The N.C. Senate voted 27-21 today to pass Senate Bill 559, Storm Securitization/Alt. Rates, a bill that would allow Duke Energy to seek permission for up to five years of rate increases in one request to the N.C. Utilities Commission, instead of having to ask for authorization each time it wants to raise rates.
S 559, Storm Securitization/Alt. Rates, sponsored by Sens. Bill Rabon (R -Bladen, Brunswick, New Hanover, Pender), Ralph Hise (R -Madison, McDowell, Mitchell, Polk, Rutherford, Yancey ) and Dan Blue (D - Wake) would allow the Commission (NCUC) to let Duke Energy request the setting of multiple years of rate increases in a single case - up to five years at a time. Measures proposed by Sens. Harper Peterson and Mike Woodard, but not approved, would have divided the bill or sent it to a stakeholder process.
The N.C. Sierra Club and other citizen groups regularly take part in rate cases before the NCUC in order to seek better environmental outcomes and benefits for customers. Multi-year rate-making, as proposed in this bill, could limit the public’s opportunity to weigh in on and challenge important energy policy decisions and rate increases. The measure would protect Duke shareholders at the expense of customers and would mean less accountability for the utility.
In addition to the opposition of environmental and customer groups, an unlikely coalition of 60 businesses sent a letter April 29 to Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger opposing the measure. No consumer group has come forward in support of the bill.
“The energy landscape can - and does - change quickly for any number of reasons. It’s not in the public interest to allow Duke Energy to lock in rate increases for multiple years without ongoing reviews by the Utilities Commission and public input,” said Molly Diggins, state director of the N.C. Sierra Club. “At a time when energy technologies and sources are changing rapidly, North Carolinians want more say, not less, into energy decisions that affect every citizen. And they want more accountability and transparency from Duke Energy, not less.”