Gov. Stein Asks N.C. Regulators for a Binding Data Center Tariff; Duke Energy Has Proposed Its Own Version
Stein has pressed the case since July. Duke has offered a large-load tariff and signed a voluntary federal pledge. The fight now is over how strict the rules are and whether they can be enforced. The July settlement set up a separate fast-track case at the N.C. Utilities Commission to write the tariff.
Duke already wants a tariff. So what is Stein asking for?
Gov. Josh Stein wants the N.C. Utilities Commission to "impose a large load tariff" on data centers[2]. A large load tariff is a separate set of rates and contract terms for very big power users. Stein, a Democrat, wants those customers to pay the full cost of the plants and power lines built to serve them. He doesn't want that cost to land on household bills.
"These are some of the largest and richest companies in the world," Stein wrote. "They can pay more to lower everyone else's rates"[2].
Here's the twist. Duke Energy, the utility Stein is pressing, already proposed a large-load tariff. It did so in June testimony[6]. It also agreed to a fast-track case to write one[4][17]. The fight isn't over whether a tariff should exist. It's over how strict it is and whether anyone can enforce it.
A rate case, a pledge and a fast track
The push began in July 2026, so it isn't a brand-new request[2][3]. On July 17, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a settlement in its rate case. A rate case is the process in which regulators decide what a utility may charge. The Commission's Public Staff, the state's consumer advocate, signed it. So did other parties, including Microsoft and a Meta subsidiary[4][5].
The settlement calls for a $496 million increase over two years. That's a cumulative 7.4% in revenue. It sets a 9.8% return on equity, down from 10.1%[4][5]. Duke first asked for about 18%. For households, the settlement cut that to about 9.5% over two years[5][22].
Attorney General Jeff Jackson did not join. He called the result "still too high"[5]. The settlement also set up a separate, fast-track case to write the tariff[4][17].
On July 23, the Trump administration announced that Duke had joined its voluntary Ratepayer Protection Pledge. Duke was announced as a signatory that day. The pledge commits it to shield households from data center costs[3][7]. That same day, Stein and Jackson said the pledge should become a legally binding tariff approved by the Commission[3].
Why a promise isn't enough, in Stein's telling
Stein and Jackson start from who causes the cost. A new data center can need as much power as a small city. If Duke builds plants and lines for it, they argue, the bill should go to that customer. It shouldn't go to a family in Fayetteville[2][3].
They call a voluntary pledge a promise, not a protection. Only a tariff approved by the Commission can be enforced in a rate case[3]. Jackson filed a proposal on Sept. 14. It asks for a new rate class just for data centers. It also asks Duke to publish its standard contract for large users and to report any side deals that differ from it[8].
Stein ties the tariff to a wider push. He has proposed phasing out the state's data center tax breaks by 2033[12]. Power costs worry voters, and both men can say they're shielding households. Stein also vetoed a 2025 energy law that the legislature passed over his veto. He has said outside experts put its cost to ratepayers at $23 billion to $38 billion over 25 years[1][12]. A tariff is one way to regain leverage.
Neither man sets rates. They can only argue before the Commission[3][8].
Duke's case: a plant has to be built before the customer shows up
Duke says it already agrees with the principle. It proposed a tariff, signed the pledge and agreed to the fast-track case[6][7][17].
Here's the mechanism. A utility must build a power plant years before a data center switches on. If the center shrinks its plans or never arrives, the plant's cost falls on every other customer. Duke's terms are meant to stop that. Under its June proposal, a tariff would start in 2027. It would cover customers of 50 megawatts or more with high, steady use. It would also cover any customer seeking 100 megawatts or more. Those customers would sign 10- or 15-year contracts. They'd pay for 75% of the power capacity they reserve, even if they use less[6].
Duke also has a financial stake. It's a regulated monopoly. Regulators set its return on equity, which is the profit rate it may earn on what it builds. That rate lets it attract the investors who pay for new plants. If it's set too low, borrowing gets more expensive, and customers pay for that later. So Duke wants growth that justifies new building. It doesn't want the political backlash that blocks it.
Duke's forecast leans heavily on data centers. Its Carbon Plan projects that roughly 80% of expected demand growth will come from data centers and other large users[11]. Too harsh a tariff could drive those customers away. Their bills also help cover the grid's fixed costs.
What regulators and the critics are watching
The risk Duke worries about is real. On Sept. 18, the Commission voted 3-1 to deny Duke a permit for a 255-megawatt, $584 million gas turbine in Richmond County[9][10]. It said Duke had not proved the turbine was needed. Part of the reason was that the load forecast behind it had not been vetted. The Commission also said Duke hadn't shown how much of the output would serve data centers or how those customers would pay. It cited the pledge. Duke may reapply[9][10].
Critics say Duke's tariff may be too weak. Latitude Media calls it "light-touch"[16]. Advocates had recommended a 25 MW threshold, 20-year minimum contracts and an 85% capacity share. Duke proposed 50 MW, 10 or 15 years and 75%[6]. Clean-energy groups call the tariff case a real win. They warn that Duke's version may leave households exposed if forecasts prove too high[16][17].
The developers' side is harder to see. Major tech firms such as Microsoft and Google signed the federal pledge. They say they accept the goal of paying their own way[14][15]. The industry case is about price and risk. Long contracts and minimum bills add cost and lock in demand before a project is certain. Large, steady customers can also push average rates down by spreading fixed costs over more sales. Their specific comments in the North Carolina case weren't found in this review. When Stein proposed ending the tax breaks, data center interests pushed back[20]. At least 75 such tariffs have been proposed or approved in about 35 states, so developers have choices about where to build[6][12].
Same slogan, different weight
Everyone wants to own the line that data centers should pay their own way. Right-leaning outlets led with the pledge as protection already in hand. Carolina Journal's headline said Duke "signs pledge to shield ratepayers"[7]. North State Journal put "accountable" in quotation marks when describing Stein and Jackson's aim[19].
Left-leaning and clean-energy outlets stressed that the pledge is voluntary. Mother Jones said environmentalists were "rolling their eyes" at it[13]. NC Newsline attributed the claims to the officials and gave little space to Duke's own proposal[3]. Axios was plainer, though its link text framed it as Democrats pressuring Duke[1]. Canary Media's headline was accurate, but its body called the tariff a "scheme"[6]. No coverage from outside the U.S. turned up on this state-level fight.
The Commission is expected to rule on the rate settlement by November 2026. Duke has asked for first-year rates to take effect by Jan. 1, 2027[4]. One outlet gave a September date for approval, but the SEC filing says November[4]. A rate increase is coming either way. The open questions are the tariff's size thresholds, contract lengths, minimum-bill share and whether it can be enforced. No new Stein filing in October has been found. The most recent filing located is Jackson's from Sept. 14[8].
Summary
North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein, a Democrat, wants the N.C. Utilities Commission to require a 'large load tariff' for Duke Energy. That is a separate set of rates and contract terms for data centers and other very large power users[1][2]. His goal is to make those customers pay the full cost of the power plants and power lines built to serve them, so that cost does not land on household bills. 'These are some of the largest and richest companies in the world,' Stein wrote. 'They can pay more to lower everyone else's rates'[2]. Stein first made this push in July 2026, after Duke settled its rate case. It is not a brand-new request[2][3].
The framing that utilities oppose the idea is not quite right. Duke itself proposed a large-load tariff in June testimony. Under it, big customers would sign 10- or 15-year contracts and pay for 75% of the power capacity they reserve, even if they use less[6]. On July 23, the Trump administration announced that Duke had signed its voluntary Ratepayer Protection Pledge, which commits it to shield households from data center costs[3][7]. The July 17 rate-case settlement set up a separate, fast-track case to write the tariff[4][17]. Attorney General Jackson did not join that settlement and called it 'still too high.' Microsoft and a Meta subsidiary did sign it[5].
So the real dispute is over terms and enforcement, not whether a tariff should exist. Stein and Jackson say a voluntary pledge must become a legally binding rule[3]. Jackson has asked for a new rate class just for data centers, and for Duke to make its contract templates public[8]. Critics call Duke's proposal 'light-touch'[16]. The developers' own filings in the North Carolina case did not turn up in this review. Big tech firms have publicly signed the federal pledge[15]. The Commission is expected to rule on the main rate case by November 2026[4].
The Event
After a July 17, 2026 settlement in Duke Energy Carolinas' rate case, Gov. Josh Stein said publicly that the N.C. Utilities Commission should 'impose a large load tariff' requiring data centers to pay their full share of grid costs[2][4]. On July 23, after Duke joined the federal Ratepayer Protection Pledge, Stein and Attorney General Jeff Jackson called for that pledge to be made legally binding through a Commission-approved tariff[3][7]. On Sept. 14, Jackson filed a proposal for a separate data center rate class[8].
Undisputed Facts
- Duke Energy Carolinas, the Commission's Public Staff (the state's consumer advocate) and other parties, including Microsoft and a Meta subsidiary, filed a settlement on July 17, 2026. It calls for a cumulative revenue increase of $496 million, or 7.4%, over two years, with a 9.8% return on equity (down from 10.1%)[4][5]. Attorney General Jeff Jackson did not join it and called it 'still too high'[5].
- Duke first asked for about an 18% increase. For residential customers, the settlement cut that to about 9.5% over two years[5][22].
- The settlement sets up a separate, fast-track proceeding to write a large-load tariff[4][17].
- In June testimony, Duke proposed a tariff starting in 2027. It would cover customers of 50 megawatts or more with high, steady use, or any customer seeking 100 megawatts or more. It would require 10- or 15-year contracts and payment for 75% of the reserved capacity[6]. Advocates had recommended a 25 MW threshold, 20-year minimum contracts and an 85% capacity share[6].
- The Trump administration announced on July 23, 2026 that Duke had joined its voluntary Ratepayer Protection Pledge[3][7].
- Duke's Carbon Plan projects that roughly 80% of its expected demand growth will come from data centers and other large users[11].
- On Sept. 18, 2026, the Commission voted 3-1 to deny Duke a permit for a 255-megawatt, $584 million gas turbine in Richmond County. It said Duke had not proved the turbine was needed, partly because the load forecast behind it had not yet been vetted. It also said Duke had not shown how much of the output would serve data centers or how those customers would pay, and cited the pledge. Duke may reapply[9][10].
- The Commission is expected to rule on the rate settlement by November 2026. Duke has asked for first-year rates to take effect by Jan. 1, 2027[4].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- Building before demand arrives
- Utilities must commit to plants years ahead, based on forecasts. Data centers make up about 80% of Duke's expected growth[11]. If that load never shows up, someone pays for the unused plants. The tariff decides who that is[6].
- Regulated profit on capital
- Duke earns a regulator-set return on what it builds: 9.8% on equity under the settlement[4]. Growth in data center demand justifies more building. That is why who pays for it matters so much to the company and to the Commission[4][9].
- State competition for investment
- At least 75 large-load tariffs have been proposed or approved in about 35 states[6]. Tariff terms and tax breaks both shape where developers build[12][20].
- Political cost of power bills
- Rising electricity rates are a voter issue. That pushes a Democratic governor, a Republican White House and the utility all toward publicly backing the same principle of 'data centers pay their own way'[3][7][14].
Material realityDuke's growth forecast is driven mostly by data centers[11]. Regulators have shown they will block new plants when that forecast has not been vetted. The Sept. 18 denial of a 255-megawatt, $584 million turbine is the example[9][10]. A rate increase is coming either way. The settlement adds $496 million over two years, pending the Commission's ruling, which is expected by November[4]. A large-load tariff will almost certainly exist, since Duke, the Public Staff, the governor and the attorney general all back one[3][6][17]. The open questions are its size thresholds, contract lengths, minimum-bill share and whether it is enforced. Those details will decide how much risk shifts from households to large customers.
Narrative as a weaponEach actor wants to own the slogan that data centers should pay their own way. Stein and Jackson want readers to see a voluntary pledge as an empty promise that only state rules can make real[2][3]. The Trump administration and right-leaning outlets present the federal pledge as the protection already in hand[7][14]. Duke wants to be seen as having offered a solution already[6]. Clean-energy outlets stress the weaknesses of Duke's version and the pledge's lack of teeth[13][16]. The original story framing said utilities 'may see it differently.' That overstates the conflict. Duke backs a tariff. What is contested is how strict it is and whether it can be enforced.
How Each Side Sees It
Each major actor’s view — how it frames things, its underlying incentive, and how it’s materially affected. Tap a side to read it.
Frames it asTheir argument starts with who causes the cost. A new data center can need as much power as a small city. If Duke builds plants and lines for it, the bill for those investments should go to the customer who caused them, not to a family in Fayetteville[2][3]. They call a voluntary pledge a promise, not a protection. Only a tariff approved by the Commission can be enforced in a rate case[3]. Jackson also wants daylight on the deals. Duke would publish its standard contract for large users and report any side deals that differ from it[8]. Stein ties the tariff to a wider push: he has proposed phasing out the state's data center tax breaks by 2033[12].
WhyPower costs are a top concern for voters, and both men can claim to be shielding households from Big Tech and from a monopoly utility. Stein vetoed a 2025 energy law that the legislature passed over his veto. He has said outside experts put its cost to ratepayers at $23 billion to $38 billion over 25 years. So the tariff is also a way to regain leverage[1][12].
Impact on themNeither man sets rates. They can only argue before the Commission. A strict tariff would be a policy win going into the next election. A weak one, or a large rate hike, would undercut their message[3][8].
Frames it asDuke says it already agrees with the principle. It proposed its own large-load tariff[6], signed the federal pledge[7], and agreed to a fast-track tariff case in the settlement[17]. A minimum bill shows how this works. A utility must build a power plant years before a data center switches on. If the center shrinks its plans or never arrives, the plant's cost would fall on every other customer. Duke's terms are meant to stop that: long contracts, plus a charge for 75% of reserved capacity whether or not it is used[6]. In Duke's view, rules that are too harsh could drive away large customers. Those customers' bills help cover the grid's fixed costs.
WhyDuke is a regulated monopoly. It earns a set return on what it builds: under the settlement, a 9.8% return on equity[4]. Regulators set that profit rate so the company can attract the investors who pay for new plants. If the rate is set too low, borrowing gets more expensive, and customers pay for that later. So Duke wants data center growth that justifies new building, without the political backlash that blocks it. The Commission's Sept. 18 refusal of a gas turbine shows that risk is real[9].
Impact on themThe tariff will decide how much of Duke's forecast growth investors can count on. It will also decide how much of it regulators will approve. Duke's whole plan for new plants rests on that forecast[9][11].
Frames it asMajor tech firms such as Microsoft and Google signed the federal pledge. They say they accept the goal of paying their own way[14][15]. The usual industry case is about price and risk. Long contracts and minimum bills add cost and lock in demand before a project is certain. Large, steady customers also spread a grid's fixed costs over more power sales, which can push average rates down. Developers' specific comments in the North Carolina tariff case were not located in this review. When Stein proposed ending tax breaks, data center interests pushed back[20].
WhyThey want reliable power, fast hookups and predictable costs in a state that is competing for their projects[20].
Impact on themThe tariff's terms, plus any loss of tax breaks, will change what it costs to build in North Carolina compared with other states. At least 75 such tariffs have been proposed or approved in about 35 states[6][12].
Frames it asThe Public Staff is the state's official consumer advocate in rate cases. It signed the settlement, which created the tariff case[4][17]. Clean-energy groups call that tariff case a real win. But they warn that Duke's version is 'light-touch' and may leave households exposed if forecasts prove too high[16][17]. Some see the Trump pledge as mostly symbolic[13].
WhyThey want lower bills and want data centers' demand to be met without locking in new fossil-fuel plants[13][17].
Impact on themThey will shape the details of the tariff case, such as size thresholds, contract length and exit fees[16][17].
Like this article?
The Bias Ledger average rating 3.5
The same story, as framed by outlets across the spectrum, ordered least to most biased. The bias score (1 = straight, 10 = heavily spun) is an AI assessment of that framing — click an outlet to see its track record. The tell is the word choice or omission that reveals the angle.
| Outlet | Vantage | Bias | How they frame it | The tell |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Axios | U.S. center | 2 | Gov. Stein pushes for Duke Energy to add tariff on data centers | The link text says 'Democrats try to pressure Duke Energy,' which puts party on the push. The headline itself is plain. |
| Carolina Journal | U.S. right | 3 | Duke Energy signs pledge to shield ratepayers from data center costs | The headline accepts the voluntary federal pledge as a shield already in place. Stein's demand for a binding tariff comes later in the story. |
| North State Journal | U.S. right | 3 | Stein, Jackson plan to hold Duke Energy 'accountable' in data center pledge | Putting 'accountable' in quotation marks signals doubt about the Democrats' stated aim. |
| NC Newsline | U.S. left | 3 | Stein, Jackson say NC regulators need to hold Duke Energy to federal data center pledge | The headline attributes the claim properly. The story leans on the officials' framing and gives little space to Duke's own tariff proposal. |
| Canary Media | U.S. clean-energy advocacy | 4 | Duke Energy proposes special rules for data centers in North Carolina | The headline is accurate. The body calls the tariff a 'scheme' and views it mainly through climate and consumer cost. |
| Mother Jones | U.S. left | 6 | Environmentalists are rolling their eyes at Trump's 'ratepayer protection pledge' | Contempt is the headline. The quotation marks around the pledge's name invite the reader to scoff at it. |
References
- Gov. Stein pushes for Duke Energy to add tariff on data centers — Axios Raleigh · Corporate national news outlet with local newsletters; center, brief-style
- Governor Josh Stein post on Duke settlement and large load tariff — Office of the Governor of North Carolina (X) · Primary source; official account of a Democratic governor, advocacy statement
- Stein, Jackson say NC regulators need to hold Duke Energy to federal data center pledge — NC Newsline · Nonprofit newsroom in the States Newsroom network, funded by donors; generally center-left
- Duke Energy Corp. Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2026 — U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (Duke Energy filing) · Primary source; company's legally required disclosure to investors
- Duke Energy-stakeholder agreement pares down residential rate increase to 9.5% over 2 years — Port City Daily · Independent local outlet in Wilmington, NC; straight news
- Duke Energy proposes special rules for data centers in North Carolina — Canary Media · Nonprofit clean-energy news outlet, founded with RMI support; pro-decarbonization
- Duke Energy signs pledge to shield ratepayers from data center costs — Carolina Journal · Outlet of the John Locke Foundation, a free-market, conservative think tank
- NC AG Jackson requests new Duke rate class for data centers — NC Newsline · Nonprofit newsroom in the States Newsroom network; generally center-left
- In rare step, NC Utilities Commission denies Duke Energy permission to build new gas plant — WUNC · Public radio (NPR member station); center-left reputation, straight news
- North Carolina Regulators Deny Duke Energy a 255 MW Gas Turbine Over Unverified Data-Center Load Growth — mgrid.org · Small energy-industry trade site; ownership and funding unclear
- Attorney general, governor join request line for regulation on data centers — The Mountaineer · Local community newspaper in Waynesville, NC; straight news
- Gov. Stein proposes phasing out North Carolina's tax incentives for data centers by 2033 — WUNC · Public radio (NPR member station); straight news
- Environmentalists are rolling their eyes at Trump's 'ratepayer protection pledge' — Mother Jones · Progressive nonprofit magazine; U.S. left
- President Trump expands AI data center 'ratepayer protection pledge' to include state governors and utility companies — Tom's Hardware · Commercial tech-news outlet; not politically aligned
- More groups back Trump pledge to shield ratepayers from data center costs — Homes.com News · Real-estate listings company's news arm (CoStar Group); commercial
- Duke Energy's 'light-touch' large load tariff could be a problem — Latitude Media · Venture-backed energy-transition trade publication; pro-clean-energy
- The Duke Energy settlement is just the beginning for North Carolina's data center energy policy — Environmental Defense Fund (Climate 411 blog) · Environmental advocacy group; a party to NC energy proceedings
- NC leaders push Duke Energy to make federal data center pledge legally binding — WRAL · Commercial Raleigh TV station (Capitol Broadcasting); center
- Stein, Jackson plan to hold Duke Energy 'accountable' in data center pledge — North State Journal · Statewide newspaper with a center-right/conservative orientation
- Data centers push back on North Carolina's tax plan — E&E News (Politico Pro) · Subscription energy-policy trade news; straight news
- North Carolina Energy Policy Task Force 2026 Report — Office of the Governor of North Carolina · Primary source; task force appointed by a Democratic governor
- Duke Energy Wants an 18% Rate Hike. Here's What That Means. — The Assembly · Nonprofit NC investigative and political journalism outlet; center to center-left