Why Most North Carolinians Are Outraged Over Power Plant Charges—And What It Means for Your Utility Bill

• 85% of North Carolina voters oppose CWIP, which bills consumers for future power plants before they’re built.
• South Carolina and Georgia offer cautionary tales: billions wasted on abandoned or delayed nuclear projects under similar rules.
• Senate Bill 261 would expand CWIP and remove Duke Energy’s mandate to cut emissions 70% by 2030.
• 74% support electricity market competition, and 72% prefer candidates favoring renewables.
• 65% want Duke Energy to bear some fuel overrun costs instead of passing all to customers.
• Bipartisan momentum grows for affordable clean energy, transparency, and consumer choice.

On a sweltering afternoon in Raleigh, a quiet rebellion is brewing—not on the streets, but in the living rooms and kitchens of North Carolina families scrutinizing their utility bills. Their frustration? Hidden charges for power plants they may never actually benefit from—facilities that exist only on blueprints or behind construction fences, still years from flickering to life.

A groundbreaking survey by Conservatives for Clean Energy has illuminated the discontent. Their poll revealed that an overwhelming 85% of voters statewide are firmly against “construction work in progress” (CWIP), a practice that lets Duke Energy and other utilities pass the financing costs of unbuilt power plants on to consumers—sometimes far in advance of ever erecting the first steel beam.

“Basically, no one likes CWIP unless they’re a Duke Energy shareholder,” quipped Thomas Shumaker, North Carolina director for Conservatives for Clean Energy. He points to a stark reality: the state’s ratepayers could find themselves footing the bill for projects that vanish in regulatory limbo, never producing a single watt.

• A Cautionary Tale: Just south in South Carolina, consumers are still saddled with $9 billion in costs for V.C. Summer nuclear reactors, abandoned midway—monuments to dreams that fizzled.
• Budget Blowouts: Georgia’s Plant Vogtle has become a byword for delay and overspend, with twin nuclear reactors crossing the finish line almost a decade late and $18 billion over budget—all under advance-billing rules similar to CWIP.
• Borderless Bills: The debacle doesn’t stop at state lines. Shumaker warns, “Ratepayers here could be billed for a gas plant in Georgia or Ohio that never benefits them directly, because the regional grid crosses state lines.”

The controversy centers on Senate Bill 261, a proposal that passed the North Carolina Senate in March. If enacted, it would empower utilities to widely expand CWIP and—critically—erase Duke Energy’s obligation to slash carbon emissions 70% by 2030.

Duke Energy’s Case: The utility claims that early cost recovery helps “enable cleaner energy resources to power our growing state while keeping costs as low as possible for customers.” Former executive Paul Newton, who sponsored the bill, argues this approach can lower borrowing expenses and smooth out future rate shocks.

But the public isn’t buying it. The poll found broad appetites for change:

• 74% want more competition—supporting the idea that multiple companies should be allowed to sell electricity, breaking Duke’s near-monopoly grip.
• 72% prefer candidates who champion renewables like wind and solar power.
• 65% believe Duke Energy should absorb some fuel-price overruns, instead of passing every penny to the consumer.

Former State Representative John Szoka, now CEO of the Conservative Energy Network, sees these attitudes as part of a growing, bipartisan movement: “Voters of every political stripe want affordable clean energy and real competition. Ignoring that message could prove costly—both for consumers and for lawmakers worried about their political fortunes.”

As the debate rages, North Carolinians are watching their representatives closely, demanding a new era of transparency, accountability, and real choice in the power that keeps the lights on. The era of silent acceptance may be over, as more insist: no more paying now for power that might never come.

North Carolina’s Electric Bill Shock: What CWIP Means for Your Wallet

• Pros: Utilities’ Arguments
  • Lower Borrowing Costs:
    Duke Energy says that recovering costs during construction helps keep borrowing expenses in check and prevents future sticker shock.
  • Supports Clean Energy Growth:
    Early cost recovery may allow for investments in cleaner energy resources to meet statewide energy demands.
  • Smoother Rate Increases:
    CWIP can spread out customer bill increases over time, avoiding sharp spikes once plants enter service.
• Cons: Consumer and Watchdog Concerns
  • Pays for Power Plants That May Never Be Built:
    Customers risk footing the bill for projects that are cancelled or left unfinished, such as the notorious V.C. Summer and Plant Vogtle cases.
  • No Direct Benefit Required:
    The system allows companies to bill North Carolinians for plants—even in other states—that may never provide them electricity.
  • Undermines Clean Energy Goals:
    According to critics, advancing bills like Senate Bill 261 could weaken mandates to cut carbon emissions and slow renewable adoption.
  • Lack of Consumer Control:
    Customers have no meaningful say in which projects they’re charged for or what happens if plans change midstream.
• Controversies & Limitations
  • Public Opposition:
    Surveys by Conservatives for Clean Energy show 85% of voters oppose CWIP, citing hidden fees and lack of transparency.
  • Questionable Accountability:
    Decades of risks being transferred to ratepayers without recourse if a plant fails, vanishes in regulatory limbo, or wildly overshoots its budget.
  • Political Ramifications:
    Grassroots pushback is fueling bipartisan efforts for reform, as noted by Conservative Energy Network.

The debate over advance-billing power projects shines a light on who should bear the risks and costs of ambitious energy investments—consumers, shareholders, or both? With controversy swirling, North Carolinians are demanding accountability, transparency, and clean energy progress—not just a bill for power that may never flow.

The Shocking Energy Revolution: What’s Next for North Carolina?

• Rapid Expansion of Independent Energy Providers

  Expect a surge in calls to break up utility monopolies and enable retail competition, as poll results show strong bipartisan support for alternatives to Duke Energy. The next few years could see legislative proposals and pilot programs designed to let customers choose their own electricity supplier, much like shopping for internet service.

• Public Pushback on Advance Billing Practices

  Pressure is mounting for North Carolina lawmakers to reconsider or restrict “construction work in progress” fees. Organizations like Conservatives for Clean Energy are expected to play a major advocacy role, driving transparency and consumer protections to the forefront of legislative agendas.

• Renewable Energy on the Rise

  With 72% of voters favoring candidates who prioritize solar and wind, North Carolina is on track for accelerated renewable energy adoption. Investments in clean infrastructure—prompted by grassroots demand—could help the state catch up to or even surpass current clean energy leaders.

• Greater Legislative Accountability and Oversight

  Grassroots outrage over SB261 is likely to lead to more rigorous oversight of utility spending and project approvals by bodies such as the North Carolina General Assembly. Expect new laws focused on consumer rights, as well as more frequent public hearings on energy policy.

• Regional Impacts Across State Borders

  As the eastern power grid operates across multiple states, future policy changes in North Carolina could influence rate structures and project approval rules far beyond state lines, setting new precedents for neighbor states like South Carolina and Georgia.

• Growth of Bipartisan Clean Energy Movements

  Organizations including Conservative Energy Network are harnessing broad political appeal. In the coming years, expect more collaborative policymaking that bridges traditional party divides—all driven by the electorate’s growing demand for affordable, transparent, and sustainable energy.