Person County urges delay in enforcement of new Mayo Lake mooring rule after Duke Energy stakeholder pledge

Jeff Lineberger, Duke Energy ssistant general manager for water strategy and lake services, told the Person County Board of Commissioners on March 16 that commitments made when Mayo Lake was permitted in 1978 include a prohibition on private piers, docks and moorings and that Duke must return the lake to compliance with that permit.

Lineberger said the company re-inventoried Mayo Lake this week and found 259 private moorings, up from 231 two years earlier, and that Duke has formally asked the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) for an enforcement grace period through Oct. 1, 2026, while Duke and other interests convene a facilitated stakeholder group to discuss public access and private mooring solutions.

The board heard multiple residents and property-owner representatives describe the rule change as abrupt and harmful. Dr. Dan Phillips, speaking for lake property owners, called the new 24-hour placement prohibition for docks and personal property "arbitrary and capricious," said the committee that approved the rule was given incomplete or changed information, and estimated removal costs of $2,000 to $6,000 per floating platform and potential total property-value impacts he put in the range of $20 million to $25 million. The WRC said the rule was adopted through its annual rule cycle, publicly noticed in the NC Register and subject to virtual hearings; the commission also said it would follow Duke—nergy nd community requests by standing down on immediate enforcement through Oct. 1 but reiterated it must ultimately enforce its rules.

Commissioners debated the county—oard—inding and role. Supporters of a strong resolution argued the county should make "some noise" on behalf of taxpayers and lakefront homeowners and press for a negotiated outcome; opponents said the dispute is principally between Duke and private property owners, warned of legal and policy conflicts if the county opposes enforcement of an environmental permit, and recommended the county participate as an independent stakeholder rather than as an advocate for one private interest.

After discussion, the board voted to adopt the stronger version of a resolution urging a negotiated solution, opposing enforcement of the new WRC rule while stakeholders work toward a resolution, and offering county staff assistance in the stakeholder process. The motion passed 3–2.

What happens next: Duke Energy committed to convene a small, facilitated stakeholder team (Lineberger suggested roughly a dozen representatives, including lake property-owner organizations, county recreation staff and WRC) and asked other governmental entities to avoid additional related actions while negotiations proceed. The WRC said it will try to engage informally first (verbal warnings followed by written warnings) during the grace period and that it will continue to coordinate with Duke and local stakeholders about enforcement procedures.

The board ction is an expression of the county's position; it does not change the WRC rule or Duke Energy's permit obligations. The county attorney said that, if progress is being made, Person County or Duke Energy could request a continuance or rule change from the WRC or approach the Army Corps of Engineers about permit requirements, but the county alone lacks authority to alter the WRC or Army Corps regulatory decisions.

The board's resolution and Duke's pledge to convene stakeholders set a near-term window for negotiation; the WRC and Duke both described plans for engagement through the summer with October 1, 2026 identified as the latest date for standing down on enforcement.