In a decision that read as both legal rebuke and practical frustration, a North Carolina appellate court ruled this month that regulators exceeded their authority when they let Duke Energy include certain past fuel shortfalls in 2024 rate riders. But the judges also concluded that, because of a 2025 change in state law, customers will not automatically receive refunds — a legal outcome that leaves families already squeezed by higher bills to shoulder costs that a court said were collected improperly.
For Durham — a city of roughly 312,000 people with about 126,550 households — the ruling is not merely an appellate opinion for lawyers to argue about. It’s a measurable transfer of dollars out of household budgets at a time of elevated cost pressure: the portion of the disputed charges the court flagged is small relative to the company’s total, but it is real money that would have helped low-income families pay rent, buy groceries or keep heat and power on.
What the court said, in plain English
The Court of Appeals found the Utilities Commission had allowed the utility to fold into a 2024 fuel rider cost recoveries that the controlling statute permitted only within a single 12-month test period. The practical result: the commission had authorized collection of dollars that, under the law the court applied, should not have been included in that rider. But the court declined to order refunds, citing a legislative change passed in 2025 that expanded the pathways utilities may use to recoup shortfalls — effectively limiting the practical effect of refunding money now because the disputed sums could be recovered again later under the new statutory framework.
That technical description matters because it explains why the court could find error but stop short of immediately putting money back into consumers’ pockets.
How much money is at stake, and who paid it
There are two numbers people should know going in:
• Duke reported nearly $998 million of under-recovered fuel costs from 2022 across its Carolinas operations during the filings that produced the contested riders. But most of that nearly-billion figure was addressed in earlier proceedings.
• The slice that the appeals process specifically questioned in the latest ruling — the amount the court signaled was improperly included in the 2024 riders — is modest by comparison: local reporting and the company’s filings put that challenged portion at roughly $19.1 million.
To translate those numbers into household impacts, reporters used Duke’s service footprint and city household counts:
• Duke Energy Carolinas told regulators in past filings that it serves roughly 2 million households and businesses across central and western North Carolina (that territory includes Durham). Using that figure to divide the $19.1 million yields a rough per-customer amount of about $9.55. That is an imprecise but serviceable approximation for the incremental charge each residential customer bore on average because of the disputed portion of the rider.
• Durham itself has ~126,550 households (U.S. Census QuickFacts). If charges were distributed pro rata across the utility footprint, Durham’s share of that $19.1 million would be roughly $1.21 million—again, an estimate that assumes proportional allocation; actual billing patterns, commercial loads and non-residential allocations could change the local arithmetic. Dividing the city share back to households gives the same per-household figure: about $9.55.
These are deliberately conservative, back-of-the-envelope calculations meant to make the impact tangible. The $998 million headline number — the total under-recovery initially reported — would produce a far larger per-household figure if it were the amount at issue. But the appellate opinion deals with the narrower $19.1 million contested slice.
Why that modest-seeming dollar matters to many Durham families
Nine dollars and change may sound inconsequential in the abstract. But asked how much a single, returnable $9.55 would mean to those who are energy-burdened, community leaders and social-services caseworkers answered with an immediate and humanizing list: groceries, a week of transportation, a medicine co-pay, or the difference between catching up and falling behind on a bill. In Durham, about 11–12% of residents live below the federal poverty line; in raw terms that is tens of thousands of people and more than 14,000 households in the city alone. For households that are rent- or cost-burdened, every dollar returned to pocketbooks matters.
Beyond poverty counts, energy burden data — the share of income households spend on energy — shows that low-income households carry disproportionate costs. Federal LEAD data and local studies show low-income households typically spend a significantly higher share of their incomes on energy than middle-income families; in some places that energy burden exceeds 10% of household income. A one-time refund may not erase structural unaffordability, but targeted credits or one-time payments directed at the most energy-burdened households would deliver immediate, measurable relief.
Who benefits and who does not from the court’s practical outcome
The appeals court’s legal reasoning may slow the utility’s ability to collect disputed sums in the immediate term, but the 2025 statute the court relied upon leaves the company with additional, formal pathways to recover shortfalls later. That means customers may win a legal argument without seeing dollars returned — the remedy is procedural rather than monetary. Consumer advocates called the result hollow: a legal win without practical relief.
For households that struggled to pay the original bills, that hollow victory is a real hardship. Local social-services providers say a recurring $10 charge can tip some families from solvency to arrears when multiplied by other expenses and unpredictable income. For people living paycheck to paycheck, “improperly collected” is not an abstract doctrine — it’s money that could have paid for food or medicine.
Why automatic refunds are both possible and politically fraught
The utilities commission can rewrite riders on remand, and the General Assembly could revise statutes — but the political path is narrow.
• The court remanded the matter to the North Carolina Utilities Commission to proceed consistent with the opinion; the commission could choose to order a refund or a credit in that proceeding — but the 2025 statutory changes complicate the commission’s options and, as the court observed, may blunt the effect of a refund.
• Lawmakers changed the statute in 2025 — commonly referenced in reporting as part of a broader energy package — providing utilities with broader mechanisms to recover under-collections or to finance investments. Supporters said the changes were necessary to enable large capital programs and reliability investments; critics said the bill reduced consumer remedies and insulated utilities from consequences when regulators mistakenly allowed over-recovery. The consequence is that a straightforward, immediate refund is now legally and politically harder to achieve.
A humane policy position: refunds targeted to those who need them most
Bull City Citizen takes a clear position: when a court finds money was wrongly collected from ratepayers, the state should prioritize returning that money — not just on principle, but because vulnerable households feel the harm most acutely. But there are two policy realities to account for: (1) the law as written complicates wholesale refunds, and (2) blunt, universal rebates can produce perverse incentives (e.g., refunding businesses and wealthy households who do not need the relief).
So here is a practical, targeted set of remedies the paper urges state leaders, the commission and lawmakers to adopt immediately:
Direct credits for low-income households. Use existing customer-assistance channels (for example, Duke Energy’s Customer Assistance Program/CAP and the federal LIEAP/LIEAP-style supports) to apply a one-time credit equal to each qualifying household’s share of the contested amounts. These programs already reach thousands of North Carolinians and are designed to serve the most energy-burdened customers. Implementing credits through CAP or LIHEAP avoids the bluntness of company-wide rebates and ensures funds reach households most in need. A carve-out refund with safeguards. If a broader refund is ordered, it should be structured to direct at least the first tier of relief to households below a poverty or income threshold — for example, households at or below 150% of the federal poverty level — with remaining sums used for a small, time-limited bill stabilization fund. This would protect both the principle of restitution and the fiscal stability of the grid. (State agencies already run eligibility screens for LIHEAP and related programs.) Transparency and speed. If the commission remands the case and produces a new order, it must publish a clear timeline and a simple explanation (in multiple languages) of who is eligible, how to claim relief and how long credits will take to show on bills. Unclear or delayed communications compound harm for households already behind on payments. The Public Staff and state leadership should insist on specific, enforceable deadlines. Legislative fix that protects low-income ratepayers. The General Assembly should consider a narrow fix that preserves utilities’ ability to recover prudently incurred costs while explicitly protecting remedies for consumers when regulators have misapplied the statute. That could take the form of a requirement that any recoveries tied to past under-collections include a mandatory hardship-credit component or that the commission must consider refunds when the court finds statutory error. The point: legal changes meant to preserve grid investment must not all but eliminate effective remedies for households.
What Durham households can do now
If you live in Durham and are struggling with your energy bill:
• Check eligibility and apply for federal and state assistance (LIHEAP/LIEAP) through Durham County social-services offices — those programs can produce one-time vendor payments or ongoing credits. Local contacts and applications are listed on Durham County’s site.
• If you are a Duke Energy customer, review Duke’s Customer Assistance Program and Share the Light Fund; customers approved for LIHEAP or crisis programs often qualify automatically for extra CAP credits. Installment plans and energy-efficiency programs can also reduce future bills.
• Reach out to local nonprofits and community action agencies; some groups maintain emergency energy funds and may be able to help bridge a bill while regulatory and legislative remedies are worked out.
The politics: who supports refunds and who resists
Consumer advocates and many elected Democrats have pushed for refunds or for meaningful relief for low-income households. Officials who backed the 2025 statute and some industry groups argue that certainty for investor capital and a predictable recovery mechanism are necessary to attract the billions of dollars utilities say they need to modernize the grid — investments supporters argue will ultimately lower costs by preventing outages and improving reliability. The appeals-court opinion, and its refusal to order a refund, exposes that tension.
Gov. Josh Stein decried elements of the 2025 legislation at the time and warned that some changes could weaken consumer protections; his office noted the risk that legislative fixes could blunt remedies after the fact. That political disagreement will shape whether Durham families see relief or are told the law leaves them without practical recourse.
Why local journalism matters here
This is precisely the kind of arcane-sounding, procedural dispute that has direct consequences for households on a budget. Legal briefs and statutes matter; so does the local report that explains how many families in your neighborhood are statistically likely to be energy-burdened and how a one-time credit could change their month. Bull City Citizen will continue to follow the remand, track filings before the commission, and press the commission, lawmakers and company spokespeople for a remedy that prioritizes people who need the money most. If you rely on local reporting to hold power to account, please consider subscribing, sharing our reporting and tipping us to story leads that connect the legal record to people who are being hurt. (Subscription and newsroom contact information is available at Bull City Citizen.)
Documents, data and further reading
• Court reporting and background on the appeal and remand.
• Duke Energy’s public filings about fuel under-recovery and service territory.
• U.S. Census QuickFacts for household counts and poverty estimates in Durham.
• LEAD tool and NC Clean Energy Fund reports on energy burden in low-income households.
• Duke Energy assistance programs and state LIHEAP/LIEAP resources for immediate help.
This story will evolve as the utilities commission issues new orders and as the remand work proceeds. Bull City Citizen will publish document-driven updates, explain what new orders mean for your bill, and — most importantly — report on whether the money the court said should not have been collected ever makes its way back to those who needed it in the first place. If you or your organization have a bill statement or an experience to share, email our newsroom so we can document how this ruling hits real households.
(Reporting contributed by Bull City Citizen legal and policy reporters. Editorial note: Bull City Citizen advocates for transparent, targeted relief for low-income households when courts find improper over-collection of utility charges.)
