Duke Energy Signs Federal Ratepayer Pledge as N.C. Officials Press for Binding Data-Center Rules
Duke Energy joined a voluntary White House pledge on data-center power costs and agreed in a rate-case settlement to propose new rules for very large electricity users, while Gov. Josh Stein and Attorney General Jeff Jackson push state regulators to make the commitments enforceable.
A Company Signed a Pledge to Protect Ratepayers. The State's Own Lawyer Wouldn't Sign the Deal Next to It.
On Thursday, July 23, 2026, Duke Energy put its name on a federal pledge saying big power users like AI data centers should pay their own way, not push costs onto households[1][3]. Three days earlier, the same company had filed a settlement in its North Carolina rate case that still raises the average family's bill by about 9.5% over two years[6]. North Carolina's attorney general, Jeff Jackson, wouldn't sign that settlement[4]. Two facts, both true, pulling in opposite directions: a company promising data centers will cover their own costs, and a bill that goes up anyway.
That's not a contradiction. It's the whole story. The pledge covers new costs from future data centers. The rate case covers costs already locked in from past decisions. Both are real, and neither cancels the other out.
Gov. Josh Stein and Attorney General Jackson are now asking North Carolina's Utilities Commission to weld the two together, by turning Duke's voluntary federal promise into a binding state rule[1]. Duke says it's already doing that, on its own, ahead of any order forcing it to[7]. Whether the numbers Duke actually filed back that up is where everyone starts disagreeing.
What "Paying Your Own Way" Actually Means on a Power Bill
The federal pledge Duke signed traces back to President Trump's Feb. 24, 2026 State of the Union address[3]. Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, OpenAI, Oracle and xAI signed on March 4[3]. By July 23, the list had grown to more than 200 utilities, developers, co-ops and states, and the White House says it now covers about 80% of the electricity delivered to U.S. homes and businesses[3][12]. Signatories promise to build or buy new power plants, cover the grid upgrades their projects need, and pay their contracted rate whether or not they end up using all the power[3].
Here's the catch every official document admits to: the pledge is voluntary[1][3]. Nothing in it can be enforced by a regulator or a court. It's a promise, not a rule.
The document that can actually be enforced is called a large-load tariff, and Duke agreed to file one as part of its rate-case settlement[6][9]. A tariff, in utility terms, is just a rate plan a specific type of customer must follow. A large-load tariff is that rate plan for enormous users, like a data center campus that draws as much power as a small city.
Duke's version, filed alongside the settlement, would apply to any customer using 50 megawatts or more at high, steady demand, or anyone asking for 100 megawatts or more[7]. One megawatt runs roughly 800 to 1,000 average homes, so even the lower threshold describes a single customer with the appetite of a small town. Under Duke's terms, those customers would sign 10- or 15-year contracts, pay for at least 75% of the power they requested whether they use it or not, face a penalty equal to 25% of their remaining bill if they leave early, and post cash or a line of credit up front[7].
Why the Same Number Looks Different to Everyone Reading It
Start with the number Jackson keeps repeating: 9.5%[4][6]. That's the cumulative residential rate increase in Duke's settlement, down from an original ask of about 18%, split into a 5.9% rise in year one and 3.6% in year two[6]. On a typical $157.15 monthly bill, that's about $6.53 more a month in year one, then $4.66 more on top of that in year two[6]. As part of the deal, Duke's shareholders agreed to put $10 million into bill-assistance and weatherization programs, and the profit rate regulators allow the company to earn on its investments would drop from the 10.95% it wanted to 9.8%[4][6].
That profit rate is worth pausing on, because it's the crux of Duke's argument and it's easy to read as simple corporate greed if you don't know what it does. Regulators set it because Duke, as a monopoly, isn't allowed to just raise prices to cover its costs the way a normal business would. Instead, the state guarantees Duke a set return on the money it spends building plants and power lines, which is what lets Duke borrow the huge sums that construction requires. Set that number too low, and lenders start charging Duke more to borrow, and those higher borrowing costs eventually show up on customer bills anyway. So when Duke says agreeing to 9.8% instead of 10.95% is a real concession, that's the mechanism behind the claim, not just spin[4][6].
Jackson's argument runs a different direction entirely. He points out that Duke's own opening ask was 18%, and the fact that it fell to 9.5% under pressure suggests the original request was inflated to begin with[4]. His office and the governor's are also making a separate, more structural argument: even if the residential number moves, nothing forces the promises in the federal pledge into anything a regulator can actually enforce[1]. That's why their public ask isn't about renegotiating the rate case. It's about converting Duke's voluntary language into a rule the Utilities Commission can hold Duke to later[1].
The Utilities Commission's own consumer advocate, called the Public Staff, signed the settlement anyway, along with several other intervenors, including the Environmental Defense Fund[6][9]. Their reasoning is more practical than philosophical: a certain, negotiated deal today, with a firm deadline for the large-load tariff, beats the risk of a worse outcome months into a drawn-out fight[6][9]. In that view, the real decision doesn't happen in this settlement at all. It happens in the tariff proceeding still to come[9].
The Fine Print Fight Nobody's Resolved Yet
Here's where the dispute gets genuinely technical, and genuinely unresolved. Duke and the settling parties describe the tariff's terms — the 75% minimum payment, the 25% exit penalty, the upfront security — as strict enough to shift real risk onto data centers[7]. The Southern Environmental Law Center, an environmental group opposing Duke in these proceedings, calls the same terms "light-touch," arguing the minimum payment and contract lengths fall short of what other utilities require and leave regular customers exposed[8][10].
The dispute isn't about whether data centers should pay for the power plants built to serve them. Every party — Duke, the White House, state officials, and the environmental groups — agrees they should[1][3][7]. It's about whether 75%, and 10 to 15 years, and a 25% penalty are actually big enough numbers to do that job.
The stakes behind that math are large and slow-moving. Duke has proposed new gas plants whose turbines face supply backlogs of roughly five years, meaning decisions made now will set costs deep into the 2030s, long before anyone can confirm whether the data centers those plants are built for ever show up[10]. Developers, critics point out, often shop the same project to multiple utilities at once, meaning the megawatts a utility plans around can overstate real demand[10]. If a plant gets built for a data center that ends up building somewhere else, existing customers are the ones left holding the bill.
A Bill That Was Already Rising Before Any of This
None of this is landing on a blank slate. North Carolina electricity bills have already climbed roughly 22% since 2020, before the settlement's 9.5% is added on top[14][16]. Data centers are projected to drive most of the state's new electricity demand in the years ahead[14].
Zoom out nationally, and the numbers get bigger and murkier at the same time. A market monitor for PJM, the grid operator covering 14 mid-Atlantic and Midwestern states — not including North Carolina — projects data-center demand will drive about $23 billion in customer price increases across that region through 2028[13]. That's a forward-looking estimate of costs still to come, not money already spent, and it wouldn't be touched by anything North Carolina regulators do[13]. Some coverage has blurred that distinction; it matters because it's the difference between a warning and a bill already in the mail.
A separate, bipartisan bill in Congress, from Rep. Gabe Evans, a Colorado Republican, and Rep. Kathy Castor, a Florida Democrat, would set a federal standard directing state regulators to consider requiring 100-megawatt-plus users to cover their own costs[11]. It cleared a House committee 52-0[11]. Evans has been explicit that the bill "does not impose a federal mandate" and leaves the actual choice to states[11] — which puts it in the same voluntary-versus-binding territory as everything else in this story.
How Different Newsrooms Told the Same Week
The coverage split largely along which of the three documents each outlet led with. Axios framed the rate case as Duke "lowering" its request, a framing that reads as a company making a concession, without mentioning upfront that Jackson refused to sign or that bills are still rising[5]. NC Newsline led with Jackson rejecting the deal, using stronger language than the record supports, since Jackson declined to sign a settlement the commission still has to rule on — he didn't reject a final decision[4][18]. Canary Media offered the most detailed reporting on the tariff's actual terms, but described Duke's proposal as a "concession to critics" ahead of a hearing, which assigns Duke a motive the company itself doesn't claim[7]. The Washington Examiner centered the congressional bill and largely left out the state rate case and Duke's profit rate[11]. Al Jazeera's coverage put "voluntary" in its own headline and treated North Carolina as one example of a global pattern, spending little time on Duke's specific filing[12].
None of that changes what happens next, which is the one piece of this story still genuinely open. Duke and the Public Staff have to file the actual large-load tariff by the end of September 2026[9]. The Utilities Commission has to approve it, along with whatever comes of the broader settlement, before any of it takes effect on Jan. 1, 2027[6][9]. Every number currently being argued over — Duke's, Jackson's, the environmental groups' — is a proposal. The one that counts hasn't been written yet.
Summary
On Thursday, July 23, 2026, Duke Energy signed the federal Ratepayer Protection Pledge, a voluntary White House commitment that large electricity users such as AI data centers should pay for the new power plants and grid upgrades they require, rather than shifting those costs to households and small businesses[1][3]. Three days earlier, Duke Energy Carolinas had filed a settlement in its North Carolina rate case with the Utilities Commission's Public Staff and several intervenors[5]. That settlement cuts Duke's proposed residential increase from about 18% to about 9.5% over two years, and commits Duke to file a separate set of rules — a 'large load tariff' — governing what very big customers must pay[6][9].
A large load tariff is simply a special rate class for enormous customers. The idea is to bill a data center directly for the generation and wires built to serve it, and to lock that in with a long contract so the utility is not left holding the cost if the project shrinks or leaves. Duke's filed version would cover customers drawing 50 megawatts or more at high, steady usage, or anyone asking for 100 megawatts or more[7]. One megawatt runs roughly 800 to 1,000 average U.S. homes, so a 100-megawatt request is a single customer asking for the power of a small city.
Gov. Josh Stein and Attorney General Jeff Jackson say the federal pledge is not enough on its own, because nothing in it can be enforced[1]. They are asking the North Carolina Utilities Commission to convert Duke's promise into binding state rules, including a tariff that makes data centers pay 'their full freight' and a program letting them choose and pay for their own generation[1]. Jackson separately declined to sign the rate settlement, saying a 9.5% increase is still too much for families[4].
The genuine dispute is not whether data centers should pay their own way — Duke, the White House, state officials and consumer groups all say they should[1][3][7]. It is whether the specific numbers in Duke's proposal actually accomplish that. Duke and the settling parties say the terms — long contracts, minimum payments, exit penalties and upfront security — put the risk on the data center[7]. Environmental and consumer groups including the Southern Environmental Law Center call the approach too light, arguing it still leaves existing customers exposed to the cost of new gas plants built for demand that may never show up[8][10].
The Event
On Thursday, July 23, 2026, Duke Energy signed the federal Ratepayer Protection Pledge, a voluntary commitment first announced by President Trump on Feb. 24, 2026 and expanded that day to more than 200 utilities, data-center developers, cooperatives and states[1][3]. On Monday, July 20, 2026, Duke Energy Carolinas had filed a partial settlement in its pending North Carolina rate case with the Utilities Commission's Public Staff and other parties, lowering the proposed residential increase to about 9.5% over two years and committing to file a large load tariff for very large customers[5][6][9]. Attorney General Jeff Jackson announced on July 21 that he would not sign that settlement[4]. On July 23 and 24, Jackson and Gov. Josh Stein publicly called on the North Carolina Utilities Commission to make Duke's voluntary federal pledge legally binding through state regulation[1][2].
Undisputed Facts
- Duke Energy signed the federal Ratepayer Protection Pledge on July 23, 2026[1][3].
- The pledge is voluntary and contains no enforcement mechanism of its own[1][12].
- President Trump announced the pledge in his State of the Union address on Feb. 24, 2026; Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, OpenAI, Oracle and xAI signed it on March 4, 2026[3].
- The White House says the expanded pledge now covers about 80% of the electricity delivered to American homes and businesses[3][12].
- Duke Energy Carolinas' July 20, 2026 settlement would raise residential rates 5.9% in the first year and 3.6% in the second — about 9.5% cumulatively — down from an original request of roughly 18%[6].
- Under the settlement Duke's allowed return on equity would fall from the 10.95% it requested to 9.8%, and Duke shareholders would put $10 million into bill-payment and weatherization programs[4][6].
- Attorney General Jeff Jackson declined to join the settlement[4][18].
- The settlement commits Duke and the Public Staff to file a large load tariff proposal by the end of September 2026, and the North Carolina Utilities Commission must approve any settlement before it takes effect; new rates would start Jan. 1, 2027[6][9].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- Duke must build, and must borrow to do it
- A regulated utility earns on capital it invests in the grid, at a rate the commission sets. Load growth from data centers is the justification for the largest buildout in decades, including new gas plants[10][14]. That makes Duke structurally inclined to accept large-load commitments and to defend its allowed return on equity, regardless of how the pledge is described publicly[4][6].
- Voluntary pledges cost signers nothing until a tariff exists
- The federal pledge has no penalty for breaking it[1][12]. The binding document is the tariff a state commission approves. That is why state officials' entire ask is procedural — move the promise into a filing the commission can enforce[1].
- Rate cases are settled, not won
- Almost every large rate case ends in a negotiated deal among the utility, the Public Staff and intervenors. Refusing to sign is one of the few forms of leverage an attorney general retains, and it preserves standing to appeal[4][18]. The split between Jackson and the Public Staff is institutional, not personal.
- Speculative load is the hidden variable
- Developers shop the same project to several utilities at once, so requested megawatts overstate real demand. Whoever bears the cost of plants built for load that never materializes is the actual question under every argument about minimum-take percentages and contract length[7][8][10].
Material realityNorth Carolina electricity bills have risen roughly 22% since 2020, before any of these changes take effect[14][16]. Duke's settlement would add about 9.5% more over two years, or about $6.53 a month in year one and $4.66 more in year two on a typical $157.15 bill[6]. Nationally, one estimate puts data centers' contribution to public electricity bills at about $23 billion already spent, which is money that cannot be recovered by any prospective tariff[13]. Data centers are projected to drive the large majority of new demand in North Carolina[14]. Gas turbines Duke has proposed face supply backlogs of roughly five years, so commitments made in 2026 determine costs well into the 2030s[10]. Whatever the pledge says, the enforceable numbers will be the ones in the tariff Duke and the Public Staff must file by the end of September 2026, and in whatever the commission approves after that[9].
Narrative as a weaponThree groups are actively shaping how this reads. The White House wants the pledge understood as the solution — hence the emphasis on participation numbers like '80% of power delivered' rather than on any enforcement provision[3][12]. Duke wants its voluntary tariff proposal understood as leadership rather than as a preemptive move against a stricter mandate, and wants the return-on-equity cut read as sacrifice[4][7]. Stein and Jackson want the story understood as unfinished, because their leverage exists only while the commission has not yet ruled[1][4]. Environmental and consumer groups want attention on the tariff's fine print, where they believe the real decision sits, and away from the headline rate percentage[8][9]. A reader can hold all of this at once: the direction of policy is genuinely toward making large users pay their own way, and none of it is binding in North Carolina yet.
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 asDuke argues it is doing exactly what critics asked, ahead of any mandate. It proposed a large load tariff before regulators ordered one, and the filed terms are strict: 10- or 15-year contracts, payment for 75% of requested demand whether or not it is used, a 25% penalty on remaining bills for leaving early, and cash or a letter of credit posted up front[7]. Duke's core principle is that a regulated monopoly cannot simply refuse to serve a customer in its territory, so the honest answer is not to block data centers but to price them so existing customers are held harmless. On the rate case, Duke's argument runs through return on equity — the profit rate regulators allow it to earn on money invested in the grid. Duke does not set that rate; the commission does. That rate is how a company barred from raising prices on its own attracts the investors and lenders who fund power plants and lines. Duke's position is that pushing it too low raises borrowing costs and customers pay for that later in higher interest, which is why cutting its request from 10.95% to 9.8% is presented as a real concession rather than an admission[4][6].
WhyDuke needs regulatory certainty and capital. It is planning large generation additions for load growth it says is driven mostly by data centers, and it must borrow to build them[10][14]. A signed federal pledge and a negotiated settlement lower political risk and make approval of both the rate increase and the tariff more likely[5][9].
Impact on themThe settlement, if approved, sets Duke's allowed profit rate and its revenue for years starting Jan. 1, 2027[6]. The large load tariff determines whether Duke can recover the cost of new plants if a data center cancels — the single biggest financial risk in its buildout[7][8].
Frames it asTheir argument is about enforceability, not intent. A voluntary pledge, they say, is a press release: nothing in it lets a North Carolina family go to a regulator or a court if the cost shows up on their bill anyway[1]. Their specific ask is concrete — the Utilities Commission and Duke should adopt a legally binding large load tariff that charges data centers 'their full freight,' plus a program letting data centers directly select and pay for their own generation[1]. Jackson's second argument is that pressure works and should keep working: Duke opened asking families for about 18%, and the number is now about 9.5%, which he treats as evidence the case was overbuilt rather than as a reason to settle[4].
WhyBoth are Democrats holding statewide office while electric bills are a live voter issue; North Carolina residential bills have risen roughly 22% since 2020[14][16]. The attorney general has a statutory role representing using and consuming public in rate cases, and refusing to sign preserves his ability to challenge the outcome[4].
Impact on themIf the commission adopts binding rules, their office gains a durable enforcement handle over future data-center deals. If it approves the settlement over Jackson's objection, he absorbs a visible loss on a bill increase taking effect in an election cycle[6][18].
Frames it asThe Public Staff is the state's in-house consumer advocate in rate cases, separate from the attorney general. Its argument is that a negotiated deal delivers certain, immediate gains — a lower profit rate, a halved increase, $10 million from shareholders, and a firm deadline to file large-load rules — while litigating to the end risks a worse commission order[6][9]. Environmental Defense Fund, which signed, makes the sequencing argument: the settlement's value is not the rate number but the separate fast-track proceeding it creates, because that is where the rules deciding who pays for data-center growth will actually be written[9].
WhyThe Public Staff is measured by outcomes it can bank. Settling parties also buy a seat at the table in the tariff proceeding, which they view as the higher-stakes fight[9].
Impact on themTheir signatures give the settlement the appearance of consumer buy-in, which weakens Jackson's objection before the commission[4][9].
Frames it asTheir case is that the tariff as drafted is too weak to do what it claims. The Southern Environmental Law Center argues Duke's approach 'unnecessarily risks increasing bills and pollution' — that requiring payment for 75% of requested demand still leaves a quarter of the risk with everyone else, and that contract terms are shorter than the 20- to 30-year life of the gas plants being built to serve the load[8][10]. Their sharper structural point is about speculative demand: developers routinely request power at multiple sites for one project, so Duke may be sizing the system to phantom load. If those plants get built and the customers never arrive, existing ratepayers hold the bill[10][14][16]. They also note Duke has proposed new methane gas plants whose core turbines face supply backlogs of about five years, meaning commitments made now lock in costs long before anyone can verify the demand[10].
WhyThese groups want two things at once: household bill protection and a slower, cleaner generation mix. A strict large load tariff serves both, because higher costs on data centers reduce the case for new gas plants[8][10].
Impact on themThe tariff proceeding is their main leverage point. A weak tariff approved now would be difficult to reopen before the plants are financed[8][9].
Frames it asTheir argument is that the problem is being solved without new mandates, and faster than regulation could. Signatories commit to build, bring or buy new generation, cover the cost of delivery-infrastructure upgrades, negotiate separate rate structures with utilities and states, pay those rates whether or not they use the power, and make backup generation available to grid operators[3]. The administration's scale claim is the point: more than 200 utilities, developers and states, covering about 80% of power delivered to U.S. homes and businesses[3][12]. Industry adds a growth argument — a customer that pays fixed grid costs spread over a huge, steady load can lower the per-unit cost for everyone else, provided the contract is firm. On the regulatory side, the bipartisan Ratepayer Protection Act from Rep. Gabe Evans (R-Colo.) and Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) would set a federal standard directing state regulators to consider requiring users of 100 megawatts or more to cover their full incremental cost; Evans has said the bill 'does not impose a federal mandate' and leaves the choice to states, but it cleared the House Energy and Commerce Committee 52-0[11].
WhyThe industry needs interconnection speed and political permission to build. Voluntary commitments reduce the chance of 50 different mandatory state regimes[3][11]. The administration wants AI buildout to continue without electricity prices becoming a political liability[3][12].
Impact on themData centers are projected to account for a large majority of new electricity demand in North Carolina[14]. Tariff terms — minimum take, contract length, exit penalties — directly set the cost of siting a project in Duke territory versus another state[7].
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WRAL | U.S. center | 2 | NC leaders push Duke Energy to make federal data center pledge legally binding | Verb choice is neutral and the sequence is accurate — pledge first, state response second. WRAL's separate investigative series on 'hidden costs' of the data-center boom signals an editorial interest in the cost-shift angle, but the news piece keeps official claims attributed. |
| Axios | U.S. center | 2 | Duke Energy reaches settlement to lower its proposed rate increase | Frames the settlement as Duke lowering something, which reads as concession-by-the-company. The framing omits that the resulting bill still goes up about 9.5% and that the state's own attorney general refused to sign — the fact that drives the rest of the story. |
| Al Jazeera | Qatari state-funded | 3 | Trump expands voluntary pledge to blunt AI-driven utility bill surges | Puts 'voluntary' in the headline and scare-quotes the White House's 'historic' — accurate, but the emphasis is on the political actor rather than the mechanism. North Carolina appears only as an example; Duke's actual tariff terms are not examined. |
| Washington Examiner | U.S. right | 4 | Bill to protect households from data center energy costs advances in House | Centers a Republican-co-sponsored federal bill rather than the utility's conduct, and leads with 'protect households.' The framing treats the cost shift as a solved problem moving through Congress; utility profit rates and state rate cases are largely absent. |
| NC Newsline | U.S. left (States Newsroom network, funded largely by progressive-aligned donors) | 5 | NC AG Jackson rejects Duke Energy's proposed rate increase | 'Rejects' is stronger than the record: Jackson declined to sign a settlement in a case the commission still decides. The pledge and the large load tariff — the parts favorable to Duke — appear low or not at all. |
| Canary Media | U.S. left-of-center; nonprofit clean-energy trade publication, philanthropically funded | 5 | Duke Energy proposes special rules for data centers in North Carolina | The most detailed reporting on the actual tariff terms — 50 MW threshold, 75% minimum take, 25% exit penalty — but describes the proposal as 'a concession to critics before a hearing,' which assigns motive. Its audience and funding orient it toward the view that gas buildout is the underlying error. |
References
- Gov. Stein, AG Jackson Will Hold Duke Energy to New Federal Data Center Pledge — North Carolina Department of Justice · Primary source; office of a Democratic attorney general
- NC leaders push Duke Energy to make federal data center pledge legally binding — WRAL · U.S. center; Raleigh commercial broadcaster
- President Trump Expands Historic Ratepayer Protection Pledge to Protect American Ratepayers, Lower Electricity Prices — U.S. Environmental Protection Agency · Primary source; U.S. executive branch under the Trump administration — promotional in tone
- No Deal: Attorney General Jackson Won't Sign Duke Energy Settlement That Raises Families' Bills About 9.5% — North Carolina Department of Justice · Primary source; office of a Democratic attorney general
- Duke Energy reaches settlement to lower its proposed rate increase — Axios · U.S. center; for-profit local newsroom
- Duke Energy-stakeholder agreement pares down residential rate increase to 9.5% over 2 years — Port City Daily · U.S. center; independent Wilmington, N.C. local outlet
- Duke Energy proposes special rules for data centers in North Carolina — Canary Media · U.S. left-of-center; nonprofit clean-energy trade publication, philanthropically funded
- Duke Energy's 'light-touch' large load tariff could be a problem — Latitude Media · U.S.; energy-transition trade publication, subscription and sponsor funded
- The Duke Energy settlement is just the beginning for North Carolina's data center energy policy — Environmental Defense Fund · Advocacy; U.S. environmental group and a signatory to the settlement it is describing
- Duke Energy's approach to data centers unnecessarily risks increasing bills and pollution — Southern Environmental Law Center · Advocacy; environmental litigation nonprofit, an intervenor opposing Duke in these proceedings
- Bill to protect households from data center energy costs advances in House — Washington Examiner · U.S. right; conservative political magazine
- Trump expands voluntary pledge to blunt AI-driven utility bill surges — Al Jazeera · Qatari state-funded international broadcaster
- Data centers have already hiked electricity prices on the public by $23 billion. Good luck clawing that back — Fortune · U.S. center to center-left business magazine
- The hidden costs of North Carolina's data center boom — WRAL · U.S. center; Raleigh commercial broadcaster, investigative unit
- The pledge to protect ratepayers from AI data center costs needs enforcement — Brookings Institution · U.S. center-left research institution; foundation, corporate and foreign-government funded
- Consumer advocates push NC state regulators to create separate rates for data centers — WFAE · U.S. center-left; NPR member station, listener and foundation funded
- Duke Energy Carolinas halves its rate hike request in new settlement — WHQR · U.S. center-left; NPR member station, listener and foundation funded
- NC AG Jackson rejects Duke Energy's proposed rate increase — NC Newsline · U.S. left; States Newsroom network, funded largely by progressive-aligned donors