"They're Bleeding Us Dry": Eastern North Carolina Ratepayers Fight Duke Energy's Proposed 18% Rate Hike Under Oath

"They're Bleeding Us Dry": Eastern North Carolina Ratepayers Fight Duke Energy's Proposed 18% Rate Hike Under Oath

Why are everyday residents being asked to carry the burden of this rate hike when a significant portion of future energy demand is being driven by data centers?"

Derek Burress

Apr 09, 2026

On the evening of Monday, April 6, 2026, the North Carolina Utilities Commission brought its Duke Energy Progress rate case to Snow Hill for one of five in-person public witness hearings being held across the state. It was the fourth stop in the series, following sessions in Raleigh on March 30, Lumberton on March 31, and a virtual WebEx hearing on April 1. Hearings in Roxboro and Waynesville were still to come on April 13 and April 14.

Ten witnesses had signed up in advance with the Public Staff and took the stand in order over the course of the evening. Most had traveled from well outside Greene County to put their words into the official record of the proceeding. What followed was roughly two hours of sworn testimony that moved from careful arithmetic to raw personal grief, from institutional praise to sharp political accusation, all of it transcribed word for word by a court reporter whose work would form part of the evidentiary foundation the commission weighs when it ultimately rules on the application.

WHAT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS IS REQUESTING — NCUC DOCKET NO. E-2, SUB 1380

• A general base rate increase of approximately $619.5 million in annual retail revenues, filed November 20, 2025

• A two-year multi-year rate plan beginning January 1, 2027, adding $127.4 million in Year 1 and $200.3 million in Year 2

• A net cumulative increase of roughly $728.6 million, or approximately 15.1% in annual revenues over the two-year plan period

• A typical residential customer using 1,000 kWh per month would see bills rise by approximately $28.06 per month in Rate Year 1, with an additional $6.59 in Rate Year 2

• Approval of four new rate riders: Pension Cost, Regulatory Asset and Liability, Production Tax Credit, and Bulk Power Marketing

• A proposed return on equity of 10.95%, which many organizations have noted is above the national average for regulated utilities

McKissick Calls the Hearing to Order and Explains What Kind of Room This Is

Commissioner Floyd B. McKissick Jr. presided over the hearing, joined by Commissioner Tommy Tucker. McKissick, who is a commissioner on the North Carolina Utilities Commission and who oversaw the hearing as the presiding officer, opened the proceedings with a series of formal acknowledgments and a clear explanation of the quasi-judicial nature of what was about to take place.

He began by thanking Holly Little, the Clerk of Superior Court for Greene County, for making the courtroom available to the commission for the evening. Without that cooperation, he noted, hearings of this kind could not reach the communities they are designed to serve. He then acknowledged Greene County Sheriff Matt Sasser, who was present along with his deputies, thanking them for providing security throughout the proceedings. He also thanked the staff of the North Carolina Utilities Commission for the considerable logistical work required to organize and execute a regional public hearing.

McKissick then noted for the record the presence of Greene County Commissioner Derek Burress in the audience. He addressed Burress directly, thanking him for attending and observing that Commissioner Burress had made it a point to be present at previous public hearings in this same rate case proceeding. That continued presence, McKissick said, demonstrated a genuine and sustained interest in how the outcome of the case would affect the residents of Greene County, whom Burress was elected to serve.

With those recognitions complete, McKissick turned to the substance of what the hearing was and was not. He was direct and deliberate in making the distinction. This was not a town hall. It was not an open forum. It was a quasi-judicial proceeding governed by the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure and the rules of evidence, and it was to be approached accordingly.

He explained that he and Commissioner Tucker were there to receive evidence from the public in the form of sworn testimony, not to engage in dialogue or answer questions from those present. "Think of this as a session of court," McKissick told the audience, "and in many respects, it is, because we are receiving testimony tonight under oath." Witnesses would be sworn in before speaking. Their words would be transcribed by the court reporter seated nearby. Every statement would become part of the permanent evidentiary record of the proceeding.

McKissick also addressed the conflict-of-interest requirements under the State Government Ethics Act, inviting the record to reflect that neither he nor Commissioner Tucker had identified any known conflict of interest with respect to the docket. No conflicts were raised.

He then summarized the procedural history of the case for the benefit of everyone present. Duke Energy Progress filed its application on November 20, 2025, seeking authority to adjust and increase its rates for retail electric service in North Carolina, to approve performance-based regulation, and to obtain an accounting order. The commission issued an order establishing the general rate case and suspending rates on November 24, 2025. On December 16, a technical conference was scheduled. On January 15, 2026, the commission issued its scheduling order setting the public witness hearings, establishing procedural and filing requirements, and requiring public notice. That same order set what would become the Snow Hill hearing as one of five in-person sessions, alongside a virtual hearing. A technical conference originally set for January 27, 2026, was canceled due to adverse weather and rescheduled for March 9, 2026, at which time it was held as planned. The expert witness hearing, at which all technical evidence will be tested through cross-examination before the full commission, is scheduled to begin in Raleigh on August 11, 2026, with a final ruling expected in the fall.

Monekia Franklin, senior counsel for Duke Energy, and Nadia Luhr, a staff attorney with the Public Staff of the North Carolina Utilities Commission, introduced themselves for the record.

The Public Staff is an independent state agency whose statutory mandate is to represent the using and consuming public before the commission in all utility rate proceedings. McKissick also formally recognized the intervention of numerous parties who had petitioned and been granted the opportunity to participate in the broader proceeding, including the North Carolina Attorney General's Office, the North Carolina Justice Center, the North Carolina Housing Coalition, the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association, the Carolina Industrial Group for Fair Utility Rates, the Environmental Defense Fund, Google, Harris Teeter, the Carolina Utility Customers Association, the North Carolina Home Builders Association and the U.S. Department of Defense and all other federal agencies, among others.

Duke Energy Addresses the Hearing Through Its Local Representative

Before the public witnesses were called, Commissioner McKissick invited Duke Energy's local representative to come forward and address those gathered. Lauren Wargo, district manager for Government and Community Relations at Duke Energy, stepped up and turned to face the audience rather than the commissioners, a posture that reflected the community-oriented tone she maintained throughout her remarks.

Wargo offered both context for the rate request and a description of the specific infrastructure investments driving it across eastern North Carolina. She noted that North Carolina had recently been named the third fastest growing state in the country and that the company was seeing that growth play out directly in communities across its service territory in the form of new customers, new facilities, and new demand that the existing grid was being stretched to serve.

She pointed to the Snow Hill substation optimization project taking place in the very town where the hearing was being held, describing it as designed to reduce outages and support the increased energy demand coming to Greene County. In Wayne County, she said, crews had been modernizing equipment at the Seymour Johnson Air Force Base substation, replacing infrastructure that had reached the end of its useful service life and strengthening reliability for the military installation and the community surrounding it. She also highlighted Duke Energy's investment at the Global TransPark in Kinston, where a new military flight readiness center is under development and expected to bring hundreds of high-paying jobs to the region. Across Lenoir County more broadly, she said, Duke was upgrading a retail substation and investing in on-site utilities to support the TransPark's expansion.

"People want to live and work across our service territory," Wargo said, "and the investments we have proposed are designed to protect reliability and strengthen storm resiliency while keeping costs as low as possible for our customers." She then introduced the members of Duke Energy's customer care team who were present in the room, asking them to raise their hands so that members of the audience could identify them. Several hands went up. She invited anyone with billing questions, concerns about their account, or interest in learning about the assistance programs Duke offers to approach those team members directly after the hearing concluded.

The Public Staff Attorney Explains the Purpose and Limits of the Evening

Nadia Luhr of the Public Staff followed with a brief statement that oriented those present to exactly what the hearing was designed to accomplish and what it was not able to do. Luhr explained that the Public Staff is an independent state agency that represents the using and consuming public in matters before the North Carolina Utilities Commission, meaning that in this proceeding, the Public Staff works for the ratepayers in the room, not for the utility. Her agency has a team of engineers and accountants conducting an independent and detailed review of Duke's application. The Public Staff is scheduled to file its own testimony and formal position on July 9, 2026, at which point those documents will be available for public review on the commission's website.

"The purpose of the hearing this evening is to hear from customers like you regarding Duke's requested rate increase," Luhr told those gathered. "Your voice and perspective are important." She walked through the process. Witnesses who had signed up on the clipboard at the back of the room with one of the Public Staff engineers would be called in order. Each would be sworn in before the presiding commissioner and then asked to state their name, address, and electric provider. After that, they would be given the floor to deliver their statement. Attorneys for any party could ask questions. The commissioners could ask questions. What could not happen, she reminded the room, was to expect any response from the commission or its attorneys to questions posed by witnesses. She asked everyone who was going to testify to speak slowly and clearly so the court reporter could produce an accurate transcript, and she noted that two Public Staff engineers were present in the room and available after the hearing to answer any technical questions. With that, the public testimony began.

Joan Gallimore Runs the Social Security Numbers and Finds Them Wanting

Joan Gallimore of Grifton was the first member of the public called to the stand. A Duke Energy Progress customer and AARP volunteer, Gallimore came prepared. She had the numbers, she understood what they meant for real people, and she wanted to make sure the commissioners understood it too. She made clear from the outset that she was there not only as an individual ratepayer but as a voice for AARP and for the older adults and fixed-income households the organization represents across North Carolina.

She began by putting the proposed increases in plain terms. Under the proposal before the commission, a typical residential customer's bill would rise by $23.11 per month beginning in 2027 if the commission approves only the traditional rate case component. If performance-based regulation is also approved, a further increase of $6.59 per month would follow in 2028. Those numbers, Gallimore said, do not exist in a vacuum. They land on top of everything else that has already been going up, and for millions of North Carolinians, there is simply no room left in the budget to absorb them.

She walked through the arithmetic of a fixed income with the kind of precision that comes from having spent time with real numbers. The Social Security cost-of-living adjustment for 2026 amounted to roughly $56 per month for the average retiree receiving a monthly check of $2,071. On its face, that sounds like breathing room. But Medicare Part B premiums rose by 9.7 percent in 2026, reaching $202.90 per month, consuming $17.90 of that raise immediately. And that was before the increases in Medicare Part A and Part B deductibles that also came with the new year. "The average monthly check for a Social Security retiree is $2,071," Gallimore noted, "and that could be for one person or a household, and that might be their only stream of income." Strip away what the Medicare premium increase has already taken, and what remains of the cost-of-living adjustment is far too thin to absorb a $23 monthly utility increase on top of higher grocery bills, higher gas prices, and higher costs across every other dimension of daily life.

"This rate increase has real consequences for real people, especially older people and families living on fixed or limited incomes," Gallimore said. "For many North Carolinians, electricity is not a luxury. It keeps homes safe, powers medical equipment, and allows people to live with dignity. When rates increase, people don't have extra room in their budgets. They are forced to make difficult choices."

Gallimore then moved through her objections to specific components of Duke's request. She raised concerns about the proposed increase to the fixed monthly customer charge, a fee that applies regardless of how little electricity a household actually uses in a given month. Higher fixed charges, she argued, hit low-income and fixed-income households no matter how conscientiously they conserve and eliminate any financial incentive to reduce consumption, which is precisely the behavior that the broader energy system needs customers to embrace. She also took direct aim at the proposed return on equity of 10.95 percent, calling it well above the national average for regulated utilities and arguing that the imbalance in risk between the utility and its customers is growing rather than shrinking. Regulatory mechanisms that reduce the company's risk while shifting more of it onto customers, she said, disproportionately hurt the people least able to bear it. She also objected to the addition of four new rate riders, arguing they would make billing more complicated and less transparent. "Consumers deserve clarity and accountability, not adding complexity," she said.

AARP, she concluded, urges the commission to scale back the proposed increases, remove uneconomic costs, reject the proposed increase to fixed charges and the new riders, and prioritize affordability for the millions of North Carolinians who depend on this service every day. When attorney Luhr asked at the close of her testimony whether Gallimore was speaking on behalf of herself or AARP, Gallimore confirmed she was representing the organization. Neither Duke Energy's counsel nor the commissioners had questions. The three-minute timer had beeped during her remarks, but Commissioner McKissick had allowed her to complete her statement, as he told the room he would do for all witnesses who needed a moment to finish after the signal sounded.

Johnny Jernigan Took Duke Energy's Advice, Cut His Bills Significantly, and Came to Say So

Johnny Jernigan of Vanceboro took a markedly different tone from the witness who had preceded him. He was not there to criticize the company or oppose the rate request. He had come specifically to give credit to a Duke Energy outreach program that had worked for him, and in doing so, he offered the commission a concrete example of the company's customer programs delivering genuine, measurable results.

Jernigan had purchased his home about two years earlier and discovered that both his electric and gas bills were running higher than what he had been accustomed to paying at his previous home in Jacksonville. He began exploring upgrades to his HVAC system and water heater as a way to bring those costs down, but the initial estimate from a private HVAC contractor was higher than he had expected. The path forward came not from a contractor but from a conversation. At a veterans event, Jernigan struck up a talk with a fellow veteran who happened to be a Duke Energy lineman. The lineman told him about the company's Neighborhood Energy Savings Program, a Duke initiative that provides customers with home energy assessments and recommendations for efficiency improvements.

Jernigan followed through. He contacted the program, had a full home energy assessment completed, and acted on its recommendations. He replaced his HVAC system and his water heater, and his electric bill dropped by roughly 30 percent. His gas bill fell by a similar margin. "Those were nice to see," he told the commission, adding that the savings had brought his combined energy costs below what he had been paying at his previous home. He had come to the hearing simply to report that outcome, without any comment on the broader rate case. His was a brief and direct statement of a program that, in his case, did exactly what it was intended to do.

There were no questions from either Duke Energy's counsel or the commissioners.

Sherry Archibald and the United Way of Wayne County Speak Up for Duke Energy's Role in the Community

Sherry Archibald, executive director of the United Way of Wayne County and a board member of United Way of North Carolina, offered testimony that stood in clear contrast to the prevailing direction of the evening's speakers. With 18 years of local government experience followed by seven years leading the United Way in Goldsboro, Archibald brought considerable institutional knowledge to a set of observations that were, at their core, affirmatively supportive of Duke Energy's presence and value to eastern North Carolina. She confirmed for the record that she was speaking on behalf of the United Way of Wayne County.

Archibald began by situating her perspective. She had spent nearly two decades watching how different organizations and partners show up for communities in moments of stress and crisis, and Duke Energy, she said, had consistently been one of the ones that showed up. Her most pointed examples centered on disaster response. In eastern North Carolina, she said, power restoration after a major weather event is not a matter of convenience or comfort. It is a life-safety issue. When the power goes out and stays out in this part of the state, what follows is a cascade of consequences for vulnerable families, for small businesses, for medical equipment that depends on electricity, and for the social service organizations trying to hold communities together. "In eastern North Carolina, we know that power restoration is not just about convenience," Archibald said. "It's about safety, health, and stability for our families and our businesses."

She praised Duke's line workers and crews by name and by the nature of their work, noting that these men and women routinely leave their own families during declared emergencies to spend long hours in dangerous conditions restoring service as quickly and safely as possible. "Duke Energy's line workers deserve tremendous recognition," she said. "They are often away from their families during emergencies, while helping our communities get back on their feet." That kind of commitment, she said, is not something that can be taken for granted, and it is something the United Way has witnessed firsthand in the aftermath of multiple severe weather events across eastern North Carolina.

Archibald also described Duke Energy's support for NC 211, the statewide community call center that operates around the clock and connects residents to shelter, food, utility assistance, and disaster recovery resources. During Hurricane Helene, she noted, NC 211 served as an essential hub of information and connection, helping thousands of North Carolinians navigate a widespread and devastating disaster and find their way to the help they needed. That system works because utilities, nonprofits, local government, and community organizations have built the kind of durable partnership that allows information to flow and resources to move quickly when they are needed most. "It takes strong partnerships between utilities, nonprofits, local government, and community organizations," Archibald said, "to help communities respond and recover to emergencies." Beyond disaster response, she noted, Duke Energy also invests in the communities it serves by supporting local organizations, nonprofits and initiatives that strengthen the quality of life for residents at both the local and statewide level, an investment she said she had observed directly through her work with United Way of North Carolina and through the role Duke Energy representatives have played at the statewide level. Her testimony represented the hearing's most detailed and substantive institutional endorsement of Duke Energy's contributions to eastern North Carolina.

When attorney Luhr asked whether Archibald was testifying on behalf of herself or the United Way, she confirmed she was speaking for the organization. There were no further questions.

Melissa Gray Asks the One Question Nobody at the Table Can Answer

Melissa Gray of Greenville, a Greenville Utilities Commission customer whose provider purchases electricity wholesale from Duke Energy, came to the stand with a statement that was brief but impossible to dismiss. She was not a direct Duke Energy Progress ratepayer, but she understood precisely how the wholesale arrangement works and why Duke's rates matter to her bill regardless of whose name appears at the top of it.

Gray said her concern was not primarily personal. It extended to the friends, family members, and neighbors she watches navigating impossible daily calculations between keeping the lights on and covering food, medication, and other essentials. Rising utility costs, she said, land on top of everything else that has already become more expensive. "As the price of everything goes up, incomes are not," she told the commission plainly. The people she was thinking about as she spoke were not managing well with a $23 monthly increase. They were already stretched to the breaking point.

She then asked the question that the proceedings' rules made it impossible for anyone in the room to answer. Duke Energy earned nearly $5 billion in net income on total operating revenues of approximately $32.24 billion, according to figures reported in early 2026. Given those numbers, she said, she wanted to understand what justified asking customers for more. "I would like to have a better understanding of what is required in the way of a rate increase when Duke is posting record profits," Gray said. The question went unanswered in that room. It did not go unheard.

Daryl Howard Spent $20,000, got a Higher Bill, and Read His Wife's Words While She Sat in the Audience

Daryl Howard of Ahoskie arrived at the hearing carrying more than most people bring to a utility rate proceeding. His wife, Margo, had come with him and was seated in the audience, but she was not physically able to take the witness stand and testify on her own behalf. Before Howard was sworn in, Commissioner McKissick took a moment to address the situation directly. He asked whether Howard's wife was present in the room, confirmed that she was, and then asked whether she had a separate statement she wished to have entered into the record. When Howard confirmed that she did, McKissick made clear that he would allow Howard to deliver both statements, his own and his wife's, and that both would be formally recognized as testimony in the proceeding. It was a moment of genuine consideration, and Howard thanked the commissioner for it before taking his seat.

Howard's own account began with a specific and carefully documented grievance that he had tracked with precision over more than a year. In December 2024, he and his wife invested $20,000 in energy efficiency upgrades to their home. The decision was not made lightly. He understood that reducing consumption was the responsible choice for both household finances and the broader energy system, and he committed to the investment fully, expecting to see the reward of lower bills in return. Over the twelve months that followed, their natural gas usage fell by 16 percent. They had done measurably better. They had reduced their footprint. Then December 2025 arrived, and with it their gas bill. It was 7 percent higher than the same month the year before.

Commissioner Tommy Tucker, one of the two commissioners present at the hearing, pressed Howard on this point in a measured and fair way. Tucker acknowledged the investment Howard had made and asked him to clarify whether the increase he experienced might be partly explained by colder winter temperatures, since unusually cold weather can drive energy costs upward even when consumption has dropped. Howard took the point without objection. He understood the dynamic. But he was firm in his position. He had reduced usage by 15 percent, he said, and his bill still went up 7 percent. On a $20,000 investment, that arithmetic produces a 22 percent effective penalty for doing exactly what consumers are always encouraged to do. "I thought I would be rewarded with a lower bill," Howard told the commission. "But I was rewarded with a higher one."

He explained that his natural gas provider is Piedmont Natural Gas, a subsidiary of Duke Energy, and that he had been tracking his effective per-therm rate over time with care. In 2023, he was paying $1.49 per therm. By 2025, that rate had reached $2.34. He arrived at those numbers the old-fashioned way, by dividing his total bill by the number of therms consumed each month. The result was a 64 percent increase in the cost of a therm of gas over three years. "I don't know a soul in here," he told the commissioners, "who has seen a 64 percent pay increase over the last three years." He noted that his electric provider is Dominion Energy, not Duke Energy Progress directly, but that Dominion and Duke both participate in the PJM regional energy market and engage in energy trading, and that his gas provider, Piedmont Natural Gas, is fully a Duke Energy subsidiary, making his stake in this proceeding entirely real.

Howard also made a broader structural argument. He cited the legal framework established in cases including Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, which established corporate personhood protections under the 14th Amendment. Duke Energy, he noted, holds those protections as an individual. But unlike an actual individual facing financial pressure, a company with record revenues has options that real people do not. Duke could choose to reduce the cash dividends it pays to stockholders rather than reach further into the pockets of residential customers who have already been investing in efficiency improvements at their own expense and receiving higher bills in return. He urged the commission to consider that option before approving any increase.

He then turned to his wife, Margo, and read her prepared remarks into the record. She had noted that the Piedmont Natural Gas rate increase in 2025 alone had been 22 percent. She pointed out that Duke Energy's CEO received $21.3 million in total compensation for 2024. She observed that it had been FEMA funds, not Duke Energy, that had served as the primary resource for communities in western North Carolina still struggling to recover from Hurricane Helene, while federal disaster relief for the region remained incomplete months later. She noted recent state legislation that had made it easier for companies like Duke to pursue pre-cost recovery from customers before projects are even completed, a tool that effectively shifts financial risk from the company onto the very ratepayers who are now being asked to pay more. And she made an appeal grounded in faith, noting that North Carolina is a state where deep religious conviction runs through communities of all kinds and that she hoped those in positions of authority would consider the weight of what they were deciding.

Howard returned to his own voice for his close. He spoke about what the family had been living through, and the room was quiet as he did. His wife had been diagnosed with acute lymphocytic leukemia. She went through treatment and reached remission. She then relapsed in July 2025. She returned to remission. She suffered a stroke in January 2026. And just the week before the hearing, the family had learned she would require triple-bypass heart surgery. All of that was happening at the same time that their gas bills were rising despite their efficiency investments, at the same time that medical costs were climbing, and at the same time that every other expense was moving in the wrong direction. "It hurts," Howard said. "I do know that my wife and I are still blessed. Granted, she has acute lymphocytic leukemia, but she is currently in remission. Medical bills? They're not going to get any cheaper. Gas prices are also at or near all-time highs. I think they chose the wrong time to ask for an increase on the backs of the residents of North Carolina."

He closed with a demand-side argument that several other witnesses would echo. The surge in energy consumption driving Duke's request is not coming from residential households, he said. It is coming from data centers and artificial intelligence infrastructure. "Increase the rates on these AI companies," Howard urged the commission. "They are the ones that are increasing demand. They need to pay their fair share. Individuals like me, I've done the work, I've got the reduction, and got a bigger bill. That's not helping the people of North Carolina."

Morgan Berard asks, "Who Is Really Driving the Demand That Is Driving the Price? "

Morgan Berard of Greenville, a sophomore at East Carolina University studying environmental studies with minors in communications and economics, brought a generational perspective to the proceedings that was unlike anything else heard during the evening. Berard is a Greenville Utilities customer rather than a direct Duke Energy Progress ratepayer, but came prepared with a substantive argument for why the commission's decisions in this case affect everyone in North Carolina, including and especially the young people who will live with the infrastructure, the costs, and the environmental consequences of today's choices for the rest of their lives.

"This issue is bigger than a single utility bill," Berard told the commission. "It's about fairness, accountability, and the future of energy in our state." The core of the argument was a demand-side challenge rooted in Duke Energy's own projections. The company has projected a need for 46 gigawatts of new generating capacity to meet future growth in its service territory. Of that total, Berard said, approximately 39 gigawatts, representing 85 percent of the projected need, is tied to the expansion of artificial intelligence infrastructure and data centers. A single large data center, Berard noted, can draw enough electricity to power hundreds of thousands of homes, consuming resources at a scale that dwarfs anything a residential customer could ever demand. "Why are everyday residents being asked to carry the burden of this rate hike when a significant portion of future energy demand is being driven by data centers?" Berard asked the commission.

Berard also pointed to a structural transparency problem that compounds the fairness concern. Data centers in North Carolina are not legally required to disclose how much electricity they consume. That gap means the largest users of the system can avoid any public accountability for the costs their growth imposes on everyone else connected to the same grid. If those facilities are major drivers of demand, Berard argued, they should be clearly identified and held responsible for their proportionate share of the infrastructure costs that demand requires. "If these facilities are major drivers of demand, then they should also be clearly identified and held responsible for their share of the cost," Berard said. "They legally in North Carolina do not have to announce how much energy they actually use as of currently."

The environmental dimension ran throughout the testimony as well. Students across North Carolina are already managing rising costs for rent, food, and tuition. Adding energy costs driven not by household consumption but by corporate infrastructure expansion only deepens a financial and environmental burden that younger North Carolinians are not responsible for creating. Much of the new generation needed to meet the projected demand would rely on fossil fuels, contributing to increased emissions and strain on natural resources. As an environmental studies student, Berard said the long-term consequences were neither sustainable nor fair. "This is an environmental justice issue. North Carolinians, whether current customers or future ones, should not be forced to subsidize corporate energy consumption that primarily benefits private companies." Berard closed by urging the commission to reject any increase that does not come with genuine cost transparency, clear allocation of responsibility to large-scale users, and a demonstrable commitment to a sustainable energy future. "As a student and as part of the generation that will inherit these systems, I urge you to reconsider this rate hike unless it reflects equity, responsibility, and a commitment to a sustainable future."

There were no questions from either side. Commissioner McKissick thanked Berard for the testimony.

Cale Grady and the Lenoir County Chamber of Commerce Tell the Commission What Duke Energy Means to Business

Cale Grady of LaGrange, president of the Lenoir County Chamber of Commerce, was the second witness of the evening to testify in clear and explicit support of Duke Energy. LaGrange sits in Lenoir County, and Grady's perspective reflected what he said the business community and civic leadership of his region had observed about Duke Energy over many years of engagement. Attorney Luhr confirmed for the record that Grady was speaking on behalf of the Lenoir County Chamber of Commerce and not in a personal capacity.

Grady described Duke Energy as something fundamentally different from a simple utility provider. In his experience representing businesses and community organizations across the region, Duke Energy shows up as a genuine partner in economic development and community growth, not merely as the entity that keeps the lights on. He pointed to Duke's ongoing support for local educational initiatives and its investments in economic development programs as examples of contributions that create a lasting impact well beyond the delivery of electricity. He described Duke Energy's employees as people who demonstrate, in his words, "a genuine dedication to supporting economic growth and helping our communities thrive."

He gave particular emphasis to the company's line workers, whose performance during severe weather events he described at length. For businesses that depend on reliable power, the reliability and professionalism of those workers is not an abstraction. It is the practical foundation on which commerce, investment decisions, and economic development all rest. When severe weather hits, Grady said, Duke Energy crews respond with a level of commitment that goes well above what might be expected, working tirelessly to restore service and demonstrating both professionalism and genuine care for the communities they serve. "Their professionalism and commitment, especially in challenging conditions, are nothing short of remarkable," he told the commission, "and we deeply appreciate all they do."

"Because of partners like Duke Energy, we were able to promote our region with confidence and provide our businesses with the foundation they need to succeed," Grady concluded. His testimony, alongside the earlier statement from Sherry Archibald at the United Way, gave the commission a picture of organized institutional support for Duke Energy from two of the region's most established civic and business organizations.

Angelica McCreary Names the Donations, the Legislation, and the Commissioners Themselves

Angelica McCreary of Richlands, a Jones-Onslow EMC customer and host of a community media channel called Math Ain't Mathin, which she described as focused on politics and accountability across North Carolina, delivered the evening's most politically charged testimony. She spoke at a pace and with an urgency that prompted Commissioner McKissick to pause her shortly after she began and ask her to slow down so the court reporter could capture every word accurately. McCreary apologized for the interruption and continued at a more measured pace.

She described spending the past year and a half traveling across all of North Carolina's counties, connecting with hundreds of people and documenting why state policy so consistently appears to work against ordinary residents rather than for them. Her answer, delivered without softening to the two commissioners seated before her, was that Duke Energy's political contributions had shaped the very regulatory framework in which the company now operates. She cited what she described as donations exceeding $100,000 to Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger, thousands more to the Speaker of the House, and additional contributions to sponsors of legislation she said had been passed to put Duke Energy's interests ahead of the public's. Legislation passed earlier in the year, she said, had made it easier for companies like Duke to seek pre-cost recovery from customers for future projects, handing the company a financial tool at ratepayers' expense. "They've given over $100,000 to Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger, thousands more to the Speaker of the House and sponsors of bills that put Duke Energy's interests before those of the people," McCreary said. "Clearly that investment has paid off, because we're standing here in front of commissioners appointed by a law paid for by Duke for a rate hike."

She did not stop there. She argued that the proceeding itself was taking place within a system that had been constructed to produce a particular outcome, and she challenged the commissioners directly on that point. "The real decision here is not whether or not this increase is warranted or good for the people," she said. "We know that it's not. You have heard hundreds of statements telling you how badly this would hurt families in our state. This is a rare black and white issue where it is us versus them in the clearest form." A company, she said, that had made over $5 billion in profits and had some of the highest shareholder returns in the country, and that had millions to spend on lobbying and political influence, "does not need more money from people. It needs to be investigated, audited, and put in its place."

"Your decision comes down to voting for the people or against us," McCreary told the commission directly. "So tonight, I'm asking you to vote with us and hold them accountable." There were no questions from either side.

Kelli Burlingame Reminds the Room That Customers Have Nowhere Else to Go

Kelli Burlingame of Fremont, whose power comes from Stantonsburg Electric, which purchases energy from Duke Energy, brought the testimony back to the ground level of household finances and the frustration of a customer who does everything right and still cannot stay ahead of rising costs. She described herself as a careful and deliberate budget manager. She turns off the lights throughout her home. She monitors her thermostat closely. She does everything that utility companies and energy advisors tell consumers to do to manage their bills. And still, she said, every few months there is another increase, another fee, another charge buried in a bill that grows more complicated and harder to understand over time.

"Every few months it seems there's another increase, another fee, another charge that I can barely understand," Burlingame said. "I budget carefully, I turn off lights, and I'm careful about the temperature in my house. I do everything that I'm supposed to do, and still the bills keep going up." She placed that experience inside the broader reality of her family's financial life. Higher gas prices, higher grocery costs, and higher prices in every other dimension of daily living had already made what she described as "day-to-day living and paycheck to paycheck survival nearly impossible" before any utility increase was added to the mix.

What makes it most difficult to accept, she told the commission, is the complete absence of any alternative. Duke Energy is a regulated monopoly in her service area. There is no competing provider to switch to. There is no market mechanism to discipline prices downward. If the company raises its rates, Stantonsburg Electric passes those costs along, and she pays them with no recourse. "Duke Energy is the only option," Burlingame said. "There's no competition, no alternative. Just higher bills and a company that answers to shareholders before it answers to the people that it serves."

She asked the commission to stand up for customers like herself who are being hit from every direction at once, to require genuine transparency about how ratepayer money is being spent, and to provide specific protections for lower and fixed-income households who are bearing the brunt of these increases most severely. Her husband, a disabled Marine Corps veteran, is among those for whom every monthly increase in a fixed cost has direct and immediate consequences. "I'm asking this commission to stand up for everyday customers like myself that are being bombarded with higher prices on everything, and that just disproportionately affect lower, fixed-income residents like myself and my disabled Marine Corps husband," she said. She closed with a statement that served as both a plea and an expression of trust, carefully placed in an institution she hoped would justify it. "Make sure that the people struggling most in our communities are protected. We're counting on you to be our voice."

There were no questions from either side.

Glenda Thomas Has Watched This Before and Remembers Exactly How It Ended

Glenda Thomas of Kinston closed the formal testimony of the evening with a statement grounded in lived experience, institutional memory, and a close reading of her own utility bills over several years. Thomas had sat in a room like this before. She had attended a previous Duke Energy Progress rate hearing, watched the commission approve the increase the company sought on that occasion, and had been carefully tracking what happened to her bill in the years that followed. The fees and charges on her monthly statement, she told the commission, had risen by 22 percent since that last case was decided in Duke's favor.

She came to the stand with specific numbers rather than general impressions. Her actual electricity consumption translates to roughly $115 in energy use. Her bill, however, arrives at $164 each month once the $14 base customer charge, the storm recovery charge, rider adjustments, and miscellaneous fees are stacked on top of the energy portion. She pointed out that the $14 base charge is assessed every month regardless of how much or how little electricity a customer uses, making it impossible to reduce through any amount of conservation. "If you use nothing, you get that $14 charge," she said. "And all these storm recovery charges, summary of rider adjustments, it's just too much." By her accounting, approximately 21 percent of what residential customers pay each month consists of fees and charges beyond the actual cost of the energy they consume, which she characterized as pure profit flowing to the company.

She also addressed what she saw as the inadequacy of Duke's proposed energy efficiency incentive, which she said offered customers savings of roughly $25 over the course of an entire year. "To offer me something like an energy-wise program that's only going to take $25 off in a year," she said flatly, "is ridiculous." Thomas had also done her own broader accounting. Based on her understanding of the revenues Duke Energy Progress had collected from residential customers since the previous rate case was approved, she said, the company had taken in more than $5 billion in additional revenue. Given those figures, she asked the commission, why is the same group of residential customers being asked to contribute another 18 percent? She noted, as others had, that millions were being spent on lobbying and political contributions to members of the General Assembly, and she said that 21 percent of residential bills going to pure profit was not a number a company should be citing when asking for more.

"They are bleeding us dry," Thomas said, her voice carrying the weight of someone who had watched this play out before. "They are laughing all the way to the bank." She ended with a plea that was as direct and as personal as anything said that evening. "I am asking, I am begging the commission to reject this rate increase."

There were no questions. Commissioner McKissick thanked Thomas for her testimony, and she stepped down.

A Final Request, a Gentle Ruling, and a Closing That Meant Something

After Thomas stepped down, attorney Luhr confirmed that those were all the witnesses the Public Staff had signed up. Commissioner McKissick then asked whether any members of the public who had not signed up in advance were present in the room and wished to speak. One hand went up. It belonged to Daryl Howard, who had already delivered his testimony and his wife's prepared statement earlier in the evening. He rose and addressed the commission with a request. He noted that North Carolina is in the Bible Belt and that he believed many of those in the room that evening were people of Christian faith. He asked, respectfully, whether he might be permitted to ask those present to consider a specific Bible verse.

Commissioner McKissick listened to the request and responded with evident care. He told Howard that it would be out of order at that stage of the proceeding, given that Howard had already provided his testimony. The hearing was a formal legal proceeding, McKissick explained, and reopening it for additional remarks after testimony had closed would not be appropriate. He suggested, with genuine courtesy, that anyone interested in the verse Howard wished to share was welcome to approach him directly after the hearing concluded. Howard accepted the ruling graciously and sat back down. No other hands were raised.

McKissick asked the attorneys whether there were any concluding matters. Neither Monekia Franklin for Duke Energy nor Nadia Luhr for the Public Staff had anything to add to the record. McKissick then addressed the room one final time. He thanked everyone who had come out that evening, acknowledging that many had traveled from considerable distances outside Greene County to participate. He reminded them that their testimony was not simply an exercise in civic participation. It was evidence. "Your testimony is important," he told the room. "It's significant. It is a part of the record, and it will be seriously considered as we move forward in this proceeding. Thank you so very much." He declared the hearing adjourned and wished those present a good evening.

The public witness phase of the rate case continues with hearings in Roxboro on April 13 and Waynesville on April 14. The Public Staff's team of engineers and accountants will file their independent analysis and formal position on July 9, 2026. Duke Energy Progress may file rebuttal testimony by July 24, 2026. The full expert witness hearing, where all technical evidence will be subjected to cross-examination before the commission, begins on August 11, 2026, in Raleigh. The commission will then determine both the overall reasonableness of Duke's requested rate changes and the appropriate level of rates for each individual customer class, with a final ruling expected in the fall. Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Carolinas are also seeking regulatory approval to combine their two North Carolina subsidiaries, a process proceeding alongside the separate rate cases for each company.