Stein and Jackson Ask Regulators to Require Data Centers to Help Pay for New Power Plants in Duke Tariff Deal
On Oct. 14, the attorney general filed comments with the N.C. Utilities Commission saying a settlement among Duke Energy, the Public Staff and major tech companies covers grid hookups but not new generation; on Oct. 27, Gov. Josh Stein repeated that request publicly.
The deal that covers the wires but not the plants
On Oct. 27, Gov. Josh Stein said a new data center deal was "a step in the right direction." Then he added a warning: "If it requires a new power plant, it is silent as to who pays for that power plant. That should not be the case."[1][2]
The deal is a proposed "large-load tariff." That is a special set of rates and contract rules for customers that use huge amounts of power. It's the first one of its kind in North Carolina.
Stein wasn't filing something new. Attorney General Jeff Jackson had already put the same request to the N.C. Utilities Commission in comments filed Oct. 14[4][5]. Stein repeated it in his public NC Strong Update on Oct. 27[2]. Coverage dated Oct. 27 can make it look like a fresh request went to regulators that day. It didn't.
What everyone agrees the deal does
The settlement was filed Oct. 7, 2026. Its signers are Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress, the N.C. Public Staff (the state's consumer advocate), Amazon, Google, Meta and Microsoft. The Carolina Industrial Group for Fair Utility Rates and the U.S. Department of Defense also signed[7].
The tariff covers new customers of 50 megawatts or more at an 80% load factor. It also covers any new customer of 150 megawatts or more, regardless of load factor[7]. Load factor is how steadily a customer uses power compared with its peak.
Those customers would owe a monthly minimum set at 75% of their contract demand for demand charges[7]. In plain terms, they pay for the capacity they reserved, even if they use less. Duke's North Carolina president said, "Data centers will pay upfront for all costs to connect to the grid."[15]
Jackson called the deal a "massive step forward"[4][5]. Stein called it a step in the right direction[1][2]. Neither says it's bad. Both say it stops short.
The gap: wires versus power plants
The dispute is about generation, meaning power plants. It isn't about wires. Hooking a data center to the grid costs money, and the deal makes the customer pay that up front. Building a new plant to supply it is a far bigger cost.
Jackson said the deal doesn't require large users to pay for new generation. He also said it doesn't create a separate rate class and has no option for customers to bring their own clean energy[4][5].
Stein and Jackson point to scale. Grid planners say data centers make up about 80% of projected new demand[1]. A report by Energy Futures Group, done with Stein's Energy Policy Task Force, projects about $50 billion in large-load costs over 25 years[1].
That figure comes from a report tied to one side. It isn't a finding by the Utilities Commission[1]. Still, the officials' point is simple. If plants get built mostly for data centers, they argue, households shouldn't share the bill.
They also want a separate rate class. Right now the cost of serving data centers is mixed in with everyone else's. A separate class would let regulators see what it really costs[16]. And a bring-your-own-generation option would let tech companies buy or build supply directly, instead of putting it on Duke's books[2][4].
The case that the minimum bill already does the job
The settling parties see it differently. Their argument turns on how plant costs are recovered. Normally, a plant's cost is spread across customers through the rates they pay over time.
A large customer locked into a long contract with a high minimum bill keeps paying its share, even if its project shrinks. So a plant built for that customer shouldn't suddenly land on households. That's the case for the 75% minimum[7][15].
They also note that the Public Staff signed. It is the state's own consumer advocate[14][15]. And reopening the deal risks delay while big projects decide where to locate. Tech companies choose among states partly on power terms[7][14].
Each side also has something at stake. Duke earns a regulated return on what it builds, so more plants mean more earnings. That gives it a financial interest in a large build-out[6]. The tech companies want clear, predictable terms. A stricter ruling could raise their costs or send projects elsewhere[6][7].
For Stein and Jackson, electricity bills are a top voter worry. Duke households already face a 9.5% increase from a separate rate case[11]. Both have made "data centers pay their own way" a signature theme[2][12].
Critics on the outside, and a pledge from Washington
Environmental groups go further. The Southern Environmental Law Center said the deal "fails to hold data centers accountable."[9] NC WARN called it Duke's "latest lie" and a "backroom deal."[10] They say deposits and minimum bills aren't the same as making data centers pay the full cost of new gas plants. They also note the deal dropped the clean-transition tariff Duke announced in 2024, which would have let large buyers fund clean power directly[5][7].
Walmart wasn't part of the negotiations. It has asked the commission to reopen comments on the deal[8].
On the right, the focus is different. Duke joined the Trump administration's federal Ratepayer Protection Pledge in July 2026. It commits utilities to have large users "build, bring, or buy" their own generation[11][12]. Stein and Jackson said then that the pledge isn't binding until the commission writes it into a tariff[11][12]. On the right-of-center view, the state should hold Duke to the pledge instead of claiming credit.
Some on the right also blame state climate policy and coal-plant retirements for higher bills[11]. Republican Sen. Thom Tillis warned his party faces "almost certain losses" over electricity costs[13]. The legislature, which Republicans lead, can also write its own data center rules apart from the commission[13].
How the coverage split
Outlets framed the story differently. NC Newsline, part of a progressive-funded network, led with the officials' call and the $50 billion projection. It gave less weight to the argument that minimum bills protect households[1]. WRAL's headline asked whether data centers should "do more to pay their way," which borrows Stein's slogan[3]. WUNC's Oct. 14 headline led with Jackson's praise, a softer picture than later coverage[5].
Axios stuck to process and leaned on the parties' own description of the deal[14]. NC WARN's release used words like "lie" and "backroom," which makes it advocacy, not reporting[10]. The Carolina Journal piece in this record is from July and covers the federal pledge. I found no right-leaning outlet covering the Oct. 27 remarks[11].
The commission hasn't ruled. Walmart's request to reopen comments is pending, and Election Day is Nov. 3. Whether regulators add a rule on who pays for the next power plant is still open.
Summary
North Carolina's governor and attorney general want state regulators to go further in making data centers pay their own way. The fight is over a proposed 'large-load tariff.' That is a special set of rates and contract rules for customers who use huge amounts of power. Duke Energy, the state's consumer advocate (the Public Staff), Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, an industrial users group and the U.S. Department of Defense signed a settlement on that tariff. They filed it with the N.C. Utilities Commission on Oct. 7, 2026[6][7].
Attorney General Jeff Jackson filed comments on Oct. 14. He called the deal a "massive step forward" but said it does not make big users pay for the new power plants they cause to be built[4][5]. On Oct. 27, Gov. Josh Stein repeated the point in a public video update. "If it requires a new power plant, it is silent as to who pays for that power plant," he said. "That should not be the case."[1][2] The two Democrats also want a separate rate class for data centers and an option for those customers to bring their own clean energy[2][4].
The core dispute is about generation, meaning power plants. It is not about wires. Under the deal, data centers pay up front to connect to the grid, and they owe a minimum bill on contracted demand even if they use less power than promised[7][15]. Supporters say that is real protection. Stein, Jackson and environmental groups say it leaves the biggest cost open. They cite a report done for Stein's energy task force that projects about $50 billion in large-load costs over 25 years. In their view, without firm rules for new plants, households could end up paying part of that bill[1][9]. The settling parties' counter-argument is that long-term minimum bills already keep plant costs with the customer they were built for. The commission has not ruled.
The Event
On Oct. 7, 2026, Duke Energy and eight other parties filed a proposed large-load tariff settlement with the North Carolina Utilities Commission[7]. On Oct. 14, Attorney General Jeff Jackson filed comments asking regulators to require large users to pay for the new generation they cause, to create a separate rate class, and to offer an option for customers to bring their own generation[4][5]. On Oct. 27, Gov. Josh Stein used his NC Strong Update to urge the commission to strengthen the deal. He said it is "silent" on who pays for new power plants[1][2].
Undisputed Facts
- The settlement was filed Oct. 7, 2026. Its signers are Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress, the N.C. Public Staff, Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, the Carolina Industrial Group for Fair Utility Rates and the U.S. Department of Defense[7].
- The tariff applies to new customers of 50 megawatts or more at an 80% load factor, or 150 megawatts regardless of load factor. Customers would pay a monthly minimum set at 75% of contract demand for demand charges[7].
- Duke's North Carolina president said, "Data centers will pay upfront for all costs to connect to the grid"[15].
- Attorney General Jackson called the deal a "massive step forward" on Oct. 14. He also said it does not require large users to pay for new generation, does not create a separate rate class, and has no bring-your-own-clean-energy option[4][5].
- On Oct. 27, Gov. Stein said the deal is "a step in the right direction" but is "silent as to who pays" for any new power plant[1][2].
- A report by Energy Futures Group, done with the governor's Energy Policy Task Force, projects about $50 billion in large-load costs over 25 years[1].
- Duke joined the Trump administration's Ratepayer Protection Pledge in July 2026. Stein and Jackson said then that the pledge is not binding until the Utilities Commission writes it into a tariff[11][12].
- Walmart did not take part in the negotiations. It has asked the commission to reopen comments on the deal[8].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- Monopoly cost recovery
- Duke earns a regulated return on what it builds. More plants mean more earnings. So Duke's interest lies in building out, and the commission decides who pays[6].
- Data center location competition
- Tech companies choose among states partly on power terms. Stricter rules raise their cost of locating in North Carolina[7][14].
- Election-season bill politics
- Households face a 9.5% Duke increase. Both parties are positioning on energy costs ahead of Nov. 3[11][13].
Material realityDuke projects that more than 80% of its new demand will come from data centers and other large users. Duke will need new generation and transmission to serve them[1][19]. The settlement makes data centers pay up front for their hookups and sets a minimum bill at 75% of contracted demand[7][15]. It does not separately assign the cost of new power plants, and it does not create a separate rate class[4]. A projection done for the governor's task force puts large-load costs at about $50 billion over 25 years. That figure comes from a report commissioned by one side, not from a Utilities Commission finding[1][3]. The commission has not ruled.
Narrative as a weaponStein and Jackson want readers to see a gap between protecting the wires and protecting against new plants. They frame data centers as needing to 'pay their own way.' Duke and the settling tech companies want the deal seen as a done, consumer-backed protection, pointing to the Public Staff's signature. Environmental groups push the 'backroom deal' framing to win stricter terms and fewer gas plants. Republicans point to the federal pledge as the real protection, while Tillis warns his party about the politics. Coverage dated Oct. 27 can make it look as if a new request went to regulators that day. The formal filing was Oct. 14. Stein's Oct. 27 remarks repeated it.
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 asWhoever causes a cost should pay it. Grid planners say data centers make up about 80% of projected new demand[1]. If plants are built mostly to serve them, families should not share the bill. The deal covers hookups and wires. But power plants are the biggest-ticket item, and the deal does not assign them[1][4]. A separate rate class would let regulators see what serving data centers really costs. Without it, that cost stays mixed in with everyone else's[16]. A bring-your-own-generation option would let tech companies buy or build supply directly instead of putting it on Duke's books[2][4].
WhyElectricity bills are a top voter worry, and Duke households already face a 9.5% increase from a separate rate case[11]. Both officials have made 'data centers pay their own way' a signature theme[2][12].
Impact on themIf regulators adopt their asks, Stein and Jackson can claim a concrete win on bills. If not, they keep a political issue. The attorney general's office stays a formal party in Duke proceedings[4].
Frames it asThe deal is a negotiated, enforceable protection that exists now. Data centers pay up front to connect[15]. They owe at least 75% of their contracted demand every month even if they use less[7]. That minimum bill matters for the generation question. Normally, the cost of a power plant is recovered through the rates each customer pays for power over time. A large customer locked into a long contract with a high minimum keeps paying its share of plant costs even if the project shrinks. So a plant built for it does not suddenly land on households. The Public Staff is the state's own consumer advocate, and it signed the deal[14][15]. Reopening it risks delay while big projects decide where to locate.
WhyDuke wants to recover the cost of a large build-out while keeping big customers coming. Its profits come from investment it is allowed to earn a return on[6]. The tech companies want clear, predictable terms and want to avoid paying the full cost of new plants on their own[7].
Impact on themA stricter ruling could raise costs for data center developers and slow or reroute projects. A ruling that keeps the deal intact lets Duke move faster on new generation and lets developers lock in terms[6][7].
Frames it asThe deal was made behind closed doors with the very companies it regulates[9][10]. Deposits and minimum bills are not the same as making data centers pay the full cost of new gas plants and long-lived assets[9]. The deal also dropped the clean-transition tariff Duke announced in 2024. That tariff would have let large buyers fund clean power directly[5][7].
WhyThese groups want to limit new fossil-fuel generation and to keep its costs off household bills[9][10].
Impact on themThey could gain if the commission adds conditions. They have no formal veto[9].
Frames it asThe federal Ratepayer Protection Pledge, which Duke signed, already commits utilities to have large users 'build, bring, or buy' their own generation[11][12]. On this view, the state should hold Duke to it, not claim credit for it. Some on the right also blame state climate policy and coal-plant retirements for higher bills[11]. Sen. Thom Tillis warned that badly designed rules are costing Republicans politically and could bring 'almost certain losses'[13].
WhyThey want to protect North Carolina's push for economic development and to avoid owning rising power bills in an election season[13].
Impact on themThe Republican-led legislature can write its own data center rules apart from the commission. Its members face voters on Nov. 3[13].
Like this article?
The Bias Ledger average rating 4.2
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 | Duke Energy agrees on new rules for large energy users like data centers | Plain, process-focused framing. It relies heavily on the parties' own description of the deal. |
| WRAL | U.S. center | 3 | Should data centers do more to pay their way? Stein backs new rules on electrical bills | The question headline is fairly open. But 'pay their way' takes on Stein's slogan. |
| WUNC | U.S. center-left (public radio; republished by WHQR, WFAE and WFDD) | 3 | NC Attorney General Jackson calls Duke Energy's data center tariff 'massive step forward' | The headline leads with Jackson's praise, not his objections. That gives a softer picture than the later 'silent on power plants' coverage. |
| NC Newsline | U.S. left | 4 | NC Gov, AG call for data center owners to help pay for new power plants | It leads with the officials' framing and the $50 billion projection. The settling parties' argument that minimum bills protect households gets less weight. |
| Carolina Journal | U.S. right (John Locke Foundation affiliate) | 4 | Duke Energy signs pledge to shield ratepayers from data center costs | It credits the federal Trump-era pledge as the protection and casts state Democrats as people who want it 'binding.' This piece is from July. I found no Carolina Journal story on the Oct. 27 remarks. |
| NC WARN | U.S. left (anti-Duke environmental advocacy group) | 9 | Duke Energy's Latest Lie: Backroom Deal "Protects" Other Customers from A.I. Data Center Costs | Words like 'lie' and 'backroom' and the scare quotes make this advocacy, not reporting. |
References
- NC Gov, AG call for data center owners to help pay for new power plants — NC Newsline · Nonprofit state news site in States Newsroom, funded largely by progressive-leaning donors
- In NC Strong Update, Governor Stein Highlights Commitments to Keep North Carolinians Safe and Lower Costs for Families — Office of the Governor of North Carolina · Official press release from a Democratic governor and party to the dispute
- Should data centers do more to pay their way? Stein backs new rules on electrical bills — WRAL · Commercial Raleigh TV station, mainstream local news
- Attorney General Jeff Jackson, Governor Stein Respond to Duke Energy's Proposal for NC's First Large Load Tariff — N.C. Department of Justice · Official release from a Democratic attorney general and party to the proceeding
- NC Attorney General Jackson calls Duke Energy's data center tariff 'massive step forward' — WHQR · Wilmington public radio station, center-left audience
- Duke Energy comes to an agreement on long-sought large load tariff for data centers in North Carolina — WFAE · Charlotte public radio station
- Duke's Large-Load Settlement Sets a 50 MW Trigger and 75% Minimum Billing, But Drops the Clean Transition Tariff — Microgrid Knowledge / mgrid.org · Energy-industry trade publication
- Walmart Asks North Carolina to Reopen Comments on Duke's 150 MW Data Center Tariff Deal, Negotiated Without It — Microgrid Knowledge / mgrid.org · Energy-industry trade publication
- Duke Energy proposal fails to hold data centers accountable in Large Load Tariff settlement — Southern Environmental Law Center · Environmental legal advocacy group; party-style critic of Duke
- Duke Energy's Latest Lie: Backroom Deal "Protects" Other Customers from A.I. Data Center Costs — NC WARN · Anti-Duke, anti-fossil-fuel advocacy group
- Duke Energy signs pledge to shield ratepayers from data center costs — Carolina Journal · Conservative/libertarian outlet affiliated with the John Locke Foundation, which has received Duke funding in the past
- Gov. Stein, AG Jackson Will Hold Duke Energy to New Federal Data Center Pledge — N.C. Department of Justice · Official release from Democratic state officials
- Tillis criticizes energy policy, warns GOP faces losses as NC debates data center costs — WRAL · Commercial Raleigh TV station, mainstream local news
- Duke Energy agrees on new rules for large energy users like data centers — Axios · Mainstream digital news, center
- Duke Energy agreement with NC utilities department aims to protect customers from data center costs — Queen City News · Commercial Charlotte TV station (Nexstar)
- Jackson seeks separate Duke Energy rate class for data centers — North State Journal · Right-of-center North Carolina outlet
- Duke Energy funded climate science-denying John Locke Foundation — Energy and Policy Institute · Utility-watchdog group critical of investor-owned utilities
- Stein, Jackson plan to hold Duke Energy 'accountable' in data center pledge — North State Journal · Right-of-center North Carolina outlet
- Duke Energy proposes special rules for data centers in North Carolina — Canary Media · Nonprofit clean-energy news outlet (RMI-founded)