Today, as part of the ongoing fight over a 5-6 percent average rate hike proposed by Duke Energy, NC WARN filed a motion calling for the NC Utilities Commission to consider the impacts of a new tax increase on electricity sales. The Tax Simplification and Reduction Act, signed into law on Tuesday, contains an electricity sales tax hike that represents the fourth sizeable increase on Duke customers in just four years.
Duke Energy & State Regulators
NC WARN regularly challenges Duke Energy to make a rapid transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy and energy efficiency. We intervene at the NC Utilities Commission in cases involving Duke’s rate increases and 15-year Integrated Resource Plans (IRPs). And we have repeatedly reached out directly to the corporation’s executives, seeking to collaborate with them on finding ways to avert climate catastrophe. A few examples are listed here.
Related:
- Check out the new coalition: Energy Justice NC: End the Duke Monopoly
- Duke Energy page on Energy & Policy Institute website
Jump to a Subcategory
All News Categories
Utilities Chair Deadbolts the Door on Duke Energy’s Backroom Deal — News Release from NC WARN
After a week of damaging revelations about millions in “erroneous” overcharges by Duke Energy, NC Utilities Commission Chairman Ed Finley severely limited the rate case trial at a crucial moment last Friday, and used a false statement to do it. By disallowing NC WARN from questioning a witness about key aspects of the backroom deal-making that led to a proposed settlement between Duke and the Commission’s Public Staff, Finley effectively prevented public scrutiny of the deal and the actions of the publicly-paid employees who made it.
Group frustrated as Duke Energy rate hike hearing ends — Charlotte Business Journal
Duke Energy admits to more mistakes in rate hike case — WNCN
NC WARN, has accused Duke Energy of “gross incompetence” or “corporate fraud.” The environmental justice group claims the nation’s largest utility company deliberately tried to defraud North Carolinians by submitting a rate hike proposal with expenses including corporate jet travel and political contributions.
Four agendas at play in Duke Energy’s NC rate hearing — Charlotte Business Journal
The principal players battling over Duke Energy Carolinas’ proposed 5.1% rate hike had significantly different ideas about what this week’s hearing before the N.C. Utilities Commission was about. For Duke, the hearing was about $3.8 billion in new costs it must cover. For the commission’s public staff, it was about the how the agency’s proposed rate settlement balances Duke’s needs with those of customers. For the N.C. attorney general’s office, the hearing was about what return on equity Duke will be allowed and whether customers can afford it. For watchdog group NC WARN, it was about whether Duke can be trusted to honestly report costs and whether regulators will police the utility.
Duke Energy defends rate charges, settlement — Charlotte Observer
Duke Energy witnesses defend propriety of most customer charges — Charlotte Business Journal
Duke Energy witnesses testifying in the company’s rate hearing before the N.C. Utilities Commission on Thursday defended the company against accusations by the witness for watchdog group NC WARN that it was seeking to charge customers for more than $20 million worth of costs that should be paid by shareholders.
Duke Energy critic disputes rate charges — Charlotte Observer
NC WARN: Duke Energy should pay penalty for improper charges — Charlotte Business Journal
Duke Energy’s profit margin is questioned — Charlotte Observer
Attorney General Roy Cooper’s staff spent much of a Tuesday hearing probing the profit margin for investors built into Duke Energy Carolinas’ request for a 5.1 percent rate hike. The return on common equity, or ROE, is a critical component of the case before the North Carolina Utilities Commission. By agreeing to pare its initial 11.25 percent request to 10.2 percent, Duke gave up $112 million in new revenue. But Assistant Attorney General Margaret Force wanted to know how Duke and the commission’s Public Staff, which represents consumers, arrived at that number. The short answer: It’s complicated and, in large part, subjective.