No substantial non-Western or international coverage of the case was found; it has been treated almost entirely as a North Carolina regional and U.S. energy-trade story.
Summary
On July 15, 2026, North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson intervened in a rate case before the state's Utilities Commission, filing expert testimony that opposes most of a proposed increase by Duke Energy Progress, the utility serving much of eastern and central North Carolina[2][4]. Duke Progress is asking to raise rates by roughly 15% over two years, which it says is needed to strengthen the grid, recover from Hurricane Helene, and serve fast-growing electricity demand[6]. Jackson's office argues the request is far larger than necessary and estimates that adopting its recommendations would save customers about $960 million over two years, or roughly $420 for the average residential customer[1][3].
The core technical dispute is over 'return on equity' (ROE) — the profit rate regulators let a utility earn on the money its shareholders invest in the grid. A higher ROE helps a utility attract the investors who fund grid construction, but a rate set above what's actually needed adds pure profit to every customer's bill, which is why both sides fight over fractions of a percentage point. Duke built its request around a 10.95% ROE; Jackson's expert witnesses say 7.4% would still let the company make needed investments while charging customers much less[1][6]. For scale, the median ROE authorized in U.S. electric rate cases nationwide was about 9.7% in 2025 (unchanged from 2024), according to the regulatory-research firm RRA/S&P Global — Duke's ask sits at the very top of recent national norms, matching the year's highest award (Florida Power & Light, also 10.95%), while Jackson's 7.4% recommendation would fall well below any state's recent decision, where even the lowest 2025 awards were above 9%[13][14]. Duke counters that a 7.4% return would threaten its credit ratings and raise the cost of borrowing money to build, ultimately hurting reliability and customers[6][9].
A separate fight runs alongside it: Jackson, the Commission's own Public Staff, and consumer groups want a distinct rate class for data centers and other very large users, so households don't foot the bill for infrastructure built to serve AI-driven demand[7][8].
This is a different case from the recently resolved Duke Energy Carolinas dispute, in which the company lowered its request under public pressure and Jackson claimed roughly $1.4 billion in savings[11][12]. The Utilities Commission — which shifted to a Republican-appointed majority in 2024 — is scheduled to open hearings in August, with a decision expected this fall and any approved rates taking effect January 1, 2027[3][5]. The savings figures are the AG's contested estimates, not a regulatory finding; the Commission has not yet ruled.
The Event
On July 15, 2026, the North Carolina Department of Justice announced that Attorney General Jeff Jackson had intervened in Duke Energy Progress's pending rate case before the North Carolina Utilities Commission, filing expert testimony opposing much of the utility's requested increase[1][2]. The filing recommends reducing the authorized return on equity from Duke's requested 10.95% to 7.4% and creating a separate rate class for data centers and other large-load customers[1][6]. The Utilities Commission is scheduled to begin evidentiary hearings in August 2026, with a decision expected in the fall[3].
Undisputed Facts
- Duke Energy Progress has requested an overall rate increase of roughly 15% phased over two years for its North Carolina customers[3][6].
- Duke Energy Progress built its request around a requested return on equity of 10.95%; the Attorney General's expert witnesses recommend 7.4%[1][6].
- The Attorney General's office estimates its recommendations would save customers about $960 million over two years, or roughly $420 per residential customer — an estimate, not a Commission finding[1][3].
- Jackson, the Utilities Commission's Public Staff, and consumer advocates have proposed a separate rate class or 'large load tariff' for data centers and other customers with very large electricity demand[7][8].
- Duke has argued in filings that a 7.4% return on equity would threaten its credit ratings and increase financing costs[6][9].
- This case is separate from the Duke Energy Carolinas rate case, in which Duke lowered its request in mid-2026 after public pushback[11][12].
- The North Carolina Utilities Commission shifted to a Republican-appointed majority in 2024 after the legislature moved a commission appointment from the governor to the state treasurer[5].
- The Commission is scheduled to open hearings in August 2026, with a decision expected in the fall and any approved rates taking effect January 1, 2027[3].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- Regulated monopoly finance
- Duke is a capital-intensive monopoly whose earnings depend on the authorized ROE set by regulators; every fraction of a percentage point on the return translates into large, durable shareholder and financing effects, so the ROE fight is existential to its business model regardless of rhetoric[9].
- Statutory consumer advocacy
- The Attorney General and the Commission's Public Staff have defined legal roles to argue for ratepayers; challenging utility requests is their institutional function, and doing so visibly also carries clear political value for an elected AG[1][8].
- AI-driven load growth and cost allocation
- A surge in data-center demand forces regulators to decide who pays for a massive grid and generation buildout — new large users or existing households — a question now playing out in dozens of states beyond North Carolina[7].
Material realityWhatever the framing, a monopoly utility has asked to raise rates about 15% over two years on a 10.95% return, and the decision rests with a Republican-appointed commission after August hearings, effective January 2027 if approved. The AG's $960 million savings figure is a recommendation, not a ruling. Duke's grid-hardening, Helene-recovery, and large gas buildout are proceeding on demand forecasts that may or may not materialize, and residential bills will move regardless of which narrative dominates[3][6][7].
Narrative as a weaponTwo organized advocacy efforts are shaping perception. Jackson's office wants readers to see a consumer champion delivering concrete dollar savings against a profit-seeking monopoly, and leads with the $960 million figure before the Commission has ruled. Duke wants readers to see a responsible operator whose returns must stay high enough to keep the lights on and its credit strong, framing lower returns as a threat to reliability. Clean-energy and watchdog outlets push a third frame — that households are being made to subsidize AI data centers and speculative gas plants. Regional and trade press largely relay the dispute with attribution; the contested number ($960M) originates entirely with one party.
How Each Side Sees It
Each major actor’s view — how it frames things, its underlying incentive, and how it’s materially affected. Tap a side to read it.
Frames it asAs the state's statutory advocate for utility customers, the AG argues Duke's 10.95% profit rate is higher than needed to attract investment, and that a 7.4% return still funds a reliable grid while sparing ratepayers roughly $960 million. Households on fixed incomes, he argues, should not subsidize infrastructure built mainly to serve AI data centers, which should pay their own way through a dedicated rate class[1][6]. His office does not address that 7.4% would be well below any ROE authorized for a U.S. electric utility in 2025, when the lowest awards nationally were still above 9%[13].
WhyProtect residential ratepayers, build on the perceived win in the Duke Carolinas case, and establish a durable political identity as a consumer champion against a monopoly utility[11][12].
Impact on themA Democratic officeholder in a state with a GOP-leaning regulatory commission and legislature; success on rates is a visible, pocketbook-level political credential, while the outcome directly shapes bills for millions of eastern and central NC customers[5].
Frames it asAs a regulated monopoly that must raise large amounts of capital, Duke argues a 10.95% return reflects what investors require and that cutting it to 7.4% would threaten its credit ratings, raise borrowing costs, and ultimately harm reliability. It says the increase funds grid hardening, Hurricane Helene recovery, and generation to meet real, documented demand growth[6][9]. Duke's 10.95% ask matches the single highest ROE authorized for any U.S. electric utility in 2025 (Florida Power & Light), well above the ~9.7% national median that year, a data point the company can cite but that also invites scrutiny of whether its request is at the outer edge of what regulators elsewhere have approved[13][14].
WhyEarn an authorized return sufficient to satisfy shareholders and lenders, recover billions in capital spending, and fund a large gas-plant buildout tied to load forecasts[9][10].
Impact on themThe authorized ROE directly drives shareholder earnings and the cost of financing tens of billions in planned construction; a low ROE ruling would be a material financial and precedent-setting loss[9].
Frames it asThe Commission (the decision-maker) frames its role as balancing 'just and reasonable' rates against a utility's right to recover prudent costs and earn a fair return. Its independent Public Staff, a separate statutory consumer advocate, has aligned with the AG on a large-load tariff, arguing existing customers must be protected from stranded costs if data centers don't materialize[6][8].
WhyThe Commission seeks legally defensible rates that keep the utility financeable while withstanding appeal; the Public Staff seeks to shield captive ratepayers from cross-subsidy[8].
Impact on themThe GOP-appointed majority faces scrutiny over whether its composition tilts outcomes; its ruling sets the actual rates and the precedent for how NC treats data-center load[5].
Frames it asLarge-load customers argue their arrival brings jobs, tax base, and economic growth, and that they already pay for the power they use. They resist mandatory tariffs requiring long-term minimum payments and exit fees as terms that could deter investment in the state[7].
WhySecure abundant, low-cost, reliable power for AI and computing operations without being singled out for punitive rate terms[7].
Impact on themDuke says data centers account for about 80% of projected new demand though only about a third of incoming projects; tariff design determines whether they or households bear billions in grid-buildout costs[7].
Frames it asConsumer and environmental groups argue bills are already straining households, point to rising disconnections, and question building 9.7 gigawatts of new gas plants on forecasts that may not hold. They warn ordinary customers could be 'trapped' paying off infrastructure for decades if projected demand never shows up[7][10].
WhyLower bills, a cleaner generation mix, and cost protections against speculative buildout[10].
Impact on themThousands of customers have filed written objections; the ROE and tariff decisions determine monthly bills for millions of households[7][10].
The Bias Ledger average rating 4.7
The same story, as framed by outlets across the spectrum, ordered least to most biased. The bias score (1 = straight, 10 = heavily spun) is an AI assessment of that framing — click an outlet to see its track record. The tell is the word choice or omission that reveals the angle.
| Outlet | Vantage | Bias | How they frame it | The tell |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WRAL | U.S. center (North Carolina regional) | 2 | NC attorney general challenges Duke Energy Progress rate hike | Neutral verb 'challenges'; attributes savings figures to the AG rather than asserting them, and includes Duke's credit-rating rebuttal. |
| WUNC | U.S. center-left (NPR affiliate) | 4 | Will your Duke Energy bill go up? Newly GOP-majority Utilities Commission will decide | Foregrounds the commission's partisan makeup and the household-bill angle, implying the political tilt of the decision-maker matters to the outcome. |
| Business North Carolina | U.S. center-right / pro-business | 4 | AG Jackson wants to slash Duke Energy's return on equity | Loaded verb 'slash' centers the impact on the company's return and investor perspective rather than customer savings. |
| Canary Media | U.S. left / clean-energy advocacy nonprofit | 5 | Data centers are key to fight over Duke electric rates in North Carolina | Reframes the case around data-center cost-shifting and gas-plant buildout, an angle favorable to consumer and climate advocates. |
| NC Department of Justice | U.S. left / Democratic officeholder (primary source) | 6 | Attorney General Jeff Jackson Intervenes in Second Duke Energy Rate Case to Save North Carolina Families Another $960 Million | States a contested regulatory recommendation as an accomplished 'saving,' and frames intervention around 'families' rather than the technical ROE dispute; a self-interested party's own release. |
| Energy and Policy Institute | U.S. left / utility-accountability watchdog | 7 | Duke Energy seeks higher rates, profits in NC despite soaring disconnections | Juxtaposes 'profits' against 'disconnections' to cast the utility as prioritizing shareholders over struggling customers; advocacy framing. |
References
- Attorney General Jeff Jackson Intervenes in Second Duke Energy Rate Case to Save North Carolina Families Another $960 Million — NC Department of Justice · Official release from a Democratic state attorney general — an interested party, not neutral
- NC attorney general challenges Duke Energy Progress rate increase for eastern NC customers — WECT · North Carolina regional broadcast, center
- NC attorney general challenges Duke Energy Progress rate hike — WRAL · North Carolina regional broadcast, center
- Attorney general challenges Duke Energy Progress' proposed 15% rate hike — WITN · North Carolina regional broadcast, center
- Will your Duke Energy bill go up? Newly GOP-majority Utilities Commission will decide — WUNC · Public radio (NPR affiliate), center-left
- Duke reduces rate hike request, still faces regulator pushback — Utility Dive · Energy-industry trade press, center/industry-facing
- Data centers are key to fight over Duke electric rates in North Carolina — Canary Media · Clean-energy advocacy nonprofit, U.S. left
- Consumer advocates push NC state regulators to create separate rates for data centers — WFAE · Public radio (NPR affiliate), center-left
- AG Jackson wants to slash Duke Energy's return on equity — Business North Carolina · State business publication, center-right/pro-business
- Duke Energy seeks higher rates, profits in NC despite soaring disconnections — Energy and Policy Institute · Utility-accountability watchdog, U.S. left advocacy
- Duke Energy takes rare step of lowering a rate request in front of the N.C. Utilities Commission — WUNC · Public radio (NPR affiliate), center-left
- Attorney General Jeff Jackson Fights to Save North Carolina Families Nearly $1.4 Billion on Duke Energy Carolinas Bills — NC Department of Justice · Official release from a Democratic state attorney general — interested party
- Underearning spread widens for gas, electric utilities in ROE analysis — S&P Global Market Intelligence (RRA) · Financial/regulatory data and research provider, non-partisan
- Utilities - U.S. Outlook — Gabelli & Company · Investment research, non-partisan