** Bill to shield North Carolinians from paying for utility political costs fails to advance ([link removed])
------------------------------------------------------------
By Sue Sturgis on May 23, 2025 12:29 pm
Last week North Carolina Democrats held a “bill funeral ([link removed]) ” in Raleigh for proposals Republican leadership refused to advance, including a bill that would have stopped Duke Energy and other utilities from charging customers for political spending. The N.C. Consumer Protection Act ([link removed]) would have strengthened prohibitions barring Duke Energy and other investor-owned utilities from charging customers for political influence activities, good-will advertising, and other activities tangential to delivering energy. The bill did not pass either chamber by the crossover deadline of May 8 and cannot be considered again until North Carolina’s next legislative session in 2027.
Inspired by policies adopted in other states, the act would have prevented utilities from including in their rate calculations any expenses related to political contributions, lobbying, self-promotional advertising, entertainment, legal costs for regulatory challenges, travel by directors on utilities’ corporate boards, and other expenditures not directly related to providing electric or gas service. It would have required the utilities to submit detailed annual reports to the North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC) documenting expenses associated with such activities.
After a petition by consumer advocates, the NCUC adopted limited reforms in 2021 ([link removed]) barring recovery of some of these costs, but not others. For example, regulators allow utilities to recover from their customers the majority of their membership dues for trade associations like the Edison Electric Institute and American Gas Association; they must exclude an amount calculated to account for the association’s time spent on direct lobbying. EPI has documented ([link removed]) how those calculations ([link removed]) , which are made by the trade associations and not independently verified or audited, likely undercount their political activities. The Consumer Protection Act would
have barred utilities from charging customers for such memberships, which can cost millions of dollars for a utility annually.
** Creating an Energy Equity Fund
------------------------------------------------------------
Currently the North Carolina Utilities Commission Public Staff – an independent state agency charged with representing consumers’ interest in NCUC proceedings – is responsible for combing through Duke Energy’s rate-case filings and finding instances where customers were wrongly charged. The Commission can then deny those charges, or issue refunds if they find that customers had been paying for them. In 2023, for example, the Public Staff challenged ([link removed]) over $100,000 of Duke’s recovered aviation expenses, and another $544,000 of its recovered lobbying expenses, which included $526,000 paid improperly to the Edison Electric Institute. The NCUC agreed ([link removed]) that those costs should be shifted to shareholders.
The Consumer Protection Act would have established substantial civil penalties for cases where utilities illegally charged customers for non-recoverable expenses, ranging from $50,000 to $150,000 per violation. The money collected would have been used to create an “Energy Equity Fund” to be spent on disaster recovery, energy assistance for low-income households, and transitioning to zero-emission appliances.
The bill was introduced in the Senate (SB 720 ([link removed]) ) by primary sponsors Graig Meyer and Natalie Murdock, along with two other Democrats. It was introduced in the House (HB 922 ([link removed]) ) by primary sponsors Pricey Harrison, Zack Hawkins, Julie von Haefen, and Maria Cervania, with a dozen other Democrats signing on. Republican leadership sent it to each chamber’s Rules Committee, which took no further action. The chair of House Rules is John R. Bell, whose top donor ([link removed]) over the course of his career is Duke Energy; in the Senate it’s William Rabon, who also counts the company among his top donors ([link removed]) .
Advocates for the legislation were swimming against a political tide that included a surprise GOP bill, SB 261 ([link removed]) , allowing Duke Energy to scrap its 2030 climate targets and making it easier for the company to charge customers for expensive construction projects like nuclear power or gas plants while they are being built, shifting the risk of project failure or abandonment away from the utilities’ investors and onto customers. That measure was passed by the Senate three days after its introduction by Republican Sen. Paul Newton, a former top Duke Energy executive ([link removed]) ; Newton has since resigned ([link removed]) from the legislature to become the University of North Carolina’s top lawyer. SB 261 is now with the House, where
it’s been referred to the Rules Committee.
** States seek to curb questionable spending
------------------------------------------------------------
Laws similar to the Consumer Protection Act, passed in other states, have saved customers money. Utility customers in Connecticut have avoided paying for up to $10 million ([link removed]) of their utilities’ political spending on lobbying, advocacy, and advertising activities since the state passed a law prohibiting recovery of such costs, according to utilities’ transparency filings there. In Colorado, where such a policy was recently adopted, Xcel Energy’s gas customers will no longer pay for at least $775,000 ([link removed]) in annual political expenses.
Those savings come at a time when Americans have faced a growing financial burden ([link removed]) from their utility bills. Over the past two years, utility arrearages nationally have climbed by about 30%, from about $16.1 billion ($5.2 billion for natural gas and $10.9 billion for electricity) to $21 billion ($5.7 billion for natural gas and $15.4 billion for electricity), according to the National Energy Assistance Directors Association ([link removed]) . NEADA says the increase is primarily due to rising electric costs as record high summer temperatures drive air conditioning demand.
The Center for Biological Diversity’s Powerless ([link removed]) report released this year found that Duke Energy was among the utilities that disconnected the most customers for non-payment. From January through September of last year, Duke disconnected 135,000 accounts for nonpayment – a 19% increase over the same period in the previous year. In North Carolina alone, Duke’s more than 64,000 shutoffs from May to September were 22.5% higher than the same period in 2023.
California ([link removed]) , Massachusetts ([link removed]) , and Oregon ([link removed]) recently introduced similar utility accountability legislation. California state Sen. Jerry McNerney, an author of the California bill, told ([link removed]) The Sacramento Bee that he saw the legislation as a way to send a message to utility companies: “Listen, you guys need to start paying attention to how you’re using ratepayer money.”
(North Carolina Senate Democrats’ photo ([link removed]) of the “bill funeral” used with permission.)
The post Bill to shield North Carolinians from paying for utility political costs fails to advance ([link removed]) appeared first on Energy and Policy Institute ([link removed]) .
Read in browser » ([link removed])
[link removed] [link removed]
** Recent Articles:
------------------------------------------------------------
** Ameren shareholders reject anti-greenwashing proposal ([link removed])
** Donald van der Vaart: North Carolina Utilities Commission nominee has history of controversy, potential conflicts ([link removed])
** Evergy leans into fossil fuels as it backtracks on climate commitments ([link removed])
** Utilities Quietly Walk Back Commitments to Diverse Hiring, Social Justice ([link removed])
** Several Utilities Donate to Trump Inauguration Committee ([link removed]
============================================================
** Facebook ([link removed])
** Twitter ([link removed])
** Website ([link removed])
Copyright © 2025 Energy and Policy Institute, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you opted in at our website via our Contact Us page.
Our mailing address is:
Energy and Policy Institute
P.O. Box 170399
San Francisco, CA 94117
USA
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can ** update your preferences ([link removed])
or ** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])
.
Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp
[link removed]
