NC Attorney General Says Duke Energy Misstated Residential Rate Increase Under Oath; Duke Calls It a Mix-Up
Jeff Jackson says Duke Energy Progress households face a 9.3% increase over two years, not the 6.8% figure a company executive gave the Utilities Commission; Duke says its written filings were correct and one number was swapped for another while speaking.
A Number Spoken Out Loud Doesn't Match the Number on the Page
On August 13, 2026, North Carolina's Department of Justice put out a statement accusing Duke Energy of getting a number wrong under oath[1]. The number in question was small — a few percentage points — but it went to the heart of a rate case that will decide how much every Duke Energy Progress customer in the state pays for electricity over the next two years.
Here's the discrepancy. Kendal Bowman, the president of Duke Energy Progress, testified before the North Carolina Utilities Commission that residential rates would rise 3.7% in the first year and 3.1% in the second, for a two-year total of 6.8%[1]. Attorney General Jeff Jackson's office says that number is wrong for the group it was describing. 6.8% is the average increase across every type of customer Duke serves, from homeowners to factories. For households alone, Jackson says, the real number is about 9.3%[1][5].
Duke doesn't dispute the 9.3% figure. What it disputes is what kind of mistake happened, and that disagreement is really about two different things: a testimony error, and a much bigger fight over how much profit a regulated monopoly should be allowed to earn.
Two Camps, One Set of Numbers
Duke's response came from spokesman Bill Norton, who said the company's written settlement filings — the actual documents the commission will rule on — are accurate. He called the spoken error "a simple case of one figure being inadvertently mixed up with another during discussion," and noted that Duke's testimony runs to thousands of pages[3]. In other words: the paperwork is right, a person misspoke.
Jackson's office isn't accepting that framing. "The details matter here, and Duke got it wrong under oath," Jackson said[1]. His office's language leans on the phrase "under oath," which invites readers to think of perjury, even though the release stops short of actually alleging that Duke lied on purpose.
That distinction matters, because it shapes how the story gets told. Some outlets ran headlines suggesting Duke gave "false testimony" — a word implying intent that neither Jackson's own statement nor Duke's response actually uses[11]. Others stuck closer to the numbers themselves, reporting the dispute as an arithmetic correction rather than an accusation of dishonesty[3].
Why This Case Is Really About One Number: The Allowed Profit Rate
The testimony error sits inside a much larger fight, and to understand it you need to understand how a monopoly utility makes money in the first place. Duke Energy Progress can't just raise prices when it wants to, the way a normal business can. It's a regulated monopoly, so a state commission decides what it's allowed to charge.
Here's how that works. Duke spends billions of dollars building power lines, plants, and substations. Roughly half that money comes from lenders, who charge ordinary interest. The other half comes from shareholders, and shareholders don't get a market rate — they get whatever profit rate, called return on equity, or ROE, the commission decides to allow. That single number is the most fought-over figure in the entire case.
Jackson argues the allowed rate should be lower, at 7.4%, and says that would save a typical residential customer about $435[16]. Duke's position needs a bit more explaining to make sense: if regulators set the allowed return too low, investors can take their money elsewhere, and Duke's credit rating can slip. That makes future borrowing more expensive, and those higher borrowing costs eventually land on customer bills too[14][16]. Neither side is acting unreasonably here. They just disagree about where the line should sit. Duke originally asked for a rate above 10%; the Public Staff, the commission's in-house consumer advocate, recommended 9.45%; the settlement Duke reached in July landed near 9.8%[8][12][16].
That settlement is the other half of this story. Duke originally asked for an 18.1% residential increase over two years[1]. In July, it settled with the Public Staff and several other parties — including a coalition of industrial customers, a clean-energy trade group, and Walmart — for roughly half that amount[8][9]. Jackson refused to sign it[2].
The Groups That Signed, and the Ones Still Fighting
Environmental and clean-energy groups split over the deal, and that split says something about what a settlement actually buys. The Southern Environmental Law Center and the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy signed on, trading a smaller rate cut than they might have won through more litigation for guaranteed programs: home weatherization, solar-plus-battery incentives, low-income bill assistance, and required studies on how costs get divided among customer types[9].
Other advocates, along with a Democratic state legislator, kept pushing during the August hearings that even the reduced increase is still too much, especially for households absorbing costs tied to new data-center construction[7]. That tension between "a deal is better than a gamble" and "the deal still isn't good enough" is exactly why settlements in cases like this one always leave some parties unsatisfied.
The Public Staff's case for settling is straightforward: a negotiated deal delivers a certain, immediate cut, roughly half of what Duke asked for, while a fully litigated case could end up higher or lower depending on how the commission rules. Signing parties get concessions they couldn't guarantee in court. Jackson, by not signing, keeps his leverage and forces the commission itself to weigh in on the disputed numbers.
What a Household Actually Pays, and What Happens Next
Strip away the competing narratives and the underlying facts aren't actually in dispute. Everyone agrees the corrected residential figure is roughly 9.3% over two years, not 6.8%[1][5]. Duke asked for 18.1% and settled near half of that[1]. For a household using 1,000 kilowatt-hours a month, the settlement works out to about $9.62 more per month starting January 1, 2027, and another $5.89 more in 2028[6]. That's on top of bills that have already climbed roughly 22% since 2020[6].
Coverage of the story split along familiar lines. NC Newsline and Public Radio East, both left-leaning outlets, led with the AG's "under oath" framing, and Public Radio East's headline went further, using the word "false"[4][11]. Carolina Journal, published by the free-market John Locke Foundation, ran the story straight, focused on the arithmetic, and gave Duke's rebuttal real space — notably without defending the utility, since a regulated monopoly's profit margin is an easy target from the free-market right too[3]. WRAL, a Raleigh broadcaster, framed it around the reader's own bill, leading with a 71,000-signature petition demanding an independent audit of Duke's billing[6].
None of this — not the testimony correction, not Jackson's objection, not the competing frames in the press — actually decides what customers pay. That authority belongs to the Utilities Commission alone. Evidentiary hearings ran through the week of August 10, 2026[7], and the commission can approve the settlement as written, modify it, or reject it outright. Until it rules, the 9.3% figure is what's on the table, not what's final.
Summary
North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson said on August 13, 2026 that Duke Energy gave the state Utilities Commission an incorrect number under oath[1]. Kendal Bowman, Duke's North Carolina president, testified that residential rates would rise 3.7% in the first rate year and 3.1% in the second — 6.8% in all[1]. Jackson's office says that 6.8% is the average across every class of customer, including big industrial users. The figure for households alone, he says, is about 9.3% over the two years[1][5].
Duke does not dispute the 9.3% residential number. It disputes what the mistake was. Spokesman Bill Norton said the company's written settlement filings are accurate, and that "one figure being inadvertently mixed up with another during discussion" can happen across thousands of pages of testimony[3]. Jackson's answer: "The details matter here, and Duke got it wrong under oath"[1].
The testimony fight sits inside a bigger one. Duke Energy Progress first asked to raise residential rates about 18.1% over two years[1]. In July it settled with the Public Staff — the Utilities Commission's own in-house customer advocate — and with industrial customers, a clean-energy group and Walmart[8][9]. Jackson refused to sign[2]. He argues the deal still lets Duke earn more profit than it needs, and he has asked the commission to cut Duke's allowed return on equity far below what the settlement sets[16].
The Utilities Commission, not the Attorney General, decides. Evidentiary hearings ran the week of August 10, 2026[7]. Under the settlement as filed, a household using 1,000 kilowatt-hours a month would pay about $9.62 more per month starting January 1, 2027, and another $5.89 more in 2028[6]. Whether the commission approves the settlement, changes it, or rejects it is still open.
The Event
On August 13, 2026, the North Carolina Department of Justice issued a statement saying Duke Energy had given the North Carolina Utilities Commission an incorrect residential rate figure in sworn testimony[1]. The statement said Duke Energy Progress president Kendal Bowman testified to a 3.7% increase in rate year one and 3.1% in rate year two — 6.8% combined — but that this is the all-customer average, and that residential customers face about 9.3% over the two years[1]. Duke spokesman Bill Norton said the company's settlement filings are accurate and that one figure was inadvertently swapped for another during spoken discussion[3]. The same week, Attorney General Jeff Jackson declined to sign the proposed settlement between Duke and other parties, and evidentiary hearings continued before the commission[2][7].
Undisputed Facts
- Duke Energy Progress originally asked the North Carolina Utilities Commission for a residential rate increase of about 18.1% over two years[1].
- In July 2026, Duke reached a settlement with the Utilities Commission's Public Staff and other parties, including the Carolina Industrial Group for Fair Utility Rates, the Carolina Utility Customers Association, the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association and Walmart[8][9].
- Attorney General Jeff Jackson intervened in the case and did not sign that settlement[2][10].
- Duke's North Carolina president Kendal Bowman testified to a two-year residential increase of 6.8%, made up of 3.7% and 3.1%[1].
- Duke Energy has not disputed that the residential-only figure under the settlement is higher than 6.8%; spokesman Bill Norton said the written filings were accurate and that a figure was mixed up during discussion[3].
- Under the settlement as filed, a customer using 1,000 kilowatt-hours a month would pay about $9.62 more per month starting January 1, 2027, and about $5.89 more per month in 2028[6].
- Evidentiary hearings in the Duke Energy Progress rate case were held before the Utilities Commission during the week of August 10, 2026[7].
- The Utilities Commission — not the Attorney General — has the legal authority to approve, modify or reject the settlement[7].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- A monopoly earns by investing, not by selling more
- Duke cannot set its own prices. Under cost-of-service regulation, it recovers what it spends running the system, plus a regulator-approved profit rate on the money shareholders put in. That is return on equity, or ROE. It works like this: Duke needs billions to build lines, plants and substations. Roughly half comes from lenders and half from shareholders. Lenders get an interest rate set by the market. Shareholders get whatever rate the commission allows — nothing more, nothing less. So the ROE is the single most valuable number in the case, and it is why both sides fight over fractions of a percent. Jackson's argument is intuitive: a higher allowed profit rate means a bigger bill, and he says 7.4% would save a typical household about $435[16]. Duke's argument needs the mechanism to make sense: if the allowed return drops below what investors can get elsewhere at similar risk, they put money somewhere else, credit ratings can slip, and the company then borrows at higher interest — a cost customers pay later, in every future bill. Neither side is being unreasonable; they disagree about where the line sits. The settlement landed near 9.8%, the Public Staff recommended 9.45%, and Duke's filed request was above 10%[8][12][16].
- Settlements are the normal way rate cases end
- Most large rate cases settle. Parties trade a lower headline number for programs, and the utility trades profit for certainty and a faster close. That is why environmental groups signed a deal that still raises rates: they got weatherization, solar-plus-battery and low-income programs they could not have won by litigating[9]. It is also why an outside party like the Attorney General has leverage mainly by refusing to sign and forcing the commission to rule[2].
- Data-center load is the new cost driver
- Duke's Q2 2026 investor materials describe a $103 billion capital plan through 2030 and a high-confidence pipeline of 15.4 gigawatts of large new load, largely data centers[14]. That spending is the underlying reason rate cases are getting bigger. The unresolved policy question — who pays for capacity built for a handful of very large customers — is exactly what the settlement's required cost-allocation studies are meant to examine[9].
Material realityA number was said out loud in a hearing that did not match the number for the group of customers under discussion. Everyone now agrees on the corrected household figure: roughly 9.3% over two years, not 6.8%[1][5]. Duke Energy Progress asked for about 18.1% and settled near half that[1]. For a household using 1,000 kilowatt-hours a month, the settlement means about $9.62 more per month from January 1, 2027, then about $5.89 more in 2028[6]. That is a real but modest monthly change on top of bills that have already risen roughly 22% since 2020[6]. The far larger money is in the return on equity, where a difference of one percentage point moves hundreds of millions of dollars across the rate period[10][16]. None of this is decided by the Attorney General or by Duke. The Utilities Commission rules. Published figures also vary slightly — one account of the July settlement described the residential increase as 9.5% rather than 9.3%[13] — which is a reminder that the underlying arithmetic depends on which rate classes and which years you count.
Narrative as a weaponTwo offices are actively shaping this story. Jackson's DOJ wrote the press release that created it, and its word choice does specific work: "under oath" invites readers to hear perjury, though the release stops short of alleging intent, and the release folds a factual correction into his separate policy objection that the settlement is too generous. He wants you to believe Duke either misled regulators or does not understand its own filing. Duke's communications shop is running the mirror play: Norton's statement moves the subject from the testimony to the filings, calls the error "simple" and "inadvertent," and cites "thousands of pages" to make the slip sound inevitable. He wants you to believe nothing of substance changed. A third group is quieter but consequential — the clean-energy and legal groups that signed the settlement. They have an interest in the deal surviving, because the programs they negotiated die with it, and that shapes how loudly they engage with the testimony fight. Local outlets have largely relayed the AG's frame, since it arrived first, in writing, from a public office; the strongest wording — "false testimony" — appears in a headline, not in Jackson's own text.
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 asJackson's case is about accuracy and about who is watching. His first argument is that a regulator can only do its job on correct numbers, and the number a monopoly speaks under oath about ordinary households is not a rounding detail — "The details matter here, and Duke got it wrong under oath"[1]. His second argument is that 9.3% is simply too much for families, and more than Duke needs. He says the company could cover its investments on a smaller allowed profit, and that cutting the allowed return on equity to 7.4% would save a typical residential customer roughly $435[16]. His third argument is structural: the Public Staff signed the deal, but the Public Staff sits inside the commission it argues before, so an independent elected advocate still has a job to do[2][10].
WhyJackson holds a statewide elected office and is widely seen as a rising figure in North Carolina Democratic politics. Utility bills are one of the few kitchen-table issues an attorney general can act on directly. His office has framed its two Duke interventions in dollars saved — $1.4 billion in one filing, $960 million in the second[10][16].
Impact on themIf the commission cuts the increase, Jackson gets a concrete, measurable win on household bills. If it approves the settlement over his objection, he has still built a public record against it. The testimony error itself costs him nothing either way — it strengthens his argument that the settlement was not fully understood when other parties signed.
Frames it asDuke's position is that the error was verbal, not substantive. Norton says the settlement filings — the documents the commission actually rules on — are accurate, and that mixing one figure with another while speaking about thousands of pages of testimony is an ordinary human slip, not misleading the tribunal[3]. On the rates themselves, Duke's stronger argument is about what the money buys. It is spending heavily on new generation and transmission, with a $103 billion capital plan through 2030 and a pipeline of large new customers, mostly data centers[14]. It also points out that it did something utilities rarely do: it cut its own request in front of the commission, from about 18.1% to the settled level, after pushback[15][1].
WhyDuke is a regulated monopoly. It cannot raise prices on its own; it earns by investing in the grid and being allowed to recover that investment plus a set profit rate. So its core interest is a high enough allowed return to keep borrowing cheap and shareholders in, and a settlement that closes the case without a contested ruling.
Impact on themThe allowed return on equity drives Duke's earnings for years. A ruling closer to Jackson's 7.4% than to the settlement figure would cut revenue materially and could affect how it finances its capital plan[14][16]. Reputationally, a public accusation of wrong sworn testimony is costly in a state where it already faces a 71,000-signature petition for an independent billing audit[6].
Frames it asThe Public Staff is the commission's in-house customer advocate, created by statute to represent using-and-consuming public. Its argument for signing is that a settlement delivers a certain, immediate cut — roughly halving Duke's ask — while a fully litigated case is a gamble that could end higher. It recommended a return on equity of 9.45%, below Duke's request, as a defensible middle[8][12]. The commission's own position is procedural: it is a quasi-judicial body. It must set rates that are "just and reasonable" for customers while allowing the utility a return sufficient to attract capital. It does not have to accept any settlement, and it can modify one.
WhyThe Public Staff's currency is credibility with the commission across dozens of cases a year, which pushes it toward negotiated outcomes it can defend on the record rather than maximalist positions. The commission's incentive is a decision that survives appeal.
Impact on themThe testimony dispute lands directly on the commission's record. If it approves a settlement described to it with a wrong household number, that becomes an appealable issue. Correcting the record on the spot is cheaper than being reversed later[1][7].
Frames it asThis camp is split, which is the important part. The Southern Environmental Law Center, the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy and the NC Sustainable Energy Association signed the settlement, arguing that a negotiated deal wins things litigation cannot — weatherization and solar-plus-battery programs, low-income bill help, and required studies on how costs get split among residential, commercial and industrial customers[9]. Other advocates and a Democratic state legislator kept pressing publicly during the August hearings that even the reduced increase is too high, and that households should not carry costs driven by data-center growth[7].
WhySigning parties trade rate concessions for program wins and a seat at the next table. Non-signers preserve leverage and a public campaign.
Impact on themIf the commission cuts the increase below the settlement, the signers lose little. If the settlement collapses, the negotiated programs go with it — which is the risk the signers weighed.
Like this article?
The Bias Ledger average rating 3.7
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carolina Journal | U.S. right (published by the free-market John Locke Foundation) | 2 | "AG: Duke residential rate increase is 9.3%, not 6.8%" | Attributes the claim to the AG in the headline and sticks to the arithmetic. Notably does not defend Duke — a monopoly's guaranteed profit is an easy target from the free-market right — but it also drops the "under oath" charge, which softens the accusation. |
| WRAL | U.S. center (Raleigh commercial broadcaster) | 3 | "Duke Energy rate hike hearings resume in NC. How much could your power bill increase?" | Service-journalism frame centered on the reader's bill. Carries the 71,000-signature audit petition and the "bills up 22% since 2020" figure high, which sets a rising-cost frame before the settlement's arguments are heard. |
| Axios | U.S. center | 3 | "Duke Energy reaches settlement to lower its proposed rate increase" | Deal-making frame: the verb is "lower," which reads as concession. Written before the testimony dispute, so it presents the settlement number without the residential-vs-average distinction that later became the whole fight. |
| Business North Carolina | U.S. center-right (state business press) | 3 | "Duke agrees to partial rate-case settlement" | Written for an investor and executive audience. Foregrounds return-on-equity numbers and settling parties; the household bill impact is treated as one input among several rather than the point of the story. |
| NC Newsline | U.S. left | 5 | "NC AG Jackson: Duke Energy gave wrong information about rate hike under oath" | Adopts the AG's "under oath" framing in the headline and runs the story as a brief. Its companion piece the same week frames the case through environmentalists and a Democratic lawmaker demanding more cuts, so Duke's rebuttal gets less room than the pushback. |
| Public Radio East | U.S. center-left (public radio) | 6 | "State leaders accuse Duke Energy of giving false testimony under oath about proposed rate increase" | "False testimony" is the strongest wording in the coverage set. Jackson said Duke "got it wrong"; "false" implies intent that no party has alleged. "State leaders" also pluralizes a claim made by one office. |
References
- Duke Energy Gave Incorrect Residential Rate Increase; Families to Pay 9.3% More, Not 6.8% — North Carolina Department of Justice · Official statement from the office of a Democratic elected attorney general who is a party opposing the settlement
- Attorney General Jeff Jackson Won't Sign Second Duke Energy Settlement That Will Cost Families 6.8% in Rate Hikes — North Carolina Department of Justice · Official statement from a party to the proceeding; advocacy framing
- AG: Duke residential rate increase is 9.3%, not 6.8% — Carolina Journal · U.S. right; published by the free-market John Locke Foundation
- NC AG Jackson: Duke Energy gave wrong information about rate hike under oath — NC Newsline · U.S. left; part of the donor-funded States Newsroom network
- Attorney general says Duke Energy Progress customers could see 9.3% rate increase — WITN · U.S. center; Gray Media commercial local TV
- Duke Energy rate hike hearings resume in NC. How much could your power bill increase? — WRAL · U.S. center; Capitol Broadcasting, Raleigh
- NC environmentalists continue pushing back on Duke Energy rate hike — NC Newsline · U.S. left; States Newsroom network
- Duke Energy reaches settlement to lower its proposed rate increase — Axios · U.S. center; commercial digital newsroom
- Groups reach settlement with Duke Energy Progress on rate increase — Southern Environmental Law Center · Environmental litigation nonprofit; a signing party to the settlement it describes
- Attorney General Jeff Jackson Intervenes in Second Duke Energy Rate Case to Save North Carolina Families Another $960 Million — North Carolina Department of Justice · Official statement from a party to the proceeding
- State leaders accuse Duke Energy of giving false testimony under oath about proposed rate increase — Public Radio East · U.S. center-left; NPR member station licensed to East Carolina University
- Duke agrees to partial rate-case settlement — Business North Carolina · U.S. center-right; state business trade publication
- Duke Energy-stakeholder agreement pares down residential rate increase to 9.5% over 2 years — Port City Daily · U.S. center; Wilmington-area local news
- Duke Energy Q2 2026 slides: data center boom drives $103B capital plan — Investing.com · Financial-markets trade site summarizing company investor materials
- Duke Energy takes rare step of lowering a rate request in front of the NC Utilities Commission — WFAE · U.S. center-left; NPR member station, Charlotte
- NC attorney general challenges Duke Energy Progress rate hike — WRAL · U.S. center; Capitol Broadcasting, Raleigh