Benton Sawrey: Who Benefits and Who Pays?
I have been taking a closer look at Senator Benton Sawrey’s voting record and at some of the organizations helping finance his campaign. One name that stood out is Duke Energy.
Public campaign-finance records compiled by Transparency USA show that Duke Energy Corporation PAC contributed $4,000 to Benton Sawrey’s campaign. Why does that matter? Because Sawrey has also supported legislation that directly affects electric utilities like Duke Energy — including how and when they can recover certain costs from their customers.
Here is what happened.
Sawrey co-sponsored Senate Bill 261, an energy bill that proposed major changes to North Carolina energy policy. That bill did not ultimately become law. But similar provisions later appeared in Senate Bill 266, which did become law after the General Assembly overrode Governor Josh Stein’s veto. Sawrey voted for that override. Two parts of the law are especially important.
First, it eliminated North Carolina’s requirement that power companies reach an interim carbon-reduction goal by 2030. The longer-term 2050 carbon-neutrality goal remains.
Second — and this is the part that can directly affect customers — the law changed when utilities may begin recovering certain financing costs for some new power plants.
What does that mean in plain English?
Normally, when a power company builds a major generating plant, it spends enormous amounts of money designing it, financing it and constructing it. Those costs do not simply disappear. If state regulators approve them, the utility eventually recovers those costs through the rates customers pay. Under the new law, for certain large power plants, a utility can ask regulators for permission to begin collecting some of the financing costs while the plant is still being built. In other words: Customers could begin paying part of the financing cost of a new power plant before that plant is finished and producing electricity. That does not mean Duke can simply put any amount it wants on your electric bill. The North Carolina Utilities Commission still has to review and approve the costs.
Supporters of the law also make an argument that should be understood. They say collecting some financing costs during construction could actually save customers money over the long run because the utility would not have to borrow as much money and allow interest costs to pile up until construction is finished.
That is the argument for the policy. But there is another side to it.
Who carries the risk?
A new power plant can take years to build and can cost billions of dollars. Construction costs can rise. Projects can be delayed. Plans can change. And customers of a regulated electric utility generally cannot simply switch companies if they dislike the rates.
That is very different from most businesses. If I don’t like the price at one grocery store, I can shop somewhere else. If Duke Energy provides electricity where I live, I generally cannot choose another electric company. That is why decisions made by the General Assembly and the Utilities Commission matter so much.
Has this happened before?
Yes. Duke has repeatedly gone before North Carolina regulators asking to raise rates to recover the cost of power plants, infrastructure, grid improvements and other major expenses. The Utilities Commission has often approved less than Duke originally requested. But customers have still seen their electric bills increase. For example, in earlier North Carolina rate cases, customers ultimately paid higher rates that included costs connected with new generating facilities and other utility investments. Over the past several years, Duke Energy Progress customers have seen repeated rate changes tied to fuel costs, infrastructure investments and base rates. For a typical household using 1,000 kWh a month, Duke reported a bill of about $126.67 before a late-2022 adjustment; by October 2024, the North Carolina Utilities Commission showed that typical bill at about $161.97. Later fuel-cost reductions brought the bill down somewhat, but the larger point remains: customers feel the cumulative effect of all these changes in the bill they actually have to pay.
For certain qualifying power plants, approved financing costs can potentially begin appearing in rates before construction is complete.
Now bring the campaign money back into the picture.
Duke Energy’s PAC contributed $4,000 to Benton Sawrey’s campaign. Sawrey supported legislation affecting the rules under which electric utilities such as Duke can recover costs.
Does that prove Duke Energy bought his vote?
No.
I am not claiming that, and the campaign contribution by itself proves no such thing. But it does give voters a perfectly legitimate reason to look more closely. When a company or industry helps finance a politician, and that politician then votes on legislation affecting that company or industry, voters should ask questions. Not accusations.
Questions voters should ask
Who benefits from the legislation?
Who carries the financial risk?
Who may eventually pay the cost?
What arguments did supporters make for the bill?
And who helped finance the politicians voting on it?
Those are questions we should be asking about every major piece of legislation, regardless of which political party is involved. Follow the money. Follow the legislation.
Understand what the law actually does. Then decide for yourself whether your elected officials are making decisions in the public interest.
What Does This Mean in the Bigger Picture?
For families already dealing with higher costs, another increase in a basic necessity matters.
● Electricity is not optional.
● Most Duke customers cannot shop around for a cheaper provider.
● Higher utility bills hit working families and people on fixed incomes hardest.
● Those increases come on top of higher costs for housing, groceries, insurance, and healthcare.
● Businesses pay higher power bills too, and some of those costs can eventually be passed on to consumers.
The larger question is simple:
How much financial risk should customers be asked to carry for utility investments they did not choose and cannot avoid paying for?
I will continue reviewing other bills Senator Sawrey has sponsored, co-sponsored, or voted on — along with the interests that may benefit from them and the campaign money connected to those interests. The goal is simple:
Follow the record, ask fair questions, and let voters decide.
Sources:
North Carolina State Board of Elections Campaign Finance Records — Committee to Elect Benton Sawrey https://cf.ncsbe.gov/CFOrgLkup/
Transparency USA Benton Sawrey contributor records — Duke Energy Corporation PAC, $4,000 https://www.transparencyusa.org/nc/candidate/benton-sawrey/contributors
North Carolina General Assembly Senate Bill 261 — Energy Security and Affordability Act https://www.ncleg.gov/BillLookUp/2025/S261/True
North Carolina General Assembly Senate Bill 266 — The Power Bill Reduction Act https://www.ncleg.gov/BillLookUp/2025/S266
North Carolina General Assembly Session Law 2025-78 https://library.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/SessionLaws/HTML/2025-2026/SL2025-78.html
North Carolina General Assembly Senate vote on SB 266 veto override — July 29, 2025 https://www.ncleg.gov/BillLookUp/2025/S266/True
Duke Energy Duke Energy Progress — approved multiyear North Carolina rate increases
Comments