Back
If the war in the Middle East has proved anything over the last month, it’s that fossil fuel prices are extraordinarily unstable. But global conflict isn’t the only catalyst that can send the cost of oil and natural gas reeling. Factors such as extreme weather, policy changes, and pipeline outages can also set off a price roller coaster.
In North Carolina, all this volatility is prompting calls for change. Advocates want the state to join the handful of others that require electric utilities to absorb a fraction of fossil fuel prices — rather than saddling customers with all of them, as the companies do now.
The point of the policy, called fuel-cost sharing, is twofold. It can bring utility bills down for average consumers, who are increasingly angry about ballooning expenses. And it can aid the clean energy transition: If the state’s predominant utility, Duke Energy, knows that its shareholders will take a hit when fuel prices rise, the company may scale back its dependence on polluting gas plants and instead rely more on emissions-free, fuel-free forms of energy, like wind, solar, and batteries.
The notion of fuel-cost sharing is still very much in its nascence here, where Duke wields incredible power over the Republican-controlled legislature, and neither lawmakers nor regulators have pushed the company to invest in cheap, clean energy.
But proponents of the idea say the conversation is still worth having.
“Fuel dependence creates vulnerability — whether it’s gasoline for your car or natural gas for your power plants,” said Josh Brooks, chief of policy strategy and innovation for the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association. “Tying costs to volatile commodities means a lot of risk exposure for ratepayers. That’s an issue both regulators and policymakers should take up.”
North Carolina is far from unique. Most states with vertically integrated utilities allow them to pass 100% of fuel costs to their customers. Utility shareholders don’t earn a return on those outlays in the same way they profit from building new power plants, but they’re insulated from the wild price swings inherent in the global fossil fuel market. Consumers are not.
Ratepayers, for instance, bore the full brunt of spiking gas prices after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. Confusingly for customers, Duke doesn’t specify these fuel charges on their bills; instead, the charges are incorporated into a nondescript line item, leaving consumers to ferret out on their own what they’re paying for fossil fuels.
The lack of clarity around fuel costs adds to customers’ outrage about rising bills. One example of the widespread frustration: A Change.org petition calling for Duke to submit to an independent audit and refund its customers for any improper charges has drawn more than 73,000 signatures so far.
“Unexpected and unexplainable increases in Duke Energy bills have become a major concern for many families,” the petition begins. “When bills rise without reasonable justification or transparency, it impacts our ability to plan and manage our household finances effectively.”
The average household Duke bill has risen by nearly 45% since 2020, according to an analysis from the Energy and Policy Institute, because of a confluence of factors. The cost of natural gas is a major one.
Research from the Environmental Defense Fund shows that fuel costs accounted for 67% of rate increases from 2017 to 2024 in Duke’s central North Carolina territory, and for 46% of the hikes in the rest of the state. While fuel costs did dip last year, they’re still about double what they were in 2017.
“Fuel costs have stayed high since the 2021-22 price spike,” Will Scott, the environmental group’s North Carolina policy director, said in a written response to Canary Media. “At the same time, Duke has become more natural gas reliant, with even more new gas plants on the way.”
Indeed, with the state’s 2030 climate goal gone, and the Trump administration aggressively propping up coal and gas, Duke has every incentive to pursue a massive buildout of fossil fuel infrastructure: Shareholders will profit from the plants and suffer no adverse consequence if gas prices continue to rise.
As Jeremy Kalin, a fuel-cost sharing expert and clean energy finance lawyer, put it, “The utilities are the ones that have all the power, all the visibility, all the expertise — and none of the risk.”
Fuel-cost sharing would shift the balance. In a February report, clean energy think tank Rocky Mountain Institute evaluated one way that North Carolina could structure such a policy: Duke would tell regulators how much it expected to spend on fuel over the course of a year. If the utility went over that estimate, investors would cover 10% of the extra cost — up to a small cap. If fuel ended up costing less than expected, investors would get to pocket 10% of the savings.
The policy, said Oliver Tully, RMI’s carbon-free electricity manager and one of the report’s authors, would “reduce some of the risk exposure that customers have — and essentially give utilities some skin in the game.”
With the 10% sharing scenario in place from 2020 to 2024, RMI concluded, Duke’s roughly 3.8 million customers in North Carolina could have saved a total of $100 million in 2021, 2022, and 2023 — a small but meaningful fraction of the fuel cost increases that followed the pandemic and the invasion of Ukraine. Duke investors, meanwhile, would have gained an extra $9.9 million in 2020 and $1 million in 2024. The net benefit to customers over the study period: $89 million.
Tens of millions in consumer savings is meaningful in and of itself, Tully and other experts stress. But the policy also gives utilities an incentive to reduce their fuel expenses, both in the long term by building fewer gas plants and in the near term by relying less on coal and gas during periods of high demand.
“They have a lot more control, especially compared to ratepayers, over overall fuel costs,” Tully said. “They can decide how much gas-fired generation to build or control. They can choose to invest in resources that don’t have fuel costs, like renewables.”
Ideally, Tully and other experts say, the cost-sharing policy would create a win-win situation that aligns Duke’s incentives with its customers’. Both investors and customers pay more when fuel costs are high and save when fuel costs are low.
“The goal is to get shareholders and customers on the same rope,” Kalin said, “pulling in the same direction.”
Nine states have implemented some form of fuel-cost sharing, according to RMI. Five are in the Northwest, including ruby-red Idaho and Wyoming. Last year, lawmakers in Nevada authorized regulators to study the policy, and Virginia just enacted a law doing the same.
Despite its advantages for customers and even shareholders, the cost-sharing policy’s prospects in North Carolina are uncertain.
The North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association pushed for a study of fuel-cost sharing last year at the North Carolina Utilities Commission as part of its annual deliberation on the fuel charge itself. But regulators rejected the idea, saying they lacked the authority to order such an analysis — at least in the context of a fuel proceeding.
“The commission has historically had a pretty conservative view of its statutory authority,” the association’s Brooks said.
Still, his group plans to raise the issue as part of Duke’s active bid to regulators to increase residential rates by 18% over two years. Proponents will also look for ways to advance the policy during the state legislative session that begins next month, even while expecting that lawmakers will focus their time on other matters.
“That’s not going to stop folks from advocating for some kind of change,” Brooks said.
.svg)
