N.C. bill gives big energy users a break — at the expense of households
Residential customers of Duke Energy in North Carolina could pay $87 million more per year for electricity under a proposal rocketing through the state legislature, a new study shows. The figure represents about a 4% jump in household bills.
The legislation, Senate Bill 266, would change how Duke distributes the cost of electricity it buys to supplement generation from its own power plants — significantly hiking the share paid by residential consumers and cutting the portion paid by industrial electricity users, like chemical manufacturers and textile mills.
The analysis shows the legislation is a better deal for industrial customers than the status quo, said Will Scott, Southeast climate and clean energy director for the Environmental Defense Fund. 'They will pay less to use the same amount of energy, and residential ratepayers will pay more,' he said.
SB 266 is the latest version of a Senate-passed measure that would unravel the state's climate targets. It was publicly unveiled moments before it was debated and approved by the House Energy and Public Utilities Committee last week, and received fulsome praise from Duke, industrial groups, and others in testimony.
On Tuesday, despite protests from clean energy advocates and some Democratic lawmakers, the bill easily cleared the Republican-controlled House and now returns to the Senate, also run by the GOP.
The study, conducted by independent analysis group EQ Research, has a narrow scope, homing in on the ramifications of just one section of the 30-page bill — the part that covers how purchased power is billed to customers.
'We were pretty laser-focused,' said Justin Barnes, president of EQ Research, 'because that's the analysis we could do with readily available information quickly.'
While Duke generates much of its own electricity from a fleet of fossil fuel and nuclear plants, it also contracts to buy some of its solar power from independent producers and purchases energy from other generators under certain conditions, such as when demand spikes.
Under current law, the entire cost of this purchased power is passed on to customers annually along with a charge for natural gas and other fuels. The utility divvies up the costs of this fuel "rider" between residential and industrial customer groups based partially on their peak electricity demand and partially on their overall energy use.
According to EQ's analysis of Duke's latest filings with regulators, the fuel rider totals about $2.75 billion for the company's two North Carolina entities, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Carolinas. The purchased power portion is around $1.1 billion.
Of the purchased power portion, residential customers currently pay about 41.2%, and use just over 40% of the energy.
SB 266 eliminates any weight given to overall energy use in allocating purchased power costs, according to EQ, shifting charges from large industrial users of electricity to residential consumers. The result is that households would pay just under 49% of those costs while using the same 40% of energy, the group's study found.
'It is not going to be a savings for us ratepayers,' said Rep. Pricey Harrison, a Guilford County Democrat, speaking against SB 266 on the House floor. 'It is going to be an increase.'
The EQ study does not incorporate the potential effects of other parts of the bill, including alleged savings from eliminating a 2030 deadline by which Duke must cut its carbon pollution, and the impact to customers of allowing the utility to recoup some costs for power plants not yet delivering electricity.
Rep. Dean Arp, the Union County Republican championing SB 266, said last week in committee that erasing the 2030 climate target would save all customers a total of $13 billion by 2050. He said allowing Duke to recover plant-construction financing costs early would net them another $1.4 billion. He echoed those claims Tuesday on the House floor, rounding up the total savings by over half a billion dollars.
'A vote against this legislation is a vote to make all ratepayers pay $15 billion more in electricity costs,' Arp said.
But opponents of the bill reject the allegation that striving for more wind and solar energy in the near term will contribute to rising rates, an assertion stemming from an elusive study from the state-sanctioned customer advocate, Public Staff, that hasn't been provided widely to legislators or members of the public.
Clean energy advocates say the Public Staff analysis considers only the cost of building new power generation, not the rising price of fossil fuels. And they continue to question the wisdom of allowing Duke to charge consumers for costs related to nuclear and gas plants that may never come online.
Perhaps above all, EQ's findings show why more time is needed to vet the bill with all interested parties, including clean energy and consumer advocates, not just Duke and large industrial customers, critics contend.
'When we rush processes like these and don't include all the stakeholders, we can end up with results that unfairly burden North Carolina households,' said Scott with the Environmental Defense Fund. 'I hope that we can slow down and make the adjustments we need so that this bill doesn't cause unnecessary pollution or unnecessary costs.'
But the House's public deliberation of the measure has been anything but slow. In less than a week, it cleared two committees and two required floor votes. It could appear on the desk of Gov. Josh Stein, a Democrat, as soon as this week.
'There are all kinds of reasons to vote no on this bill,' Harrison said to the full House on Tuesday, including its treatment of residential customers, its abdication of climate targets, and the process by which it was rushed through the chamber.
As the House prepared to vote around 7 p.m., she said, 'It's not clear why we're doing this tonight.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
Rhode Island lawmakers pass bill to ban sales of assault weapons
Rhode Island's Democratic-controlled state House on Friday approved legislation that would ban the sale and manufacturing of many semiautomatic rifles commonly referred to as assault weapons. The proposal now heads to the desk of Democratic Gov. Dan McKee, who has said he supports assault weapons bans. If the bill is signed into law, Rhode Island will join 10 states that have some sort of prohibition on high-powered firearms that were once banned nationwide and are now largely the weapon of choice among those responsible for most of the country's devastating mass shootings. Gun control advocates have been pushing for an assault weapons ban in Rhode Island for more than a decade. However, despite being a Democratic stronghold, lawmakers throughout the country's smallest state have long quibbled over the necessity and legality of such proposals. The bill only applies to the sale and manufacturing of assault weapons and not possession. Only Washington state has a similar law. Residents looking to purchase an assault weapon from nearby New Hampshire or elsewhere will also be blocked. Federal law prohibits people from traveling to a different state to purchase a gun and returning it to a state where that particular of weapon is banned. Nine states and the District of Columbia have bans on the possession of assault weapons, covering major cities like New York and Los Angeles. Hawaii bans assault pistols. Democratic Rep. Rebecca Kislak described the bill during floor debates Friday as an incremental move that brings Rhode Island in line with neighboring states. "I am gravely disappointed we are not doing more, and we should do more," she said. "And given the opportunity to do this or nothing, I am voting to do something." Critics of Rhode Island's proposed law argued that assault weapons bans do little to curb mass shootings and only punish people with such rifles. "This bill doesn't go after criminals, it just puts the burden on law-abiding citizens," said Republican Sen. Thomas Paolino. Republican Rep. Michael Chippendale, House minority leader, predicted that if the legislation were to become law, the U.S. Supreme Court would eventually deem it unconstitutional. "We are throwing away money on this," he said. It wasn't just Republicans who opposed the legislation. David Hogg — a gun control advocate who survived the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida — and the Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence described the proposed ban as the "weakest assault weapons ban in the country." "I know that Rhode Islanders deserve a strong bill that not only bans the sale, but also the possession of assault weapons. It is this combination that equals public safety," Hogg said in a statement. Elisabeth Ryan, policy counsel at Everytown for Gun Safety, rejected claims that the proposed law is weak. "The weakest law is what Rhode Island has now, no ban on assault weapons," Ryan said. "This would create a real, enforceable ban on the sale and manufacture of assault weapons, just like the law already working in Washington state, getting them off the shelves of Rhode Island gun stores once and for all." Nationally, assault weapons bans have been challenged in court by gun rights groups that argue the bans violate the Second Amendment. AR-15-style firearms are among the best-selling rifles in the country. The conservative-majority Supreme Court may soon take up the issue. The justices declined to hear a challenge to Maryland's assault weapons ban in early June, but three conservative justices — Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas — publicly noted their disagreement. A fourth, Brett Kavanaugh, indicated he was skeptical that the bans are constitutional and predicted the court would hear a case "in the next term or two."
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
After a senator's posts about the Minnesota shootings, his incensed colleagues refused to let it go
WASHINGTON (AP) — Mike Lee has in recent years become one of the Senate's most prolific social media posters, his presence seen in thousands of posts, often late at night, about politics. Fellow senators have grown accustomed to the Utah Republican's pugnacious online persona, mostly brushing it off in the name of collegiality. That is, until this past week. His posts, after the June 14 fatal shooting of a Minnesota lawmaker and her husband, incensed Lee's colleagues, particularly senators who were friends with the victims. It all added to the charged atmosphere in the Capitol as lawmakers once more confronted political violence in America. As the Senate convened for the week, Sen. Tina Smith, D-Minn., marched past a crowd of reporters and headed toward the Senate floor: "I can't talk right now, I have to go find Sen. Lee." Smith, whose name was listed in the suspected shooter's notebooks recovered by law enforcement officials, spoke to Lee for several minutes. The next day, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., did the same. By midday Tuesday, Lee had deleted his tweets. 'I would say he seemed surprised to be confronted,' Smith later told reporters. The shooting unfolds On the morning of June 14, Gov. Tim Walz, D-Minn., announced that former state House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, had been shot and killed in their home outside Minneapolis. Another Democratic lawmaker, state Sen. John Hoffman, and his wife, Yvette, were critically injured, in a shooting at their home nearby. The next day, as police searched for the shooter, Lee posted a photo of the alleged shooter with the caption 'Nightmare on Waltz street" — an apparent misspelled attempt to shift blame toward Walz, who was his party's vice presidential nominee in 2024. In a separate post on his personal account, @BasedMikeLee, the senator shared photos of the alleged suspect alongside the caption: 'this is what happens When Marxists don't get their way.' On his official Senate social media account, Lee was 'condemning this senseless violence, and praying for the victims and their families.' A spokesperson for Lee did not respond to a request for comment. The man arrested, Vance Luther Boelter, 57, held deeply religious and politically conservative views. After moving to Minnesota about a decade ago, Boelter volunteered for a position on a state workforce development board, first appointed by then-Gov. Mark Dayton, a Democrat, in 2016, and later by Walz. Boelter has been charged with two counts of murder and two of attempted murder. Lee's online posts draw bipartisan backlash Once a critic of Donald Trump, Lee has since become one of the president's most loyal allies. Lee's online persona is well established, but this year it has become especially prominent: a Salt Lake Tribune analysis found that in the first three months of 2025, Lee averaged nearly 100 posts per day on X. What was different this time was the backlash came not just from Democrats. To Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., Lee's posts were 'insensitive, to say the least, inappropriate, for sure' and 'not even true.' 'I just think whenever you rush to a judgment like this, when your political instincts kick in during a tragedy, you probably should realign some priorities,' Cramer said. Republican state Rep. Nolan West wrote on social media that his respect for Lee had been 'rescinded.' A spokesperson for Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., did not respond to a request for comment. Last Monday night, after Smith's confrontation with Lee, a senior member of her staff sent a pointed message to Lee's office. 'It is important for your office to know how much additional pain you've caused on an unspeakably horrific weekend,' wrote Ed Shelleby, Smith's deputy chief of staff. He added, 'I pray that Senator Lee and your office begin to see the people you work with in this building as colleagues and human beings.' Lee avoided reporters for much of the week, though he did tell them he had deleted the posts after a 'quick' discussion with Klobuchar. Lee has not apologized publicly. "We had a good discussion, and I'm very glad he took it down,' Klobuchar said at a news conference. Tragedy prompts reflection in Congress The uproar came at a tense time for the Senate, which fashions itself as a political institution that values decorum and respect. Senators are under intense pressure to react to the Trump administration's fast-paced agenda and multiple global conflicts. Republicans are in high-stakes negotiations over the party's tax and spending cuts plan. Democrats are anxious about how to confront the administration, especially after federal agents briefly detained Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., at a recent Department of Homeland Security news conference in California. Lawmakers believe it's time to lower the temperature. 'I don't know why Mike took the comments down, but it was the right thing to do,' said Sen. Ben Ray Luján, D-N.M. 'I appreciate my Republican colleagues who were very clear with their observations. And those that spoke up, I want to commend them." He added: 'We just all have to talk to each other. And what I learned from this week is people need to lean on each other more, and just get to know each other more as well."
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump's Approval Rating Underwater in 15 States He Won
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Donald Trump's approval rating is underwater in 15 states he won in 2024, including all seven swing states, according to analysis by The Economist. Why It Matters Trump flew to victory in November, winning the Electoral College in 31 states, and improving his share of the vote in every state but two. But the latest polls signal potential vulnerability for the president. President Donald Trump speaks with reporters upon arriving at Morristown Municipal Airport in Morristown, N.J., Friday, June 20, 2025. President Donald Trump speaks with reporters upon arriving at Morristown Municipal Airport in Morristown, N.J., Friday, June 20, 2025. Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP What To Know In key battlegrounds such as Michigan (-11), Nevada (-12), North Carolina (-8), Wisconsin (-13), Arizona (-12), Pennsylvania (-12), and Georgia (-6), Trump's net approval rating—the percentage of voters who approve of him minus those who disapprove—is firmly negative. These battleground states were pivotal in the 2024 election but now show a troubling decline in Trump's support. Beyond the swing states, Trump is also underwater in other states he carried in 2024, including Texas (-8), Ohio (-6), and Utah (-5). Trump's net approval ratings are also slightly negative in Missouri (-2), Indiana (-3), Florida (-3), Kansas (-4), and Iowa (-4). This means that in 15 states Trump carried in 2024, his net approval rating now stands below zero. Unsurprisingly, Trump's net approval rating is deeply negative in many Democratic-leaning states, reflecting widespread disapproval among voters in these areas. For example, D.C. (-73), California (-31), New York (-24), Maryland (-36), Massachusetts (-36), and Washington (-28) show some of his lowest net approval figures. Even smaller Democratic states such as Rhode Island (-36) and Vermont (-29) exhibit strong opposition. However, Trump retains strong approval in more solidly Republican states, posting positive net ratings in Alabama (+12), Alaska (+10), Arkansas (+25), Kentucky (+9), and South Carolina (+16). Trump's highest overall approval rating is in Arkansas. The drop comes amid a broader downward trend in Trump's approval rating in recent days, fueled by backlash to his "Liberation Day" tariffs, his hardline immigration agenda—including the mistaken deportation of Maryland resident Kilmar Ábrego García to El Salvador—and a wave of ICE raids that have sparked nationwide "No Kings" protests. That includes Newsweek's tracker, which shows Trump's net approval rating at -4 points, with 47 percent approving and 51 percent disapproving. That is down from earlier this month when Trump's net approval rating sat at -2 for more than a week. Other polls have also shown Trump's approval rating trending downwards. The Economist's tracker shows Trump's net approval rating at -12, down from -7 at the start of June. And the latest YouGov/Economist poll, conducted between June 13-16 among 1,512 adults, put Trump's approval rating at 41 percent, down 2 points since last week, with 54 percent disapproving, up 2 points. The latest Morning Consult poll, conducted between June 13-15 among 2,207 registered voters, put Trump's approval rating at 46 percent, down from 47 percent last week, with 52 percent disapproving, up from 51 percent. And in the latest J.L. Partners poll, conducted on June 16-17, Trump's approval held steady at 46 percent. But disapproval was up 11 points to 51 percent since their last poll in February. Approval also held steady in the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll (June 11-16) at 42 percent, but his disapproval rose by 2 points to 54 percent. A HarrisX/Harvard survey, on June 11-12, registered a more noticeable shift as approval slipped to 46 percent, down from 47 percent in May, while disapproval rose to 50 percent from 48 percent. Still, a handful of polls recorded slight gains for Trump, though largely within the margin of error. In the latest Echelon Insights poll (June 17-18) and Fox News poll (June 13-16), Trump approval rating was up 2 points, while disapproval was down by 1 point compared to last month. And in the most recent RMG Rsearch poll, conducted between June 11-19, put his approval rating up one to 53 points, while his disapproval rating remained the same at 46 points. What Happens Next Trump's approval ratings are likely to fluctuate in each state over time.
