A judge has dismissed Carrboro's lawsuit against utility giant Duke Energy.
The lawsuit, first filed in December 2024, accused Duke Energy of engaging in a decades-long public deception campaign downplaying the risks of fossil fuels and climate change. The town argued this alleged campaign resulted in the American public delaying its transition away from fossil fuels, thus worsening climate change.
The town was seeking millions of dollars in relief for property damage allegedly caused by climate change, like cracked roads caused by extreme heat and increased precipitation. In a September 2025 hearing, the town brought forth charges of public and private nuisance, negligence and gross negligence, and trespassing.
In his ruling Thursday afternoon, Business Court Judge Mark Davis said Carrboro's claims "are clearly nonjusticiable pursuant to the political question doctrine."
"The political question doctrine has its origins in the Supreme Court of the United States... (when) the Supreme Court recognized that as 'a function of the separation of powers' in our system of government, certain matters are 'nonjusticiable' and should be left to the coordinate branches of government," wrote Davis.
In other words, Davis asserted that Carrboro's claims are not for the judicial branch to decide. Davis goes on to say it's "clear that issues concerning fossil fuel-related emissions have been delegated to the (North Carolina) Utilities Commission and to the (North Carolina) Department of Environmental Quality."
Davis also listed several "unanswerable questions raised by Carrboro's claims," including the following:
- How many members of the American public were even aware of the allegedly deceptive information provided by Duke Energy over the last six decades? How many of those persons were actually deceived by Duke Energy's representations? How many of them actually made decisions affecting their own individual reliance on fossil fuels based on these deceptions? To what extent were those decisions also influenced by other factors?
- Had members of the American public who were exposed to Duke Energy's allegedly deceptive information instead been given accurate information about climate change, would they have acted differently? If so, how?
"These are only a handful of the many, many questions raised by Carrboro's theory of liability in this case, and they are all questions that no one, including twelve persons sitting in an Orange County jury box in 2026, could even begin to answer," wrote Davis.
In an emailed statement, Duke Energy said it's pleased with the court's decision.
"The ruling enables us to continue prioritizing safe, reliable service for our customers while working collaboratively with communities on long‑term energy and environmental goals," the company said.
Conversely, the town of Carrboro expressed disappointment.
"While we... disagree with the result, Carrboro is evaluating all of its options, including appeal," said Town Manager Patrice Toney in a statement.
