NC Power Study Warns Data-Center Boom Could Shift Billions to Ratepayers Breaking News · North Carolina · Data Centers · Utility Bills · Energy Policy · Transparency · Accountability · DINA Analysis By DINA North Carolina Energy & Ratepayer Accountability Desk Primary-record reporting, utility accountability and independent analysis Democracy Independent News Association (DINA) Published: 2026-10-27 Original: https://www.dinanews247.press/articles/nc-data-center-power-costs-october-27 A state-commissioned study models tens of billions in large-load costs through 2050 and says missing Duke Energy inputs prevent the public from independently reconciling competing forecasts. Breaking news · North Carolina · Data centers · Utility bills · Energy policy · Transparency · DINA analysis RALEIGH — A state-commissioned electricity study released Tuesday warns that rapid growth from data centers and other very large power users could require tens of billions of dollars in new generation and grid investment through 2050, while exposing residential customers to costs if regulators do not assign those expenses to the companies creating the demand. Gov. Josh Stein's office said large loads would add about $50 billion in costs under a business-as-usual path. The underlying North Carolina Power Pathways report, prepared by Energy Futures Group for the governor's Energy Policy Task Force, modeled Duke Energy's service territories and found a present value of $247.99 billion in capital and operating requirements for its base case from 2026 through 2050. The report is a scenario analysis, not a utility-rate order or a precise bill forecast. Its authors expressly say their cost assessment should not be mistaken for a rate-impact analysis. The North Carolina Utilities Commission has not approved the modeled construction or decided who will pay for it. What the study found In the study's base case, Duke's annual energy requirement rises from 165 terawatt-hours in 2026 to 265 terawatt-hours in 2050, driven primarily by new large-load customers. The model attributes 5.8 gigawatts of increased demand to those customers by 2035 and says the forecast, combined with planned coal and gas retirements, would require a major buildout of gas, nuclear, solar, storage and wind resources. An alternative scenario counted only large customers that had begun the interconnection process. That scenario assumed 1,806 megawatts of new load, compared with roughly 6,600 megawatts in Duke's base forecast. It required about 6 gigawatts less new capacity by 2035 and was $34.25 billion, or 13.8%, less expensive through 2050 than the study's base case. Another modeled option assumed half of new large customers would obtain 100% non-emitting power by 2040. Under that scenario, customers outside the program saved $15.67 billion relative to the base case, while participating large-load customers incurred $28.8 billion in modeled program costs. Combining clean-energy commitments with flexible demand reduced costs for other customers by $20.41 billion relative to the base case, according to the report. Those results depend on customer participation, demand forecasts, technology prices and other assumptions. The study found that reliability in its targeted large-load scenarios depended on whether customers could actually reduce demand when called and whether system operators changed the order in which flexibility and batteries were used. Transparency gap limits direct comparison The report says its authors could not reproduce Duke's 2025 resource-plan results because Duke did not publicly provide many model inputs, including capital-cost assumptions for new generators and operating-cost assumptions. Duke published results only through 2040 even though it modeled through 2050, the report says. Energy Futures Group calculated a $247.99 billion present value for its base case, compared with Duke's reported $164.1 billion preliminary base portfolio. The report says the difference likely reflects different cost inputs but cannot be precisely reconciled without Duke's underlying data. For that reason, its authors describe the study as directionally useful—not a substitute for Duke's model or a prediction that a particular dollar amount will appear on customer bills. Tariff proposal remains pending Stein and Attorney General Jeff Jackson called on the Utilities Commission to approve stronger protections for households. Duke, the Public Staff and several large customers have proposed North Carolina's first large-load tariff. The settlement would apply to qualifying customers signing contracts on or after June 1, 2026; require upfront payment for dedicated equipment; impose minimum monthly bills, long contract terms and exit penalties; and make a standard contract template public. The proposal is not final. The attorney general's office says it does not require large users to pay for all new generation their demand causes and does not establish a separate data-center rate class that would allow the public to measure the full cost of serving those customers. Amazon, a Meta affiliate, Google, Microsoft, the U.S. Department of Defense and other federal agencies are among the parties that signed the proposal, according to the state. What is established — and what is not Confirmed: The governor commissioned the study, and Energy Futures Group modeled public data and stakeholder-selected scenarios for Duke's North Carolina service territories. Modeled finding: The base case carries $247.99 billion in present-value capital and operating costs through 2050; lower or differently managed large-load growth produces substantial modeled savings. State characterization: Stein's office says data centers and other large loads would create about $50 billion in additional costs under business as usual. Not established: The report does not calculate a specific household bill increase, approve construction or determine that residential customers will necessarily pay the modeled costs. Pending: The Utilities Commission has not issued a final decision on the proposed large-load tariff. Why it matters Electric infrastructure decisions made for projects that may consume the output of entire power plants can lock in costs for decades. If a data center is delayed, uses less electricity than forecast or closes early, households and small businesses could be left paying for generation and transmission built in anticipation of demand that never arrives. The reverse risk also matters: under-forecasting real demand could harm reliability. The regulatory task is therefore not simply to welcome or reject data centers, but to verify which projects are financially committed, require adequate security for infrastructure costs and publish enough data to test whether ordinary customers are subsidizing unusually large users. DINA analysis Independent analysis: The report's strongest accountability finding is not a single headline dollar figure. It is that the public cannot independently reconcile Duke's resource plan with a state-sponsored model because crucial Duke assumptions remain unavailable. A commission deciding who should finance billions in long-lived assets should not rely on cost inputs that ratepayers, local governments and independent experts cannot inspect. The Utilities Commission should require project-specific proof of commitment, transparent load forecasts, a separate cost-of-service record for large users and financial guarantees that protect other customers if projects are canceled. Any final tariff should distinguish dedicated interconnection equipment from shared transmission and generation, state who bears each risk, and explain why the result is just and reasonable. Accountability questions and records Which proposed large loads are under binding contracts, which have entered the interconnection process, and which remain speculative? What generation, transmission and fuel costs are attributable to each qualifying customer or customer class? What deposits, guarantees and exit payments would fully protect other customers if a project is delayed or abandoned? Will the commission require a separate large-load rate class and annual public cost-of-service reporting? Which Duke model inputs remain confidential, under what legal authority, and can aggregated or redacted versions be released? How would flexible-load commitments be verified, dispatched and penalized when customers fail to reduce demand? Priority records include the full proposed tariff and settlement, testimony and exhibits in the applicable Utilities Commission dockets, Duke's large-load forecast and project maturity criteria, generator capital and operating-cost assumptions, interconnection studies, customer deposits and guarantees, and any commission order explaining cost allocation. Sources North Carolina Power Pathways — Energy Futures Group report for the Governor's Office, October 2026 (https://governor.nc.gov/documents/files/nc-power-pathways-report/open) Office of Gov. Josh Stein — study release and state summary, October 27, 2026 (https://governor.nc.gov/news/press-releases/2026/10/27/nc-strong-update-governor-stein-highlights-commitments-keep-north-carolinians-safe-and-lower-costs) North Carolina Department of Justice — proposed large-load tariff terms and identified gaps, October 14, 2026 (https://ncdoj.gov/attorney-general-jeff-jackson-governor-stein-respond-to-duke-energys-proposal-for-ncs-first-large-load-tariff/) Source note: DINA treats all cost figures as modeled estimates rather than approved spending or guaranteed bill impacts. The Utilities Commission's final decision and Duke's nonpublic model inputs were not available in the reviewed record. REPUBLICATION NOTICE Original DINA-authored text may be republished without charge under the terms at https://www.dinanews247.press/syndication#terms. Third-party material and images require separate permission. SOCIAL POST NC Power Study Warns Data-Center Boom Could Shift Billions to Ratepayers A state-commissioned study models tens of billions in large-load costs through 2050 and says missing Duke Energy inputs prevent the public from independently reconciling competing forecasts. Breaking News · North Carolina · Data Centers · Utility Bills · Energy Policy · Transparency · Accountability · DINA Analysis By DINA North Carolina Energy & Ratepayer Accountability Desk Primary-record reporting, utility accountability and independent analysis Democracy Independent News Association (DINA) Read the full report and sources: https://www.dinanews247.press/articles/nc-data-center-power-costs-october-27 #DINA #PublicAccountability