Environmental Justice

The North Carolina Utilities Commission denied an electric utility’s application to calculate its rates by amortizing certain costs associated with the storage, disposal, and removal of coal ash waste over a five-year period, and to earn a return on the unamortized balance of such costs. The Commission explained that authorizing a ten-year period, rather than a five-year period, would strike a fairer balance between shareholders and ratepayers in light of the magnitude of the environmental costs involved and the rate impact to consumers. The electric utility appealed, arguing that the Commission had granted such requests in previous cases. The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission’s decision, finding that it had adequately explained its reasoning for its departure from previous cases, had thoroughly considered the evidence, and was not subject to stare decisis or res judicata principles as a legislative body.

E.l. du Pont, a chemical company facing mounting liabilities for releasing harmful chemicals into the environment, transferred its assets to two out-of-state successors. The state challenged this significant corporate restructuring as an attempt to avoid liability within North Carolina. The Supreme Court held in favor of the state, and ruled that North Carolina courts could establish personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state successor by imputing to it the liabilities of its predecessor in certain circumstances.

The case is now returning to the North Carolina Supreme Court at a new stage. DuPont, Chemours, and related companies are asking the Court to stop the Attorney General’s lawsuit seeking compensation for decades of PFAS contamination connected to the Fayetteville Works facility.

The companies argue that an earlier consent order between Chemours and the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality addressed the same contamination. The Attorney General argues that the State has a separate interest in protecting its natural resources and that the office has the authority to pursue compensation for the damage.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on September 15, 2026. Its decision could determine whether the Attorney General may continue seeking accountability and compensation on behalf of North Carolina for widespread PFAS contamination.

A homeowners association denied a property owners’ application to install solar panels on their roof, citing aesthetic concerns. The property owners challenged the denial, contending that it violated Section 22B-20 of the North Carolina General Statute, which generally prohibit restrictions on the installation and use of solar panels unless the restriction (i) does not prevent the reasonable use of the solar panels or (ii) expressly prohibits the location of the solar panels as specified in the statute. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the property owners, holding that the denial had the effect of restricting the installation and use of solar panels and that neither exception applied.

In May 2026, the North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed Utilities Commission orders approving multiyear rate increases for Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Carolinas. The orders authorized a 9.8 percent return on common equity for Duke Energy Progress and a 10.1 percent return for Duke Energy Carolinas.

The Court rejected challenges from the Attorney General and consumer groups questioning whether the higher return for Duke Energy Carolinas was adequately supported and whether the Utilities Commission sufficiently considered the financial impact on customers.

Justice Anita Earls agreed with parts of the decision but dissented from the ruling upholding the higher return for Duke Energy Carolinas. Citing an estimate from the Public Staff, the dissent concluded that the thirty-basis-point difference could cause customers in central and western North Carolina to pay more than $129 million in additional costs over three years compared with customers served by Duke Energy Progress.

This case demonstrates how decisions reviewed by the North Carolina Supreme Court can directly affect household utility costs and the balance between consumer interests and shareholder returns.

The North Carolina Attorney General sought judicial review of the North Carolina Utilities Commission’s determination that it was in the public interest to allow the public water utility to utilize a rate adjustment mechanism in order to invest in water infrastructure and improve water quality. The Supreme Court held that the Commission’s determination was based upon sufficient findings of fact and was supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence. The Supreme Court reasoned that the Commission affirmatively imposed obligations on the water utility to ensure that it would use the rate adjustment mechanism only to make meaningful improvements to its system, and the Commission took meaningful steps to ensure that customers would be charged only after the utility has made improvements to the quality and reliability of its service.

Developers purchased land from the operator of a neighboring golf course for development as a residential community and hired a contractor to construct erosion control structures and devices. A dam that the contractors built ruptured, causing mud, water and other debris to repeatedly flood the neighboring golf course. The local county natural resources department issued several notices of non-compliance to the developers for having taken insufficient measures to control erosion and sedimentation in violation of North Carolina law. The golf course operator subsequently brought suit against the developers and contractors, alleging, among other claims, violations of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 (“SPCA”). The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring the SPCA claim because the defendants had only received notices of non-compliance but had not been cited for violation of a relevant law, rule, order or erosion and sedimentation control plan. The Supreme Court held that a violation of, rather than mere noncompliance with, an erosion and sedimentation control plan must have occurred to give rise to a private cause of action under the statute.