As North Carolina’s primary electric public utility, the shadow of Duke Energy looms large over the state and in the halls of government.
Many lawmakers, both Democratic and Republican, have a relationship with the energy behemoth. Duke Energy spends a lot of money each election cycle to help its preferred candidates win, and, once they’re in office, uses lobbying to influence them to support preferential policies.
Duke Energy has been successful in recent years. Last summer, legislators passed a bill that did the utility several favors, including allowing it to charge ratepayers for the cost of projects still under construction and giving it a temporary break on carbon-emission reduction goals. A recent reconfiguration of the Utilities Commission, which approves rate hikes, also may be friendlier to the power company’s requests after a 2024 law change.
[Subscribe for FREE to Carolina Public Press’ Daily, Weekend and Election 2026 newsletters.]
Lobbying and campaign contributions are normal levers of power in state politics and elections. But renewed concern about Duke Energy’s power and influence have emerged as the utility requests an 18% rate hike over the next two years, citing a need to keep up with growing electricity demand and make sure the electric grid can handle future storms.
The request reflects current economic pressures and the investments required to handle an influx of people and businesses moving to North Carolina, Duke spokesperson Jeff Brooks said. Data center energy demand isn’t a major factor in the request, he added.
Meanwhile, Duke Energy reported $1.58 billion in profit during the first quarter of 2026, and $4.9 billion last year. Thanks to President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Duke Energy also didn’t pay federal income tax in 2025, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.
Duke Energy reinvests part of those profits in the company, while giving the rest to investors who provide crucial up-front money for big projects without the need to borrow, Brooks said.
Still, for some, the math doesn’t seem to add up.
What Duke Energy gets from lawmakers
Former Republican NC Sen. Paul Newton spent the better part of his career working for Duke Energy, including as an executive.
After he retired, he was elected to serve in the legislature, where he eventually earned a coveted leadership position. Last year, he sponsored a bill to give electric public utilities, like his previous employer, a few breaks.
Newton told lawmakers the bill would save North Carolinians billions of dollars — $13 billion, specifically. Eventually, the bill’s language was pasted into another bill that became law, over the governor’s veto.
First, the law removes a 2034 checkpoint for Duke Energy to reduce carbon emissions by 70% compared to 2005 levels. The interim goal was part of a 2021 bipartisan agreement for Duke Energy to reach carbon neutrality by 2050.
By treating the interim goal as “sacrosanct,” the Utilities Commission was being “short-sighted” about what was best for consumers, Newton explained in a legislative committee.
“You could literally keep carbon steady today all the way out, no changes to 2049, turn on multiple nuclear units, and suddenly you're in compliance with the 2050 goal,” he said.
Not everyone agreed on the merits of the idea. Detractors, including Buncombe County Democrat Julie Mayfield, argued that it would be particularly difficult and risky to meet a long-term goal without benchmarks along the way.
Second, the law allows utilities to charge consumers higher rates to adjust for construction costs when they are building new facilities, before they begin operation.
If lawmakers were going to ask Duke Energy to take on the risk of building a large nuclear plant to get closer to that 2050 goal, Newton said the utility shouldn’t have to wait until after the plant is completed and operational before it can get any of its investment back.
“If you allow incremental recovery, then customers will actually pay significantly less for the power plant,” he said.
Bill opponents cited nightmare examples from other states, including South Carolina, where consumers took on higher rates for the construction costs of nuclear reactors that never became operational.
When fuel prices rise, power companies can pass that increased cost onto customers in the form of higher rates, if the Utilities Commission allows. A third part of the law, added later, removed any time limit on the ability. Under the new law, utilities could recover fuel costs from ratepayers years after they incurred the costs,
State Rep. Lindsey Prather, D-Buncombe, said that part of the bill was most “blatant.” It was added after a North Carolina appeals court ruled that the Utilities Commission improperly allowed Duke Energy to include 2022 weather-related fuel costs in a 2024 request. The panel of judges said the utility couldn’t go that far back.
While an appeal was pending, lawmakers passed Senate Bill 266.
“People budget for their utility bills,” Prather said. “People have to plan. They need consistency. And this model of relying on the taxpayers and the consumers to make up for the costs, it's not sustainable.”
While the various provisions of the bill, now law, don’t directly contribute to Duke Energy’s requested 18% rate hike over the next two years, they’re part of a perfect storm for North Carolinians in the midst of an affordability crisis, Prather said.
“All of these changes have made things easier for Duke to make money and made it harder for taxpayers and consumers,” she said.
A more Duke-friendly Utilities Commission?
A separate law, passed six months earlier, might aid Duke Energy in securing that requested rate hike, though.
In December 2024, lawmakers passed a Hurricane Helene recovery bill that included dozens of unrelated provisions. One part of the law took away one of the governor’s appointments to the Utilities Commission, a five-member commission that approves or denies rate increase requests.
Before, the governor could appoint three members, effectively holding majority power. But the law gave one of his appointments to the treasurer, now a Republican. State Treasurer Brad Briner chose Donald van der Vaart, an engineer and attorney who previously worked for Shell Oil and Carolina Power & Light, which is now a part of Duke Energy. Van der Vaart reportedly disagrees with several tenets of climate science, including that greenhouse gas emissions are harmful to humans.
Three members of the Utilities Commission are former state lawmakers. Former House Republican William Brawley accepted over $35,000 in Duke campaign contributions during his time in office. Former Senate Democrat Floyd McKissick accepted $24,500. Former Senate Republican Tommy Tucker took $11,000.
The newly configured Utilities Commission recently approved a merger between Duke Energy’s two utilities, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress, which served different portions of the state. The company said the move would save customers $23 billion between 2027 and 2040 by allowing shared power sources and infrastructure.
Some opponents worry that these savings will never materialize.
What lawmakers get from Duke Energy
Former state Senator Newton wasn’t a one-man show.
About 60% of current state lawmakers have accepted Duke Energy campaign contributions, with nearly a quarter accepting $10,000 or more throughout their time in office, not including the latest election cycle.
Duke spreads its influence across the aisle — the top lifetime recipient of Duke money currently serving in the legislature is Senate Democrat Dan Blue, who has received $70,900, followed by Senate Republican Bill Rabon, who’s accepted $60,900, according to campaign finance records stretching from 1999 to 2024.
Gaston Republican Sen. Brad Overcash ($60,900), Senate Rules chairman John Bell ($59,200), Senate leader Phil Berger ($51,600), House Energy Committee chairman Dean Arp ($51,000), Senate Agriculture, Energy and Environment chair Brent Jackson ($43,600) and Senate Appropriations chairman Ralph Hise ($42,900) are the next highest recipients.
Top Democrat recipients include Blue, Rep. Garland Pierce, D-Scotland ($28,500); Democratic House leader Robert Reives, D-Chatham ($22,600); Rep. Becky Carney, D-Mecklenburg ($22,250); now-unaffiliated Rep. Carla Cunningham, U-Mecklenburg ($21,150); Sen. Paul Lowe, D-Forsyth ($20,900); and Rep. Shelly Willingham, D-Mecklenburg ($20,000).
Blue, Pierce, Lowe, Cunningham and Willingham originally voted for Senate Bill 266 to pass. When the legislation came back around for a veto override vote, Cunningham and Willingham again supported the bill, securing its passage alongside Mecklenburg Rep. Nasif Majeed, another former Democrat who is now unaffiliated.
Whatley and Cooper’s connections
Republican U.S. Senate candidate Michael Whatley may have been another player laying the groundwork for Senate Bill 266 and other Duke-friendly legislation to succeed.
Before he became chair of the state Republican party in 2019, Whatley was executive vice president of Consumer Energy Alliance, an oil, gas and utility lobbying group with Duke Energy among its clients. CEA is operated by HBW Resources, Whatley’s lobbying firm.
While a lobbyist for CEA, Whatley and his fellow lobbyists argued in favor of rate increases, advocated for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, which was led by Duke Energy and Dominion Energy, and asked the Utilities Commission to allow Duke Energy to pass along cleanup costs from a 2014 coal ash spill to customers.
CEA had a registered lobbyist supporting utility issues in the state legislature throughout 2025, when Senate Bill 266 was being considered.
While Whatley left CEA in 2019 for his political role, his family still owns between $163,000 and $445,000 in Duke Energy stock, according to his most recent financial disclosure.
Ahead of his matchup against former Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper in November, critics have argued Whatley stands to profit from requested rate hikes.
“DC insider Michael Whatley made millions lobbying for utility companies, including Duke Energy, as they raised rates on North Carolinians and hit working families with soaring energy bills,” North Carolina Democratic Party spokesperson Mallory Payne said in a statement. “Whatley only cares about lining his own pockets while North Carolina families pay the price.”
Meanwhile, Whatley spokesperson DJ Griffin said in a statement that it goes both ways. As governor, Cooper signed an executive order setting statewide goals for reducing emissions that pushed Duke Energy to expand its solar energy portfolio, and allegedly used the approval of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline as leverage to get Duke Energy to buy more solar energy, he said.
That benefits Cooper’s family, which owns land leased to a solar company, Griffin said. Cooper has denied these accusations. A legislative report found "no information" showing that Cooper "personally benefited" from the ACP negotiations.
“So when looking into who used their political influence to benefit themselves and their families, Roy Cooper time and time again as governor used his influence to force Duke Energy into solar policies which would benefit his family’s solar farm,” Griffin said.
Taking back Duke’s power
Some political leaders are trying to take back parts of Duke Energy’s power, or at least, set up guardrails.
One effort has already succeeded.
A trio of swing Democrats who voted to override the Senate Bill 266 veto — Cunningham, Majeed and Willingham — paid a political price. In the March primary, they all lost by double digits to Democratic challengers, boosted by a grassroots effort to unseat them.
Gov. Josh Stein has proposed reducing the tax breaks that data centers get, and returning some of that revenue to the state. Duke Energy has received tax breaks on three data centers it owns in North Carolina.
Several pending bills would also address the power company’s influence in one way or another.
House Bill 1168 would repeal the section of SB266 that allows utility companies to recoup fuel costs years after they are incurred.
House Bill 1063 and Senate Bill 844 would require the Utilities Commission to approve data center projects. The House Bill would also remove utilities’ ability to add interest to fuel costs they pass along to customers, while the Senate Bill would require utilities to create commission-approved grid modernization plans showing that any improvements will either save consumers money or improve reliability.
This trio of bills is sponsored by Democrats, so they are unlikely to move in the Republican-controlled General Assembly.
However, House Bill 1192 is sponsored by a group of Republicans. It would require utilities like Duke to eat 20% of excess fuel costs they incur each year, if the cost is higher than predicted. On the other hand, it would allow Duke to pocket 20% of savings, if the cost is lower than expected. Currently, all excess costs and savings are passed along to consumers.
At the end of the day, the Utilities Commission may not approve the rate increase request. Members of the public are speaking out against the increase in public hearings across the state.
Prather hopes that’s the case.
“We talk about local governments and schools needing to dig into their budgets and figure out where they can save money, but we're not asking Duke to do that,” she said. “We're just letting the cost continue to fully fall on the consumers.”
This article first appeared on Carolina Public Press and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.