u/JeffJacksonNC

This got some press but I thought I'd post here directly because it affects people in Durham.

If you live near Burton Park in Durham, you probably know that the nearby creek has been fenced off.

It runs behind Burton Magnet Elementary, through the park, through the McDougald Terrace neighborhood, and eventually downstream toward Jordan Lake.

Last week, my office filed a lawsuit on behalf of our state's environmental agency against the company responsible for contaminating that creek: Brenntag Mid-South, a chemical distributor.

Here's the situation:

This started with a highly detailed anonymous tip to the Department of Environmental Quality back in April 2025 - chemical leaks, chemical dumping, and bad storage practices at the facility.

When DEQ went out to look, they found exactly that. Leaking drums and tanks, contaminated groundwater pooling around the site, and contaminants flowing off the property into the creek.

Then they tested the water. In the creek, acetone and ethanol came back well above the state limit. Testing at the site also found benzene, TCE, and 1,4-dioxane in the groundwater, all regulated because they're harmful at elevated levels.

Brenntag says the contamination is old, from previous owners of the site.

But under the law, Brenntag is responsible for keeping contaminants from leaving its property, no matter when the pollution started - and they've had every chance to fix it.

The City of Durham has been on this for years. It already issued a no-discharge order and fined the company $157,000.

Brenntag has had plenty of time. They didn't use it.

Our lawsuit says Brenntag is currently in violation of several state laws and asks the court to order the company to do two things:

First, stop the discharge.

Second, clean up the damage they've already done.

I know people are going to wonder if their drinking water is safe. Durham's tap water comes from Lake Michie and the Little River Reservoir, both north of the city, not from this creek. The creek does flow downstream toward Jordan Lake, which is a regional drinking water source, but officials don't believe anyone's drinking water is unsafe right now.

The creek itself is fenced off for a reason, though. If you're near Burton Park, please keep kids and pets out of it.

That's the latest. I'll keep you posted as the case moves forward.

- AG Jeff Jackson

If you live near Burton Park in Durham, you probably know that the nearby creek has been fenced off.

It runs behind Burton Magnet Elementary, through the park, through the McDougald Terrace neighborhood, and eventually downstream toward Jordan Lake.

Last week, my office filed a lawsuit on behalf of our state's environmental agency against the company responsible for contaminating that creek: Brenntag Mid-South, a chemical distributor.

Here's the situation:

This started with a highly detailed anonymous tip to the Department of Environmental Quality back in April 2025 - chemical leaks, chemical dumping, and bad storage practices at the facility.

When DEQ went out to look, they found exactly that. Leaking drums and tanks, contaminated groundwater pooling around the site, and contaminants flowing off the property into the creek.

Then they tested the water. In the creek, acetone and ethanol came back well above the state limit. Testing at the site also found benzene, TCE, and 1,4-dioxane in the groundwater, all regulated because they're harmful at elevated levels.

Brenntag says the contamination is old, from previous owners of the site.

But under the law, Brenntag is responsible for keeping contaminants from leaving its property, no matter when the pollution started - and they've had every chance to fix it.

The City of Durham has been on this for years. It already issued a no-discharge order and fined the company $157,000.

Brenntag has had plenty of time. They didn't use it.

Our lawsuit says Brenntag is currently in violation of several state laws and asks the court to order the company to do two things:

First, stop the discharge.

Second, clean up the damage they've already done.

I know people are going to wonder if their drinking water is safe. Durham's tap water comes from Lake Michie and the Little River Reservoir, both north of the city, not from this creek. The creek does flow downstream toward Jordan Lake, which is a regional drinking water source, but officials don't believe anyone's drinking water is unsafe right now.

The creek itself is fenced off for a reason, though. If you're near Burton Park, please keep kids and pets out of it.

That's the latest. I'll keep you posted as the case moves forward.

- AG Jeff Jackson

If you live near Burton Park in Durham, you probably know that the nearby creek has been fenced off.

It runs behind Burton Magnet Elementary, through the park, through the McDougald Terrace neighborhood, and eventually downstream toward Jordan Lake.

Last week, my office filed a lawsuit on behalf of our state's environmental agency against the company responsible for contaminating that creek: Brenntag Mid-South, a chemical distributor.

Here's the situation:

This started with a highly detailed anonymous tip to the Department of Environmental Quality back in April 2025 - chemical leaks, chemical dumping, and bad storage practices at the facility.

When DEQ went out to look, they found exactly that. Leaking drums and tanks, contaminated groundwater pooling around the site, and contaminants flowing off the property into the creek.

Then they tested the water. In the creek, acetone and ethanol came back well above the state limit. Testing at the site also found benzene, TCE, and 1,4-dioxane in the groundwater, all regulated because they're harmful at elevated levels.

Brenntag says the contamination is old, from previous owners of the site.

But under the law, Brenntag is responsible for keeping contaminants from leaving its property, no matter when the pollution started - and they've had every chance to fix it.

The City of Durham has been on this for years. It already issued a no-discharge order and fined the company $157,000.

Brenntag has had plenty of time. They didn't use it.

Our lawsuit says Brenntag is currently in violation of several state laws and asks the court to order the company to do two things:

First, stop the discharge.

Second, clean up the damage they've already done.

I know people are going to wonder if their drinking water is safe. Durham's tap water comes from Lake Michie and the Little River Reservoir, both north of the city, not from this creek. The creek does flow downstream toward Jordan Lake, which is a regional drinking water source, but officials don't believe anyone's drinking water is unsafe right now.

The creek itself is fenced off for a reason, though. If you're near Burton Park, please keep kids and pets out of it.

That's the latest. I'll keep you posted as the case moves forward.

- AG Jeff Jackson

This got some press but I thought I'd post here directly because it affects people in Durham.

If you live near Burton Park in Durham, you probably know that the nearby creek has been fenced off.

It runs behind Burton Magnet Elementary, through the park, through the McDougald Terrace neighborhood, and eventually downstream toward Jordan Lake.

Last week, my office filed a lawsuit on behalf of our state's environmental agency against the company responsible for contaminating that creek: Brenntag Mid-South, a chemical distributor.

Here's the situation:

This started with a highly detailed anonymous tip to the Department of Environmental Quality back in April 2025 - chemical leaks, chemical dumping, and bad storage practices at the facility.

When DEQ went out to look, they found exactly that. Leaking drums and tanks, contaminated groundwater pooling around the site, and contaminants flowing off the property into the creek.

Then they tested the water. In the creek, acetone and ethanol came back well above the state limit. Testing at the site also found benzene, TCE, and 1,4-dioxane in the groundwater, all regulated because they're harmful at elevated levels.

Brenntag says the contamination is old, from previous owners of the site.

But under the law, Brenntag is responsible for keeping contaminants from leaving its property, no matter when the pollution started - and they've had every chance to fix it.

The City of Durham has been on this for years. It already issued a no-discharge order and fined the company $157,000.

Brenntag has had plenty of time. They didn't use it.

Our lawsuit says Brenntag is currently in violation of several state laws and asks the court to order the company to do two things:

First, stop the discharge.

Second, clean up the damage they've already done.

I know people are going to wonder if their drinking water is safe. Durham's tap water comes from Lake Michie and the Little River Reservoir, both north of the city, not from this creek. The creek does flow downstream toward Jordan Lake, which is a regional drinking water source, but officials don't believe anyone's drinking water is unsafe right now.

The creek itself is fenced off for a reason, though. If you're near Burton Park, please keep kids and pets out of it.

That's the latest. I'll keep you posted as the case moves forward.

- AG Jeff Jackson

This got some press but I thought I'd post here directly because it affects people in Durham.

If you live near Burton Park in Durham, you probably know that the nearby creek has been fenced off.

It runs behind Burton Magnet Elementary, through the park, through the McDougald Terrace neighborhood, and eventually downstream toward Jordan Lake.

Last week, my office filed a lawsuit on behalf of our state's environmental agency against the company responsible for contaminating that creek: Brenntag Mid-South, a chemical distributor.

Here's the situation:

This started with a highly detailed anonymous tip to the Department of Environmental Quality back in April 2025 - chemical leaks, chemical dumping, and bad storage practices at the facility.

When DEQ went out to look, they found exactly that. Leaking drums and tanks, contaminated groundwater pooling around the site, and contaminants flowing off the property into the creek.

Then they tested the water. In the creek, acetone and ethanol came back well above the state limit. Testing at the site also found benzene, TCE, and 1,4-dioxane in the groundwater, all regulated because they're harmful at elevated levels.

Brenntag says the contamination is old, from previous owners of the site.

But under the law, Brenntag is responsible for keeping contaminants from leaving its property, no matter when the pollution started - and they've had every chance to fix it.

The City of Durham has been on this for years. It already issued a no-discharge order and fined the company $157,000.

Brenntag has had plenty of time. They didn't use it.

Our lawsuit says Brenntag is currently in violation of several state laws and asks the court to order the company to do two things:

First, stop the discharge.

Second, clean up the damage they've already done.

I know people are going to wonder if their drinking water is safe. Durham's tap water comes from Lake Michie and the Little River Reservoir, both north of the city, not from this creek. The creek does flow downstream toward Jordan Lake, which is a regional drinking water source, but officials don't believe anyone's drinking water is unsafe right now.

The creek itself is fenced off for a reason, though. If you're near Burton Park, please keep kids and pets out of it.

That's the latest. I'll keep you posted as the case moves forward.

- AG Jeff Jackson

Lots of interest in my last post, so here’s some more detail:

• Duke Energy Carolinas - which serves mainly central and western NC - is asking permission to raise rates by about 15%, to begin early next year. (Note: Duke Energy Progress serves mainly eastern NC.)
• It has to ask permission because it’s a monopoly. That’s how our state law is written. Duke gets to be a monopoly, but the check on their power is that rates are set by our Utilities Commission.
• The Commission has five members. Two are appointed by the Governor, one by the State Treasurer, and two on the recommendations of the Speaker of the House and the Senate President Pro Tempore. All must be confirmed by the General Assembly. 
• Our law says rates must be "fair both to the public utilities and to the consumer." It uses a rough formula that takes into account the value of the utility’s property, its expenses, its revenue, and a “fair return for its shareholders.”
• What constitutes a “fair return for its shareholders” is open to debate, but our law goes into some detail: “[E]nable the public utility by sound management to produce a fair return for its shareholders, considering changing economic conditions…, to maintain its facilities and services in accordance with the reasonable requirements of its customers in the territory covered by its franchise, and to compete in the market for capital funds on terms that are reasonable and that are fair to its customers and to its existing investors.”
• Currently, the Commission has set Duke Energy Carolinas rate of return for shareholders at 10.1%. At that rate, DEC brought in over $2b in net income last year.
• Part of Duke’s new request is to increase its shareholder return to 10.95%. 
• Our request is to lower its shareholder return to 7.4%. Our review shows this is sufficient for Duke to meet its needs to invest in the build-out that energy demand requires. Our number would also save affected NC families a couple hundred dollars a year.
• Finally, on data centers: the framework utilities have used for 100 years wasn't built for single customers that show up needing hundreds of megawatts at once. The core question is who pays when one giant customer requires major new generation and transmission. Our position is that families and small businesses shouldn't be the backstop for those costs. So we've asked for very large users, like data centers, to have their own rate class, with protections built around how much energy they use. Things like: sign a long-term contract, at least 15 years, so they can't trigger a huge buildout and then leave town; put money down up front, like a deposit, in case the project falls through; cover the costs if they exit early instead of handing them to you; create an option for these customers to build their own generation; and power down when the grid is stretched during peak demand period, including weather emergencies.

The process going forward involves hearings before the Utilities Commission. They begin July 7th, then the parties file briefs and the Commission issues its decision, which we expect later this year.

We’ve submitted 700 pages worth of testimony, so we’re making a highly detailed case.

That’s a quick summary. I’ll keep you posted.

AG Jeff Jackson

Lots of interest in my last post, so here’s some more detail:

• Duke Energy Carolinas - which serves mainly central and western NC - is asking permission to raise rates by about 15%, to begin early next year. (Note: Duke Energy Progress serves mainly eastern NC.)
• It has to ask permission because it’s a monopoly. That’s how our state law is written. Duke gets to be a monopoly, but the check on their power is that rates are set by our Utilities Commission.
• The Commission has five members. Two are appointed by the Governor, one by the State Treasurer, and two on the recommendations of the Speaker of the House and the Senate President Pro Tempore. All must be confirmed by the General Assembly. 
• Our law says rates must be "fair both to the public utilities and to the consumer." It uses a rough formula that takes into account the value of the utility’s property, its expenses, its revenue, and a “fair return for its shareholders.”
• What constitutes a “fair return for its shareholders” is open to debate, but our law goes into some detail: “[E]nable the public utility by sound management to produce a fair return for its shareholders, considering changing economic conditions…, to maintain its facilities and services in accordance with the reasonable requirements of its customers in the territory covered by its franchise, and to compete in the market for capital funds on terms that are reasonable and that are fair to its customers and to its existing investors.”
• Currently, the Commission has set Duke Energy Carolinas rate of return for shareholders at 10.1%. At that rate, DEC brought in over $2b in net income last year.
• Part of Duke’s new request is to increase its shareholder return to 10.95%. 
• Our request is to lower its shareholder return to 7.4%. Our review shows this is sufficient for Duke to meet its needs to invest in the build-out that energy demand requires. Our number would also save affected NC families a couple hundred dollars a year.
• Finally, on data centers: the framework utilities have used for 100 years wasn't built for single customers that show up needing hundreds of megawatts at once. The core question is who pays when one giant customer requires major new generation and transmission. Our position is that families and small businesses shouldn't be the backstop for those costs. So we've asked for very large users, like data centers, to have their own rate class, with protections built around how much energy they use. Things like: sign a long-term contract, at least 15 years, so they can't trigger a huge buildout and then leave town; put money down up front, like a deposit, in case the project falls through; cover the costs if they exit early instead of handing them to you; create an option for these customers to build their own generation; and power down when the grid is stretched during peak demand period, including weather emergencies.

The process going forward involves hearings before the Utilities Commission. They begin July 7th, then the parties file briefs and the Commission issues its decision, which we expect later this year.

We’ve submitted 700 pages worth of testimony, so we’re making a highly detailed case.

That’s a quick summary. I’ll keep you posted.

AG Jeff Jackson

Lots of interest in my last post, so here’s some more detail:

• Duke Energy Carolinas - which serves mainly central and western NC - is asking permission to raise rates by about 15%, to begin early next year. (Note: Duke Energy Progress serves mainly eastern NC.)
• It has to ask permission because it’s a monopoly. That’s how our state law is written. Duke gets to be a monopoly, but the check on their power is that rates are set by our Utilities Commission.
• The Commission has five members. Two are appointed by the Governor, one by the State Treasurer, and two on the recommendations of the Speaker of the House and the Senate President Pro Tempore. All must be confirmed by the General Assembly. 
• Our law says rates must be "fair both to the public utilities and to the consumer." It uses a rough formula that takes into account the value of the utility’s property, its expenses, its revenue, and a “fair return for its shareholders.”
• What constitutes a “fair return for its shareholders” is open to debate, but our law goes into some detail: “[E]nable the public utility by sound management to produce a fair return for its shareholders, considering changing economic conditions…, to maintain its facilities and services in accordance with the reasonable requirements of its customers in the territory covered by its franchise, and to compete in the market for capital funds on terms that are reasonable and that are fair to its customers and to its existing investors.”
• Currently, the Commission has set Duke Energy Carolinas rate of return for shareholders at 10.1%. At that rate, DEC brought in over $2b in net income last year.
• Part of Duke’s new request is to increase its shareholder return to 10.95%. 
• Our request is to lower its shareholder return to 7.4%. Our review shows this is sufficient for Duke to meet its needs to invest in the build-out that energy demand requires. Our number would also save affected NC families a couple hundred dollars a year.
• Finally, on data centers: the framework utilities have used for 100 years wasn't built for single customers that show up needing hundreds of megawatts at once. The core question is who pays when one giant customer requires major new generation and transmission. Our position is that families and small businesses shouldn't be the backstop for those costs. So we've asked for very large users, like data centers, to have their own rate class, with protections built around how much energy they use. Things like: sign a long-term contract, at least 15 years, so they can't trigger a huge buildout and then leave town; put money down up front, like a deposit, in case the project falls through; cover the costs if they exit early instead of handing them to you; create an option for these customers to build their own generation; and power down when the grid is stretched during peak demand period, including weather emergencies.

The process going forward involves hearings before the Utilities Commission. They begin July 7th, then the parties file briefs and the Commission issues its decision, which we expect later this year.

We’ve submitted 700 pages worth of testimony, so we’re making a highly detailed case.

That’s a quick summary. I’ll keep you posted.

AG Jeff Jackson

Lots of interest in my last post, so here’s some more detail:

• Duke Energy Carolinas - which serves mainly central and western NC - is asking permission to raise rates by about 15%, to begin early next year. (Note: Duke Energy Progress serves mainly eastern NC.)
• It has to ask permission because it’s a monopoly. That’s how our state law is written. Duke gets to be a monopoly, but the check on their power is that rates are set by our Utilities Commission.
• The Commission has five members. Two are appointed by the Governor, one by the State Treasurer, and two on the recommendations of the Speaker of the House and the Senate President Pro Tempore. All must be confirmed by the General Assembly. 
• Our law says rates must be "fair both to the public utilities and to the consumer." It uses a rough formula that takes into account the value of the utility’s property, its expenses, its revenue, and a “fair return for its shareholders.”
• What constitutes a “fair return for its shareholders” is open to debate, but our law goes into some detail: “[E]nable the public utility by sound management to produce a fair return for its shareholders, considering changing economic conditions…, to maintain its facilities and services in accordance with the reasonable requirements of its customers in the territory covered by its franchise, and to compete in the market for capital funds on terms that are reasonable and that are fair to its customers and to its existing investors.”
• Currently, the Commission has set Duke Energy Carolinas rate of return for shareholders at 10.1%. At that rate, DEC brought in over $2b in net income last year.
• Part of Duke’s new request is to increase its shareholder return to 10.95%. 
• Our request is to lower its shareholder return to 7.4%. Our review shows this is sufficient for Duke to meet its needs to invest in the build-out that energy demand requires. Our number would also save affected NC families a couple hundred dollars a year.
• Finally, on data centers: the framework utilities have used for 100 years wasn't built for single customers that show up needing hundreds of megawatts at once. The core question is who pays when one giant customer requires major new generation and transmission. Our position is that families and small businesses shouldn't be the backstop for those costs. So we've asked for very large users, like data centers, to have their own rate class, with protections built around how much energy they use. Things like: sign a long-term contract, at least 15 years, so they can't trigger a huge buildout and then leave town; put money down up front, like a deposit, in case the project falls through; cover the costs if they exit early instead of handing them to you; create an option for these customers to build their own generation; and power down when the grid is stretched during peak demand period, including weather emergencies.

The process going forward involves hearings before the Utilities Commission. They begin July 7th, then the parties file briefs and the Commission issues its decision, which we expect later this year.

We’ve submitted 700 pages worth of testimony, so we’re making a highly detailed case.

That’s a quick summary. I’ll keep you posted.

AG Jeff Jackson

Lots of interest in my last post, so here’s some more detail:

• Duke Energy Carolinas - which serves mainly central and western NC - is asking permission to raise rates by about 15%, to begin early next year. (Note: Duke Energy Progress serves mainly eastern NC.)
• It has to ask permission because it’s a monopoly. That’s how our state law is written. Duke gets to be a monopoly, but the check on their power is that rates are set by our Utilities Commission.
• The Commission has five members. Two are appointed by the Governor, one by the State Treasurer, and two on the recommendations of the Speaker of the House and the Senate President Pro Tempore. All must be confirmed by the General Assembly. 
• Our law says rates must be "fair both to the public utilities and to the consumer." It uses a rough formula that takes into account the value of the utility’s property, its expenses, its revenue, and a “fair return for its shareholders.”
• What constitutes a “fair return for its shareholders” is open to debate, but our law goes into some detail: “[E]nable the public utility by sound management to produce a fair return for its shareholders, considering changing economic conditions…, to maintain its facilities and services in accordance with the reasonable requirements of its customers in the territory covered by its franchise, and to compete in the market for capital funds on terms that are reasonable and that are fair to its customers and to its existing investors.”
• Currently, the Commission has set Duke Energy Carolinas rate of return for shareholders at 10.1%. At that rate, DEC brought in over $2b in net income last year.
• Part of Duke’s new request is to increase its shareholder return to 10.95%. 
• Our request is to lower its shareholder return to 7.4%. Our review shows this is sufficient for Duke to meet its needs to invest in the build-out that energy demand requires. Our number would also save affected NC families a couple hundred dollars a year.
• Finally, on data centers: the framework utilities have used for 100 years wasn't built for single customers that show up needing hundreds of megawatts at once. The core question is who pays when one giant customer requires major new generation and transmission. Our position is that families and small businesses shouldn't be the backstop for those costs. So we've asked for very large users, like data centers, to have their own rate class, with protections built around how much energy they use. Things like: sign a long-term contract, at least 15 years, so they can't trigger a huge buildout and then leave town; put money down up front, like a deposit, in case the project falls through; cover the costs if they exit early instead of handing them to you; create an option for these customers to build their own generation; and power down when the grid is stretched during peak demand period, including weather emergencies.

The process going forward involves hearings before the Utilities Commission. They begin July 7th, then the parties file briefs and the Commission issues its decision, which we expect later this year.

We’ve submitted 700 pages worth of testimony, so we’re making a highly detailed case.

That’s a quick summary. I’ll keep you posted.

AG Jeff Jackson

Lots of interest in my last post, so here’s some more detail:

• Duke Energy Carolinas - which serves mainly central and western NC - is asking permission to raise rates by about 15%, to begin early next year. (Note: Duke Energy Progress serves mainly eastern NC.)
• It has to ask permission because it’s a monopoly. That’s how our state law is written. Duke gets to be a monopoly, but the check on their power is that rates are set by our Utilities Commission.
• The Commission has five members. Two are appointed by the Governor, one by the State Treasurer, and two on the recommendations of the Speaker of the House and the Senate President Pro Tempore. All must be confirmed by the General Assembly. 
• Our law says rates must be "fair both to the public utilities and to the consumer." It uses a rough formula that takes into account the value of the utility’s property, its expenses, its revenue, and a “fair return for its shareholders.”
• What constitutes a “fair return for its shareholders” is open to debate, but our law goes into some detail: “[E]nable the public utility by sound management to produce a fair return for its shareholders, considering changing economic conditions…, to maintain its facilities and services in accordance with the reasonable requirements of its customers in the territory covered by its franchise, and to compete in the market for capital funds on terms that are reasonable and that are fair to its customers and to its existing investors.”
• Currently, the Commission has set Duke Energy Carolinas rate of return for shareholders at 10.1%. At that rate, DEC brought in over $2b in net income last year.
• Part of Duke’s new request is to increase its shareholder return to 10.95%. 
• Our request is to lower its shareholder return to 7.4%. Our review shows this is sufficient for Duke to meet its needs to invest in the build-out that energy demand requires. Our number would also save affected NC families a couple hundred dollars a year.
• Finally, on data centers: the framework utilities have used for 100 years wasn't built for single customers that show up needing hundreds of megawatts at once. The core question is who pays when one giant customer requires major new generation and transmission. Our position is that families and small businesses shouldn't be the backstop for those costs. So we've asked for very large users, like data centers, to have their own rate class, with protections built around how much energy they use. Things like: sign a long-term contract, at least 15 years, so they can't trigger a huge buildout and then leave town; put money down up front, like a deposit, in case the project falls through; cover the costs if they exit early instead of handing them to you; create an option for these customers to build their own generation; and power down when the grid is stretched during peak demand period, including weather emergencies.

The process going forward involves hearings before the Utilities Commission. They begin July 7th, then the parties file briefs and the Commission issues its decision, which we expect later this year.

We’ve submitted 700 pages worth of testimony, so we’re making a highly detailed case.

That’s a quick summary. I’ll keep you posted.

AG Jeff Jackson

Lots of interest in my last post, so here’s some more detail:

• Duke Energy Carolinas - which serves mainly central and western NC - is asking permission to raise rates by about 15%, to begin early next year. (Note: Duke Energy Progress serves mainly eastern NC.)
• It has to ask permission because it’s a monopoly. That’s how our state law is written. Duke gets to be a monopoly, but the check on their power is that rates are set by our Utilities Commission.
• The Commission has five members. Two are appointed by the Governor, one by the State Treasurer, and two on the recommendations of the Speaker of the House and the Senate President Pro Tempore. All must be confirmed by the General Assembly. 
• Our law says rates must be "fair both to the public utilities and to the consumer." It uses a rough formula that takes into account the value of the utility’s property, its expenses, its revenue, and a “fair return for its shareholders.”
• What constitutes a “fair return for its shareholders” is open to debate, but our law goes into some detail: “[E]nable the public utility by sound management to produce a fair return for its shareholders, considering changing economic conditions…, to maintain its facilities and services in accordance with the reasonable requirements of its customers in the territory covered by its franchise, and to compete in the market for capital funds on terms that are reasonable and that are fair to its customers and to its existing investors.”
• Currently, the Commission has set Duke Energy Carolinas rate of return for shareholders at 10.1%. At that rate, DEC brought in over $2b in net income last year.
• Part of Duke’s new request is to increase its shareholder return to 10.95%. 
• Our request is to lower its shareholder return to 7.4%. Our review shows this is sufficient for Duke to meet its needs to invest in the build-out that energy demand requires. Our number would also save affected NC families a couple hundred dollars a year.
• Finally, on data centers: the framework utilities have used for 100 years wasn't built for single customers that show up needing hundreds of megawatts at once. The core question is who pays when one giant customer requires major new generation and transmission. Our position is that families and small businesses shouldn't be the backstop for those costs. So we've asked for very large users, like data centers, to have their own rate class, with protections built around how much energy they use. Things like: sign a long-term contract, at least 15 years, so they can't trigger a huge buildout and then leave town; put money down up front, like a deposit, in case the project falls through; cover the costs if they exit early instead of handing them to you; create an option for these customers to build their own generation; and power down when the grid is stretched during peak demand period, including weather emergencies.

The process going forward involves hearings before the Utilities Commission. They begin July 7th, then the parties file briefs and the Commission issues its decision, which we expect later this year.

We’ve submitted 700 pages worth of testimony, so we’re making a highly detailed case.

That’s a quick summary. I’ll keep you posted.

AG Jeff Jackson

Lots of interest in my last post, so here’s some more detail:

• Duke Energy Carolinas - which serves mainly central and western NC - is asking permission to raise rates by about 15%, to begin early next year. (Note: Duke Energy Progress serves mainly eastern NC.)
• It has to ask permission because it’s a monopoly. That’s how our state law is written. Duke gets to be a monopoly, but the check on their power is that rates are set by our Utilities Commission.
• The Commission has five members. Two are appointed by the Governor, one by the State Treasurer, and two on the recommendations of the Speaker of the House and the Senate President Pro Tempore. All must be confirmed by the General Assembly. 
• Our law says rates must be "fair both to the public utilities and to the consumer." It uses a rough formula that takes into account the value of the utility’s property, its expenses, its revenue, and a “fair return for its shareholders.”
• What constitutes a “fair return for its shareholders” is open to debate, but our law goes into some detail: “[E]nable the public utility by sound management to produce a fair return for its shareholders, considering changing economic conditions…, to maintain its facilities and services in accordance with the reasonable requirements of its customers in the territory covered by its franchise, and to compete in the market for capital funds on terms that are reasonable and that are fair to its customers and to its existing investors.”
• Currently, the Commission has set Duke Energy Carolinas rate of return for shareholders at 10.1%. At that rate, DEC brought in over $2b in net income last year.
• Part of Duke’s new request is to increase its shareholder return to 10.95%. 
• Our request is to lower its shareholder return to 7.4%. Our review shows this is sufficient for Duke to meet its needs to invest in the build-out that energy demand requires. Our number would also save affected NC families a couple hundred dollars a year.
• Finally, on data centers: the framework utilities have used for 100 years wasn't built for single customers that show up needing hundreds of megawatts at once. The core question is who pays when one giant customer requires major new generation and transmission. Our position is that families and small businesses shouldn't be the backstop for those costs. So we've asked for very large users, like data centers, to have their own rate class, with protections built around how much energy they use. Things like: sign a long-term contract, at least 15 years, so they can't trigger a huge buildout and then leave town; put money down up front, like a deposit, in case the project falls through; cover the costs if they exit early instead of handing them to you; create an option for these customers to build their own generation; and power down when the grid is stretched during peak demand period, including weather emergencies.

The process going forward involves hearings before the Utilities Commission. They begin July 7th, then the parties file briefs and the Commission issues its decision, which we expect later this year.

We’ve submitted 700 pages worth of testimony, so we’re making a highly detailed case.

That’s a quick summary. I’ll keep you posted.

AG Jeff Jackson

Lots of interest in my last post, so here’s some more detail:

• Duke Energy Carolinas - which serves mainly central and western NC - is asking permission to raise rates by about 15%, to begin early next year. (Note: Duke Energy Progress serves mainly eastern NC.)
• It has to ask permission because it’s a monopoly. That’s how our state law is written. Duke gets to be a monopoly, but the check on their power is that rates are set by our Utilities Commission.
• The Commission has five members. Two are appointed by the Governor, one by the State Treasurer, and two on the recommendations of the Speaker of the House and the Senate President Pro Tempore. All must be confirmed by the General Assembly. 
• Our law says rates must be "fair both to the public utilities and to the consumer." It uses a rough formula that takes into account the value of the utility’s property, its expenses, its revenue, and a “fair return for its shareholders.”
• What constitutes a “fair return for its shareholders” is open to debate, but our law goes into some detail: “[E]nable the public utility by sound management to produce a fair return for its shareholders, considering changing economic conditions…, to maintain its facilities and services in accordance with the reasonable requirements of its customers in the territory covered by its franchise, and to compete in the market for capital funds on terms that are reasonable and that are fair to its customers and to its existing investors.”
• Currently, the Commission has set Duke Energy Carolinas rate of return for shareholders at 10.1%. At that rate, DEC brought in over $2b in net income last year.
• Part of Duke’s new request is to increase its shareholder return to 10.95%. 
• Our request is to lower its shareholder return to 7.4%. Our review shows this is sufficient for Duke to meet its needs to invest in the build-out that energy demand requires. Our number would also save affected NC families a couple hundred dollars a year.
• Finally, on data centers: the framework utilities have used for 100 years wasn't built for single customers that show up needing hundreds of megawatts at once. The core question is who pays when one giant customer requires major new generation and transmission. Our position is that families and small businesses shouldn't be the backstop for those costs. So we've asked for very large users, like data centers, to have their own rate class, with protections built around how much energy they use. Things like: sign a long-term contract, at least 15 years, so they can't trigger a huge buildout and then leave town; put money down up front, like a deposit, in case the project falls through; cover the costs if they exit early instead of handing them to you; create an option for these customers to build their own generation; and power down when the grid is stretched during peak demand period, including weather emergencies.

The process going forward involves hearings before the Utilities Commission. They begin July 7th, then the parties file briefs and the Commission issues its decision, which we expect later this year.

We’ve submitted 700 pages worth of testimony, so we’re making a highly detailed case.

That’s a quick summary. I’ll keep you posted.

AG Jeff Jackson

Lots of interest in my last post, so here’s some more detail:

• Duke Energy Carolinas - which serves mainly central and western NC - is asking permission to raise rates by about 15%, to begin early next year. (Note: Duke Energy Progress serves mainly eastern NC.)
• It has to ask permission because it’s a monopoly. That’s how our state law is written. Duke gets to be a monopoly, but the check on their power is that rates are set by our Utilities Commission.
• The Commission has five members. Two are appointed by the Governor, one by the State Treasurer, and two on the recommendations of the Speaker of the House and the Senate President Pro Tempore. All must be confirmed by the General Assembly. 
• Our law says rates must be "fair both to the public utilities and to the consumer." It uses a rough formula that takes into account the value of the utility’s property, its expenses, its revenue, and a “fair return for its shareholders.”
• What constitutes a “fair return for its shareholders” is open to debate, but our law goes into some detail: “[E]nable the public utility by sound management to produce a fair return for its shareholders, considering changing economic conditions…, to maintain its facilities and services in accordance with the reasonable requirements of its customers in the territory covered by its franchise, and to compete in the market for capital funds on terms that are reasonable and that are fair to its customers and to its existing investors.”
• Currently, the Commission has set Duke Energy Carolinas rate of return for shareholders at 10.1%. At that rate, DEC brought in over $2b in net income last year.
• Part of Duke’s new request is to increase its shareholder return to 10.95%. 
• Our request is to lower its shareholder return to 7.4%. Our review shows this is sufficient for Duke to meet its needs to invest in the build-out that energy demand requires. Our number would also save affected NC families a couple hundred dollars a year.
• Finally, on data centers: the framework utilities have used for 100 years wasn't built for single customers that show up needing hundreds of megawatts at once. The core question is who pays when one giant customer requires major new generation and transmission. Our position is that families and small businesses shouldn't be the backstop for those costs. So we've asked for very large users, like data centers, to have their own rate class, with protections built around how much energy they use. Things like: sign a long-term contract, at least 15 years, so they can't trigger a huge buildout and then leave town; put money down up front, like a deposit, in case the project falls through; cover the costs if they exit early instead of handing them to you; create an option for these customers to build their own generation; and power down when the grid is stretched during peak demand period, including weather emergencies.

The process going forward involves hearings before the Utilities Commission. They begin July 7th, then the parties file briefs and the Commission issues its decision, which we expect later this year.

We’ve submitted 700 pages worth of testimony, so we’re making a highly detailed case.

That’s a quick summary. I’ll keep you posted.

AG Jeff Jackson

Lots of interest in my last post, so here’s some more detail:

• Duke Energy Carolinas - which serves mainly central and western NC - is asking permission to raise rates by about 15%, to begin early next year. (Note: Duke Energy Progress serves mainly eastern NC.)
• It has to ask permission because it’s a monopoly. That’s how our state law is written. Duke gets to be a monopoly, but the check on their power is that rates are set by our Utilities Commission.
• The Commission has five members. Two are appointed by the Governor, one by the State Treasurer, and two on the recommendations of the Speaker of the House and the Senate President Pro Tempore. All must be confirmed by the General Assembly. 
• Our law says rates must be "fair both to the public utilities and to the consumer." It uses a rough formula that takes into account the value of the utility’s property, its expenses, its revenue, and a “fair return for its shareholders.”
• What constitutes a “fair return for its shareholders” is open to debate, but our law goes into some detail: “[E]nable the public utility by sound management to produce a fair return for its shareholders, considering changing economic conditions…, to maintain its facilities and services in accordance with the reasonable requirements of its customers in the territory covered by its franchise, and to compete in the market for capital funds on terms that are reasonable and that are fair to its customers and to its existing investors.”
• Currently, the Commission has set Duke Energy Carolinas rate of return for shareholders at 10.1%. At that rate, DEC brought in over $2b in net income last year.
• Part of Duke’s new request is to increase its shareholder return to 10.95%. 
• Our request is to lower its shareholder return to 7.4%. Our review shows this is sufficient for Duke to meet its needs to invest in the build-out that energy demand requires. Our number would also save affected NC families a couple hundred dollars a year.
• Finally, on data centers: the framework utilities have used for 100 years wasn't built for single customers that show up needing hundreds of megawatts at once. The core question is who pays when one giant customer requires major new generation and transmission. Our position is that families and small businesses shouldn't be the backstop for those costs. So we've asked for very large users, like data centers, to have their own rate class, with protections built around how much energy they use. Things like: sign a long-term contract, at least 15 years, so they can't trigger a huge buildout and then leave town; put money down up front, like a deposit, in case the project falls through; cover the costs if they exit early instead of handing them to you; create an option for these customers to build their own generation; and power down when the grid is stretched during peak demand period, including weather emergencies.

The process going forward involves hearings before the Utilities Commission. They begin July 7th, then the parties file briefs and the Commission issues its decision, which we expect later this year.

We’ve submitted 700 pages worth of testimony, so we’re making a highly detailed case.

That’s a quick summary. I’ll keep you posted.

AG Jeff Jackson

Lots of interest in my last post, so here’s some more detail:

• Duke Energy Carolinas - which serves mainly central and western NC - is asking permission to raise rates by about 15%, to begin early next year. (Note: Duke Energy Progress serves mainly eastern NC.)
• It has to ask permission because it’s a monopoly. That’s how our state law is written. Duke gets to be a monopoly, but the check on their power is that rates are set by our Utilities Commission.
• The Commission has five members. Two are appointed by the Governor, one by the State Treasurer, and two on the recommendations of the Speaker of the House and the Senate President Pro Tempore. All must be confirmed by the General Assembly. 
• Our law says rates must be "fair both to the public utilities and to the consumer." It uses a rough formula that takes into account the value of the utility’s property, its expenses, its revenue, and a “fair return for its shareholders.”
• What constitutes a “fair return for its shareholders” is open to debate, but our law goes into some detail: “[E]nable the public utility by sound management to produce a fair return for its shareholders, considering changing economic conditions…, to maintain its facilities and services in accordance with the reasonable requirements of its customers in the territory covered by its franchise, and to compete in the market for capital funds on terms that are reasonable and that are fair to its customers and to its existing investors.”
• Currently, the Commission has set Duke Energy Carolinas rate of return for shareholders at 10.1%. At that rate, DEC brought in over $2b in net income last year.
• Part of Duke’s new request is to increase its shareholder return to 10.95%. 
• Our request is to lower its shareholder return to 7.4%. Our review shows this is sufficient for Duke to meet its needs to invest in the build-out that energy demand requires. Our number would also save affected NC families a couple hundred dollars a year.
• Finally, on data centers: the framework utilities have used for 100 years wasn't built for single customers that show up needing hundreds of megawatts at once. The core question is who pays when one giant customer requires major new generation and transmission. Our position is that families and small businesses shouldn't be the backstop for those costs. So we've asked for very large users, like data centers, to have their own rate class, with protections built around how much energy they use. Things like: sign a long-term contract, at least 15 years, so they can't trigger a huge buildout and then leave town; put money down up front, like a deposit, in case the project falls through; cover the costs if they exit early instead of handing them to you; create an option for these customers to build their own generation; and power down when the grid is stretched during peak demand period, including weather emergencies.

The process going forward involves hearings before the Utilities Commission. They begin July 7th, then the parties file briefs and the Commission issues its decision, which we expect later this year.

We’ve submitted 700 pages worth of testimony, so we’re making a highly detailed case.

That’s a quick summary. I’ll keep you posted.

AG Jeff Jackson