Judge rules on Carrboro’s claim that Duke Energy causes and accelerates climate change
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- Judge dismissed case, saying courts couldn’t answer its questions.
- Judge said N.C. Utilities Commission and DEQ, not courts, should handle it.
- Carrboro and funders say they are evaluating appeal options now.
A North Carolina Business Court judge has dismissed the Town of Carrboro’s lawsuit claiming Duke Energy cost it millions of dollars in climate change costs because the utility failed to transition away from fossil fuels.
The case originally was filed in Orange County Superior Court in December 2024 and was moved to the N.C. Business Court, where it was assigned to Special Superior Court Judge Mark A. Davis.
In his ruling issued late Thursday, Davis didn’t speak to whether the town had shown it suffered monetary damages as a result of Duke Energy’s policies and practices over the past six decades as it claimed. Instead, the judge said, Carrboro’s case “presents nonjusticiable questions” — matters he said are better handled by the N.C. Utilities Commission and the state Department of Environmental Quality than the courts.
Patrice Toney, town manager of Carrboro, said through a spokesperson Friday: “While we are disappointed and disagree with the result, Carrboro is evaluating all of its options, including appeal.”
Duke Energy did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the 32-page decision.
Carrboro claimed Duke Energy deceived the public
In its suit, believed to be the first in which a municipality sued a utility over the effects of climate change, Carrboro said Duke Energy has known at least since the late 1960s about the potential dangers of greenhouse gases emitted when fossil fuels are burned.
Even so, the utility continued to rely on those fuels and to assure the public it was safe to do so.
In 2009, under President Barack Obama, the Environmental Protection Agency found that six greenhouse gases were a threat to the public health and welfare of current and future generations. The Endangerment Finding became the basis for which the EPA regulated those emissions, including from cars and power plants, in an effort to slow climate change.
On Thursday, President Donald Trump and his EPA administrator, Lee Zeldin, announced the repeal of the Endangerment Finding, saying the EPA in 2009 had overstepped its reach and only Congress had the authority to make such a sweeping policy decision. Trump and Zeldin said repealing the finding would save Americans money on the price of new cars.
In its lawsuit, Carrboro argued that if not for Duke Energy’s assurances that nuclear power, coal and natural gas were safe for the environment, Americans might have pressed the utility and others to move toward other fuel sources such as solar and wind power. The case has been funded by the Durham-based nonprofit NC WARN with help from the Center for Biological Diversity, another nonprofit.
Because of Duke Energy’s policies, Carrboro argued, climate change progressed and the town incurred costs such as heat-damaged roads, stormwater issues and cooling bills for public buildings.
Mainstream scientists have accepted the principle of global warming and its effects on the planet, including sea level rise and an increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather such as hurricanes.
Not all agree on how much human activity such as the burning of fossil fuels is to blame.
What the judge found
In court, Duke Energy argued there was no way to measure how its practices had influenced people around the world, all of whose actions may contribute to climate change.
Davis agreed. In dismissing the case, he said the suit raised a “multitude of unanswerable questions.” It was impossible to know, he said, if Duke Energy had behaved differently whether that would have caused others to behave differently and if so, what effect that would have had on climate change and the way it manifested in the North Carolina town.
Jim Warren, executive director of NC WARN, said Friday the group would evaluate its options and decide whether to appeal.
This story is available free to all readers thanks to financial support from the Hartfield Foundation and Green South Foundation, in partnership with Journalism Funding Partners, as part of an independent journalism fellowship program. The N&O maintains full editorial control of the work. If you would like to help support local journalism, please consider a digital subscription, which you can get here.
