CMD superman logo.jpg SourceWatch, a project of the Center for Media and Democracy,

depends on donations from people like you!

Click here to make a tax-deductable contribution.

Duke Energy

From SourceWatch
Revision as of 11:52, 20 November 2012 by Cshearer19 (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is part of the Coal Issues portal on SourceWatch, a project of CoalSwarm and the Center for Media and Democracy. See here for help on adding material to CoalSwarm.

This article is part of the Center for Media & Democracy's focus on the fallout of nuclear "spin."

Learn more about the threat drilling for methane gas poses to fresh water.

Learn more about corporations VOTING to rewrite our laws.

Duke Energy Corporation
Type Public (NYSEDUK)
Headquarters 526 South Church St.
Charlotte, NC 28202
Area served IN, KY, NC, OH, SC
Key people James E. Rogers, CEO
Industry Electric Producer, Distributor, and Utility
Natural Gas Utility
Real Estate
Telecommunications
Products Electricity
Revenue $12.44 billion (2007)[1]
Net income $1.50 billion (2007)[1]
Employees 17,800
Divisions Duke Energy Franchised Electric & Gas
Commercial Power
International
Subsidiaries Duke Energy Carolinas
Duke Energy Ohio
Duke Energy Kentucky
Duke Energy Indiana
Duke Energy Generation Services
Duke Energy International
Crescent Resources
Duke Energy Generation Services
Duke Energy Argentina
Duke Energy Brazil
Duke Energy Peru
DukeNet Communications
Website Duke-Energy.com

Duke Energy is a major electricity generating company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Duke Energy owns and operates 36,000 MW of base-load and peak generation that it distributes to its 4 million customers. Duke Energy's service territory covers 47,000 square miles with 106,000 miles of distribution lines.[2] Almost all of Duke Energy's Midwest generation comes from coal, natural gas or oil, while half of its Carolinas generation comes from its nuclear power plants. During 2006, Duke Energy generated 148,798,332 MWh of electrical energy.

Duke Energy Generation Services (DEGS), a subsidiary of Duke Energy, specializes in the development, ownership and operation of various generation facilities throughout the United States. This segment of the company operates 6,600 MW of generation. 240 MW of wind generation are under construction and 1,500 additional MW of wind generation are in planning stages.[3]

Contents

Ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council

Duke Energy has been a corporate funder of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the state corporate co-chair of Indiana and South Carolina [4] and a member of ALEC's Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force[5]. See ALEC Corporations for more.

About ALEC
ALEC is a corporate bill mill. It is not just a lobby or a front group; it is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, corporations hand state legislators their wishlists to benefit their bottom line. Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations. They pay for a seat on ALEC task forces where corporate lobbyists and special interest reps vote with elected officials to approve “model” bills. Learn more at the Center for Media and Democracy's ALECexposed.org, and check out breaking news on our PRWatch.org site.


History

The company began in 1900 as the Catawba Power Company, when Dr. Walker Gill Wylie and his brother financed the building of a hydroelectric power station at India Hook Shoals along the Catawba River. In need of additional funding to further his ambitious plan for construction of a series of hydroelectric power plants, Wylie convinced James B. Duke to invest in the Southern Power Company, founded in 1905, which later became known as Duke Power. In 1988, Nantahala Power & Light Co., which served southwestern North Carolina, was purchased by Duke and is now operated under the Duke Power - Nantahala Area brand. Duke Power merged with PanEnergy in 1997 to form Duke Energy. The Duke Power name continued as the electric utility business of Duke Energy until the Cinergy merger (Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company with Kentucky subsidiary Union Light, Heat & Power and Plainfield, Indiana-based PSI Energy).[6]

With the purchase of the Cinergy Corporation, announced in 2005 and completed on April 3, 2006, Duke Energy Corporation's customer base now includes the midwestern U.S. as well. The company operates nuclear power plants, coal-fired plants, conventional hydroelectric plants, natural-gas turbines to handle peak demand, and pumped hydro storage. During 2006, Duke Energy also acquired Chatham, Ontario-based Union Gas, which is regulated under the Ontario Energy Board Act (1998).

On January 3, 2007, Duke Energy spun off its gas business to form Spectra Energy. Duke Energy shareholders received 1 share of Spectra Energy for each 2 shares of Duke Energy. After the spin-off, Duke Energy now receives the majority of its revenue from its electric operations in portions of North Carolina, South Carolina, Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana. The spinoff to Spectra also included Union Gas, which Duke Energy acquired the previous year.

Duke merges with Progress Energy

On January 9, 2011, Duke Energy said it agreed to buy Progress Energy for $13.7 billion in stock, creating the largest U.S. power company if it wins approval from regulators in North and South Carolina. The transaction would create an industry giant with approximately 7.1 million electricity customers in North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio, and 57,000 megawatts of generating capacity. State regulators have sought concessions from large power companies planning to merge, such as rate reductions.[7]

If the deal is approved by regulators, the combined companies would form the single largest utility in the United States.[8]

In hearings before the NC Utilities Commission in September, 2011, a variety of organizations objected to the merger.[9] The merger would mean "increased emissions from coal-fired generation" with an increase of 9.5 million MWH of coal-fired generation over the first five years after the merger, and would also result in the creation of a dominant procurer of renewable energy that would limit the pool of renewable energy developers, according to environmental organizations.[10]

Critics suggested requiring Duke / Progress to generate more energy from renewables, to provide more protection for the poor against future rate increases, to commit to investments in energy conservation and smart-grid technologies, to allow solar-panel owners to sell electricity directly to consumers rather than only to utilities, and to unlink electric company profits from the amount of power sold.[11] Paul Chesser of the American Tradition Institute said the criticism was nothing more than a "green shakedown." [12]

FERC and anti-trust concerns: On Sept. 30, 2011, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission found that the merger would adversely impact competition in the North Carolina energy market. The company will have until Dec. 1, 2011, to address concerns. [13] FERC said the concerns with competitiveness were especially serious in Eastern North Carolina. [14]

The merger went into effect on July 2, 2012. Progress CEO Bill Johnson assumed the CEO position at the combined company, signing a three-year contract. One day later, on July 3, Johnson resigned. Regardless, Johnson will receive exit payments worth as much as $44.4 million, according to Duke regulatory filings. Johnson’s replacement is former Duke CEO Jim Rogers.[15]

Negative tax rate

Public Campaign Profit Taxes & Lobbying Corp. Chart.png

A 2011 analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, "Corporate Taxpayers & Corporate Tax Dodgers: 2008-10" found dozens of companies, including fossil fuels, used tax breaks and various tax dodging methods to have a negative tax balance between 2008 and 2010, while making billions in profits. The study found 32 companies in the fossil-fuel industry -- such as Peabody Energy, ConEd, and PG&E -- transformed a tax responsibility of $17.3 billion on $49.4 billion in pretax profits into a tax benefit of $6.5 billion, for a net gain of $24 billion.[16]

The companies that paid no tax for at least one year between 2008 and 2010 are the utilities Ameren, American Electric Power, CenterPoint Energy, CMS Energy, Consolidated Edison, DTE Energy, Duke Energy, Entergy, FirstEnergy, Integrys, NextEra Energy, NiSource, Pepco, PG&E, PPL, Progress Energy, Sempra Energy, Wisconsin Energy and Xcel Energy.[17]

In December 2011, the organization Public Campaign published a report called "For Hire: Lobbyists or the 99%?" on corporations that have paid more on lobbying than on federal taxes. Duke ranked tenth (see chart), reporting nearly $5.5 billion in U.S. profits from 2008 to 2010, and collecting $216 million from the U.S Treasury (tax rate of -3.9%) while spending over $17 million on lobbying,[18] with its tax subsidies aided by the company's 27 overseas tax havens.[19]

Congressional Campaign Contributions

Duke Energy is one of the largest contributors to both Republican and Democratic candidates for Congress. These contributions total $392,600 to the 110th US Congress (as of the third quarter), the largest of which has been to Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) for $28,000. Senator Voinovich, for his part, has consistently voted with the coal industry on energy bills.[1]

Contributions like this from from fossil fuel companies to members of Congress are often seen as a political barrier to pursuing clean energy.[2]

More information on coal industry contributions to Congress can be found at FollowtheCoalMoney.org, a project sponsored by the nonpartisan, nonprofit Oil Change International and Appalachian Voices.

Duke Indiana hires state regulators

In September 2010, Duke Energy Indiana hired as assistant general counsel Scott Storms, the General Counsel and Chief Administrative Law Judge at the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC), raising questions about the revolving door relationship between regulators and utilities.[20] Storms served as General Counsel to the state Commission that regulates Duke and other Indiana utilities, and was the presiding Judge over most hearings regarding the controversial Edwardsport Plant, a $2.35 billion Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle coal plant currently under construction, which is projected to raise customer rates an average 19 percent rate by 2013.[21] Storms signed many of the IURC’s decisions related to Edwardsport – the last as recent as July 23, 2010. Citizens Action Coalition noted that this violates the Indiana Ethics Commission's direction for State employees, which states on its website: “[If] you work for the Utility Regulatory Commission making regulatory decisions concerning a public utility company, you may not work for this utility company for a year.”[22]

The current Chairman of the IURC, David Lott Hardy, also worked for one of Duke’s predecessor companies, PSI Energy, several years ago.[23]

IURC Chair Hardy dismissed, Duke CEO Reed put on leave, and Duke rate hike denied

In October 2010, Duke placed Mike Reed, president and CEO of its Indiana operations, on administrative leave in the wake of a state investigation into the company that resulted in the dismissal of the chairman of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) David Lott Hardy. Early that month, Gov. Mitch Daniels fired IURC chief Hardy for allowing IURC agency official Scott Storms to continue presiding over the Edwardsport Duke Energy case even after talking with Duke about a job opportunity.[24]

The firing of Hardy followed the departure to Duke’s Plainfield office of Scott Storms, who had been administrative law judge for the IURC and presided over a handful of cases involving Duke, including matters involving cost overruns at Duke’s Edwardsport generating plant. Duke said it was also putting Storms on administrative leave from his position in Duke’s legal-regulatory department, “pending the completion of a full evaluation.”[24]

Daniels has directed that administrative opinions over which Storms presided will be reopened and reviewed by the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission “to ensure no undue influence was exerted in the decisions.” Daniels also directed that a one-year cooling off period for decision makers is to be considered for those at the administrative law judge level. The administration said it has referred the matter to the inspector general to determine if any laws were broken or whether misinformation was presented to the Ethics Commission.[24] In October 2011, the commission dismissed Duke's rate hike request for power grid upgrades, citing the fact that Storms presided over the original case before accepting employment with Duke.[25]

Construction of Duke's Edwardsport Plant, a project that Storms had overseen from the beginning, also loomed, as construction costs have increased from $2 billion to more than $3 billion. State regulators are scheduled to begin hearings in late October 2011 on whether Duke Energy or Indiana ratepayers will cover the more than $1 billion in cost overruns. The state ruled that Storms violated Indiana ethics laws. The ethics commission fined Storms and stripped him of his law license. Storms has since appealed the rulings.[26]

E-mails raise ethics questions over Duke executives and Indiana regulators

In late November 2010 it was discovered that James L. Turner, the second-highest-paid executive at Duke Energy Corp., kept in regular touch with Indiana regulators. In dozens of e-mails, obtained by The Indianapolis Star under an open records request, the Turner and David Lott Hardy, then chairman of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, discussed many personal topics, sometimes trading messages eight or 10 times a day. Turner and Hardy also frequently discussed Storms and Reed, as those two went through job interviews and were hired away from the IURC by Duke earlier that year. Hardy wanted constant reports on the hiring process: "How real is the interest in Mike (Reed)? I think it's a marriage made in heaven. Is this decision yours and I don't need to sell Jim [Rogers, CEO of Duke], or is his buy-in pivotal?" The Indianapolis Star wrote that the emails "show that the friendly relationship between Duke and Indiana regulators, which resulted in the firing of Duke's Indiana president, Mike Reed, in an ethics scandal earlier this month, extended all the way to Duke's headquarters in North Carolina" and that "the e-mails raise questions about whether Turner had special access to Hardy that was unavailable to utility customers, grass-roots groups and everyday citizens in matters of rate increases and electricity regulation."[27]

On December 6, 2010, James Turner resigned.[28] Turner will leave the company with a farewell package worth more than $12 million, which includes his pension, bonuses and deferred compensation worth more than $8.5 million. In return, Turner has agreed not to work for a competitor for two years and not to solicit business from Duke customers or entice other Duke employees to leave.

January 2011: Former Duke CEO to be questioned by community groups

On Dec. 21, 2010, The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission signed an order that compels former Duke executive James Turner to appear at a deposition in Indianapolis for questioning by the Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, the Sierra Club, Save the Valley and Valley Watch. The groups will get to question James Turner in early 2011 about his role in the company's decision to hire away several state employees in possible violation of Indiana ethics laws, as well as about the company's $2.9 billion coal-gasification plant in Edwardsport, which they call a boondoggle. The groups want to use the information to help build a case that Duke Energy used undue influence in getting the state to approve the Edwardsport plant and its cost overruns, much of which will be passed along to consumers. The groups want to halt construction at the plant, which is more than halfway completed, and have Duke foot much of the bill on the grounds that the company has concealed information and mismanaged the project. In mid-December, Duke agreed to reopen negotiations on the plant's latest round of cost overruns, worth about $500 million.[29]

CEO compensation

In May 2007, Forbes listed Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers as receiving $10.2 million in total compensation for the latest fiscal year. He ranked 10th on the list of CEOs in the Utilities industry, and 174th out of all CEOs in the United States.[30]

Switching sides on global warming

The company, previously called Duke Power, was a member of the Global Climate Coalition, a now-defunct industry group that fought plants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. [3]

In January 2007, Duke Energy was one of 10 major companies to form the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, an industry group that called on U.S. President Bush to "to fight global warming by limiting greenhouse gases, funding research into renewable energy and creating a market for carbon dioxide emissions." [4]

Duke's role in the group was widely seen as visionary and/or selfless despite the fact that it proposed to construct two new coal-fired power plants in its service territory (Cliffside and Edwardsport). "About half of Duke's electricity comes from coal-fired power plants, which release more carbon dioxide than those burning natural gas," noted the San Francisco Chronicle. [5] Duke also remains a member in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce - a group that vehemently opposes climate legislation.

CEO Jim Rogers suggests Duke moving away from coal

In May 2009, Jim Rogers told reporters that that Duke was likely building its last two coal plants, until and unless carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology becomes commercially available. Rogers said he would instead focus on nuclear power generation. He said nuclear power presents less of a waste disposal problem than coal plants, because a smaller area is required for waste storage, and because CCS will require a system to transport CO2 gas long distances.[31]

One of key trends being considered in a joint Duke - Rocky Mountains Institute project on the company's business scenarios is "whether key technological developments, such as carbon capture and sequestration, develop or not".[32]

Duke Energy and Alstom Power leave ACCCE over climate change legislation

In September 2009, both Duke Energy and Alstom Power, a French company that makes parts for power plants, announced they were resigning from the industry group American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. Both companies cited concerns about alliance's opposition of the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill, which is attempting to cap greenhouse gas emissions. Tim Brown, a spokesman for Alstom, said the company wanted to remove any doubt about its full support for the legislation.[33][34]

Duke Energy still works with representatives of ACCCE within the American Legislative Exchange Council's Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force.[35]

Duke Energy and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)

According to the Charlotte Business Journal, Duke Energy has given ALEC $116,000 since 2009 for its meetings, including a $50,000 grant for ALEC's spring 2012 meeting in Charlotte, NC where Duke is headquartered. Duke claims that it doesn't support ALEC's attacks on climate change legislation and renewable energy standards.[36] Duke and Progress Energy are members of ALEC's Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force where model state laws are created to attack Environmental Protection Agency clean air and water regulations, end state partnerships to reduce global warming emissions, create fracking chemical disclosure loopholes, and other laws that benefit companies like Duke, ExxonMobil, Koch Industries, Peabody Energy and others who have ALEC membership.[37]

Duke also helps ALEC State Chairmen in South Carolina and Indiana oversee ALEC activity in those states, primarily for fundraising and ALEC recruitment, according to ALEC's bylaws. [38] Working alongside ALEC state chairmen Rep. David Wolkins and Sen. Jim Buck in Indiana is Julie Griffith, Duke's Vice President of Government Affairs. In South Carolina, Duke's SC Regional Director Chuck Claunch and Progress Energy's Jeanelle McCain serve as private sector co-chairs with ALEC State Chairmen Rep. Liston Barfield and Sen. Thomas Alexander.[35]


Workforce cuts

Almost 900 Duke employees took a buyout offer made by the company in early 2010, reducing Duke's workforce by almost five percent.[39] The offer was made to Duke's 8,700 non-union workers, who represent about forty-seven percent of the company's 18,700 person workforce.[39] The cuts have come from workers in the five states that Duke has operations.[39]

In 2006, Duke cut 1,500 jobs after a merger with Cinergy Corporation.[40] Utility companies Dominion Resources and Duke Energy made similar cuts in 2010.[41]

Power portfolio

Out of its total 43,761 MW of electric generating capacity in 2005 (4.10% of the U.S. total), Duke produces 42.5% from coal, 32.4% from natural gas, 17.2% from nuclear, 6.5% from hydroelectricity, and 1.3% from oil. Duke owns power plants in Arkansas, Arizona, California, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia.[42]

Decreasing power demand

In November 2008, Duke announced plans to roll back on new power generation because of a decline in demand. The company will delay the construction of two gas-fired power plants in North Carolina and postpone the approval process for the a nuclear plant in South Carolina. The changes were announced along with a 65% decline in third quarter earnings and are expected to reduce capital costs by $200 million this year. The cost-cutting moves did not include any changes to Duke's heavily-opposed coal plant proposals.[43]

In September 2010, Duke proposed closing seven coal-powered units due to new EPA regulations. But the utility continued to plan for a new nuclear plant, its first since the mid-1980s, to open in Gaffney, S.C., in about 2020. Duke is also building two gas-fired power plants, to open at Buck in late 2011 and at Dan River in late 2012.[44]

Existing coal-fired power plants

Duke had 70 coal-fired generating stations in 2005, with 18,591 MW of capacity. Here is a list of Duke's coal power plants with capacity over 100 MW:[42][45][46]

Plant Name State County Year(s) Built Capacity 2007 CO2 Emissions 2006 SO2 Emissions
Gibson IN Gibson 1975, 1976, 1978, 1979, 1982 3340 MW 20,400,000 tons 155,057 tons
Belews Creek NC Stokes 1974, 1975 2160 MW 13,600,000 tons 95,290 tons
Marshall NC Catawba 1965, 1966, 1969, 1970 1996 MW 12,600,000 tons 85,050 tons
W.H. Zimmer OH Clermont 1991 1426 MW 8,597,000 tons 22,054 tons
Miami Fort OH Hamilton 1949, 1960, 1975, 1978 1378 MW 7,546,000 tons 62,028 tons
Beckjord OH Clermont 1952, 1953, 1954, 1958, 1962, 1969 1221 MW 6,330,000 tons 62,480 tons
Wabash River IN Vigo 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1968, 1995 1165 MW 4,738,000 tons 58,793 tons
G.G. Allen NC Gaston 1957, 1959, 1960, 1961 1155 MW 5,864,000 tons 45,395 tons
Cayuga IN Vermillion 1970, 1972 1062 MW 6,914,000 tons 86,174 tons
Cliffside NC Cleveland 1940, 1948, 1972 781 MW 3,591,000 tons 28,878 tons
East Bend KY Boone 1981 669 MW 4,332,000 tons 3,947 tons
Gallagher IN Floyd 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961 600 MW 3,383,000 tons 50,819 tons
Riverbend NC Gaston 1952, 1954 466 MW 1,676,000 tons 16,481 tons
Buck NC Rowan 1941, 1942, 1953 370 MW 1,626,000 tons 12,054 tons
W.S. Lee SC Anderson 1951, 1958 355 MW 1,151,000 tons 10,256 tons
Dan River NC Rockingham 1949, 1950, 1955 290 MW 827,000 tons 7,882 tons
Edwardsport IN Knox 1949, 1951 109 MW 680,000 tons 8,281 tons

In 2006, Duke's 17 major coal-fired power plants emitted 103.8 million tons of CO2 (1.7% of all U.S. CO2 emissions) and 811,000 tons of SO2 (5.4% of all U.S. SO2 emissions).

In 2006, Duke's Gallagher plant emitted more tons of SO2 per MWh than any other major power plant in the country; Wabash River ranked 6th in tons of SO2 per MWh, and Cayuga ranked 8th.[45]

Duke Energy's Gallagher Generating Station and Environmental Justice

Resident and Nurse Rhoda Temple Morton's father worked at the Gallagher plant and died of cancer

Duke Energy's Gallagher Generating Station is located in the town of New Albany, across the river from Louisville, Kentucky. The majority of the African American population living within a 3 mile radius of the power plant are in an income bracket which is substantially lower than the rest of the community, raising issues around environmental justice and coal. Gallagher is among over 100 coal plants near residential areas.[47]

Proposed coal unit closures

A 2011 report by NC Warn, "New Nuclear Power is Ruining Climate Protection Efforts and Harming Customers", argues that while Duke says it is moving to lower its use of coal, it is actually substituting a new 835 megawatt (MW) Cliffside Plant for 18 rarely used units with capacity totaling 1,600 MW. Twelve of those units are under 100 MW in capacity; four units were not used at all in the year ending May 31, 2011.[48]

Edwardsport

Duke Energy closed the Edwardsport Generating Station (existing) in spring 2010, and will begin demolishing the structure by October 2011. Company spokesman Lew Middleton said Duke will turn the site of the old plant in a storage area for burned coal, or slag, produced by Duke's new coal-gasification plant - the Edwardsport Plant - planned for Fall 2012.[49]

Riverbend, Buck Steam, Lee Steam, Cliffside and Dan River

In September 2010, Duke Energy said it might close seven coal-fired units at its Carolinas power plants within five years as environmental regulations intensify. It may retire by 2015 all coal-fired units for which it's not economical to install sulfur dioxide controls called scrubbers. That would increase by 890 megawatts the coal plants Duke had planned to retire in 2009. The retired units would be at Duke's Riverbend Steam Station in Gaston County, Buck Steam Station in Rowan County, and Lee Steam Plant in Anderson County, S.C. Duke said it might convert Lee from coal to natural gas fuel.[44]

Duke has already agreed to retire 800 megawatts of older coal units as part of an N.C. permit to build a new 825-megawatt unit under construction at the Cliffside Plant in Rutherford County. That will shutter four old units at Cliffside, two at Buck, three at Dan River Steam Station, and two at Riverbend.[44]

Duke's projections show the amount of its electricity generated with coal falling from 42 percent in 2011 to 29 percent in 2030. The share from nuclear power, in contrast, stays steady at 51 percent. The utility continues to plan for a new nuclear plant, its first since the mid-1980s, to open in Gaffney, S.C., in about 2020. Duke is also building two gas-fired power plants, to open at Buck in late 2011 and at Dan River in late 2012.[44]

Gallagher station

Under a plan submitted to the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission on May 24, 2011, Duke Energy said it plans to shut down two coal-burning units at its Gallagher Generating Station and purchase a share of the Cayuga Generating Station in Indiana to make up the difference. The plan is being considered as a potential settlement option in a more than a decade-old lawsuit the company has with the EPA. Duke had been exploring the idea of converting two of the Gallagher burners to natural gas via running a gas pipeline from Kentucky. But the gas pipeline would cost $71 million, while Duke would pay $68 million for its share of the Vermillion Plant, owned by both Duke Ohio — an unregulated subsidiary of Duke Energy — and Wabash Valley Power Association. Duke Energy would own 62.5 percent of that plant and Wabash would own the remainder.

The lawsuit that initiated the filing relates to air quality: the EPA alleges Cinergy — which merged with Duke Energy in 2006 — undertook six power-plant upgrades that added new coal burners in Indiana and Ohio without obtaining new permits as required by New Source Review provisions. Both the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will have to approve either option before Duke moves ahead.[50]

Beckjord Generating Station

On July 15, 2011, Duke said it expects to retire all six coal-fired generation units at its Beckjord Generating Station in Ohio by Jan. 1, 2015, due to the proposed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s Utility Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) rule, which will be finalised in November 2011, and will require coal-fired plants to reduce emissions of particular toxic air pollutants. The company said it plans to meet demand by buying electricity on the competitive wholesale market or by constructing or acquiring natural gas-fired combined-cycle generating assets.[51]

Wabash River Generating Station

On May 29, 2009, U.S. District Judge Larry J. McKinney ordered Duke Energy to shut down three units of the Wabash River Generating Station for violations of the federal Clean Air Act. In 2008, a jury found that Duke-owned Cinergy had modified the facilities without installing best-available pollution control technology. The units, which supply 39 percent of the station's power, were slated to be taken off line in 2012.[52] An appeals court overturned that order in 2010, allowing Duke Energy to restart the units.[53]

In Sep. 2011, Duke Energy said it is considering shutting down several of the six units at Wabash River Station, in expectation of impending coal regulations.[53]

Coal Projects Sponsored by Duke Energy

Cliffside

Duke used half of its $4.8 billion ratepayer-funded "modernization" program in North Carolina (approved in 2009) to add a new 800MW coal-fired unit at its Cliffside coal station.[54]

Edwardsport

In July 2009, Duke filed a proposal for a carbon dioxide storage project with the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission. Duke would invest over $120 million to store a portion of the CO2 emissions from its proposed Edwardsport Plant in Knox County, Indiana. The three-year project would attempt to store emissions in saline aquifers and in depleted oil and gas fields.

The experiment would result in an average 1 percent rate increase for customers between 2010 and 2013. The company is also applying for a federal grant to cover about half of the project's costs. If the project is successful, Duke will apply to capture and store the emissions on a permanent basis.[55]

Emissions

Carbon dioxide

Duke Energy accounted for 3.4% of all US electricity sector carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in 2011.[56]

Sulfur dioxide

Duke’s sulfur dioxide emissions, when considering plant fuel efficiency, were 30% above the national average in 2011.[57]

Death and disease attributable to fine particle pollution from Duke Energy coal plants

In 2010, Abt Associates issued a study commissioned by the Clean Air Task Force, a nonprofit research and advocacy organization, quantifying the deaths and other health effects attributable to fine particle pollution from coal-fired power plants.[58] Fine particle pollution consists of a complex mixture of soot, heavy metals, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides. Among these particles, the most dangerous are those less than 2.5 microns in diameter, which are so tiny that they can evade the lung's natural defenses, enter the bloodstream, and be transported to vital organs. Impacts are especially severe among the elderly, children, and those with respiratory disease. The study found that over 13,000 deaths and tens of thousands of cases of chronic bronchitis, acute bronchitis, asthma, congestive heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, dysrhythmia, ischemic heart disease, chronic lung disease, and pneumonia each year are attributable to fine particle pollution from U.S. coal plant emissions. These deaths and illnesses are major examples of coal's external costs, i.e. uncompensated harms inflicted upon the public at large. Low-income and minority populations are disproportionately impacted as well, due to the tendency of companies to avoid locating power plants upwind of affluent communities. To monetize the health impact of fine particle pollution from each coal plant, Abt assigned a value of $7,300,000 to each 2010 mortality, based on a range of government and private studies. Valuations of illnesses ranged from $52 for an asthma episode to $440,000 for a case of chronic bronchitis.[59]

Table 1: Death and disease attributable to fine particle pollution from Duke coal plants

Type of Impact Annual Incidence Valuation
Deaths 951 $6.94 billion
Heart attacks 1,447 $158.1 million
Asthma attacks 15,714 $817.1 million
Hospital admissions 696 $16.2 million
Chronic bronchitis 579 $257.2 million
Asthma ER visits 912 $0.33 million

Source: "Health Impacts - annual - of Existing Plants," Clean Air Task Force Excel worksheet, available under "Data Annex" at "Death and Disease from Power Plants," Clean Air Task Force. Note: This data includes the following plants owned by Duke Energy and subsidiaries Cincinnati Gas & Electric and PSI Energy: Beckjord, Miami Fort, East Bend, W.H. Zimmer, G.G. Allen; Buck, Cliffside, Dan River, Riverbend, W.S. Lee, Marshall, Belews Creek, Gibson, Wabash River, Cayuga, and Gallagher.

Citizen action

The two polar bears, immediately after their arrest for blockading the Duke Energy headquarters in Charlotte, NC, on Nov. 15, 2007.

Nov. 15, 2007: Student blockade of Duke Energy headquarters

On November 15, 2007, two Warren Wilson College students - dressed as polar bears - chained themselves to the door of Duke Energy's headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina, in protest of Duke's plans to build the Cliffside coal-fired power plant in western North Carolina. Several dozen people held a rally in support of their blockade, dressing as Santa Claus and elves and presenting a stocking full of coal to the company. The two students were arrested on charges of trespassing and disorderly conduct.[60][61]

April 1, 2008: Rising Tide/Earth First! occupation of Cliffside construction site

On April 1, 2008, as part of the Fossil Fools International Day of Action, a group of North Carolina activists with Rising Tide and Earth First! locked themselves to bulldozers to prevent the construction of the Cliffside coal-fired power plant proposed by Duke in western North Carolina. Others roped off the site with "Global Warming Crime Scene" tape, and held banners protesting the construction of the plant. Police used pain compliance holds and tasers to force the activists to unlock themselves from the construction equipment. Eight people were arrested.[62][63]

April 20, 2009: Hundreds protest in Charlotte, N.C. against Duke's proposed Cliffside plant

Hundreds of people marched and rallied against Cliffside in Charlotte, N.C. The demonstration was organized by more than a dozen environmental, faith-based, and social justice groups, which are calling on Duke and the state of North Carolina to cancel construction of the Cliffside plant. The plant, if built, would release 6 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year, and would use coal extracted through mountaintop removal. 44 activists were arrested.[64]

To see video of this protest, see Stop Cliffside

May 7, 2009: Activists protest Cliffside Plant at Duke Energy shareholder meeting in Charlotte, NC

Activists dominated Duke Energy's annual shareholder meeting in Charlotte, NC. About 25 protesters gathered outside the company's headquarters, calling for Duke to cancel its proposed Cliffside Plant. Inside the meeting, activists who own shares of the company grilled CEO Jim Rogers about the company's coal and nuclear investments.[65]

November 30, 2009: Activists block delivery of generator to Cliffside coal plant in Greenville, SC

Two protesters locked themselves to a 1.5 million pound generator being delivered to the Cliffside Plant in North Carolina. The activists vowed to prevent the generator from reaching the plant. Protesters also displayed a large banner reading "Stop Cliffside" from the top of the generator. More than 20 activists attended the protest; four were arrested. The action was organized by Asheville Rising Tide and Croatan Earth First! as part of a national day of action with dozens of protests planned around the U.S.[66]

May 5, 2011: Duke Energy shareholder meeting faces protests in Charlotte, NC

About 50 demonstrators from N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network protested Duke Energy continued use of mountaintop removal coal at the company's shareholders meeting. The protests included street theater of a state "legislator" taking money from utility customers in chains. Another group of conservative protesters waved "Fire Jim Rogers" signs in opposition to the Duke CEO's attempt to bring the Democratic National Convention to Charlotte in 2012. Rogers later said that Duke had also tried to bring Republican conventions to the city.[67]

June 28, 2011: NC WARN warns of Duke's nuclear plans

North Carolina Waste Awareness and Reduction Network says the public is paying the price to advance an under-regulated industry that impedes other more efficient energy sources. [68]

Aug 12, 2011: EDF, N.C. sustainable energy biomass appeal

A state court ruled against the Environmental Defense Fund and the NC Sustainable Energy Association in appealing Duke's use of whole trees as "biomass" energy. The groups said that harvesting whole trees for fuel, instead of wood scraps and logging debris, would lead to environmentally damaging clear cutting. [69]

May 3, 2012: Activists block shipment of mountaintop removal coal

Activists block tracks bringing mountaintop removal coal to Marshall Steam Plant.
Activists "brand" coal trains bound for Marshall plant with Apple logo.

On May 3, activists protested mountaintop removal mining by locking themselves to train tracks, preventing coal train loads from entering Duke Energy's Marshall coal plant in North Carolina. The activists, affiliated with RAMPS, Katuah Earth First!, Greenpeace and Mountain Keepers said they would not leave until Duke agreed to end its use of mountaintop removal coal operations. The power burned in Marshall is used to power Apple's iCloud data center.[70]

Coal waste

EPA releases list of 44 "high hazard" coal ash dumps

In response to demands from environmentalists as well as Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California), chair of the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works, the EPA made public a list of 44 "high hazard potential" coal waste dumps. The rating applies to sites at which a dam failure would most likely cause loss of human life, but does not include an assessment of the likelihood of such an event. Duke owns 10 of the sites, all of which are located in North Carolina.[71]

The following table is derived from EPA's official list of Coal Combustion Residue (CCR) Surface Impoundments with High Hazard Potential Ratings. To see the full list of sites, see Coal waste.[72]

Facility Name Unit Name Location
G.G. Allen Steam Plant Active Ash Pond Belmont, NC
Belews Creek Steam Station Active Ash Pond Walnut Cove, NC
Buck Steam Station New Primary Pond Spencer, NC
Buck Steam Station Secondary Pond Spencer, NC
Buck Steam Station Primary Pond Spencer, NC
Dan River Steam Station Secondary Pond Eden, NC
Dan River Steam Station Primary Pond Eden, NC
Marshall Steam Station Active Ash Pond Terrell, NC
Riverbend Steam Station Secondary Pond Mount Holly, NC
Riverbend Steam Station Primary Pond Mount Holly, NC

Study shows Duke's N.C. coal ash ponds are contaminating groundwater

In October 2009, Appalachian Voices released an analysis of monitoring data from coal waste ponds at 13 coal plants in North Carolina. The study revealed that all of them are contaminating ground water with toxic pollutants, in some cases with over 350 times the allowable levels according to state standards. The contaminants include the toxic metals arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and lead, which can cause cancer and neurological disorders. The study was based on data submitted by Duke and Progress Energy to state regulators. The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources is attempting to confirm the results before determining whether current state law can mandate corrective action.[73]

"High Hazard" Surface Impoundments at Duke Dan River waste sites

Two of Duke's Dan River Steam Station's coal ash surface impoundments - Dan River Steam Station Primary Pond and Dan River Steam Station Secondary Pond - are on the EPA's official June 2009 list of Coal Combustion Residue (CCR) Surface Impoundments with High Hazard Potential Ratings. The rating applies to sites at which a dam failure would most likely cause loss of human life, but does not assess of the likelihood of such an event.[74]

Coal Ash Waste and Water Contamination at Dan River

In August 2010 a study released by the Environmental Integrity Project, the Sierra Club and Earthjustice reported that North Carolina, along with 34 states, had significant groundwater contamination from coal ash that is not currently regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The report, in an attempt to pressure the EPA to regulate coal ash, noted that most states do not monitor drinking water contamination levels near waste disposal sites.[75] The report mentioned Duke's Dan River Steam Station as having groundwater contamination due to coal ash waste.[76]

Study finds dangerous level of hexavalent chromium at Dan River coal waste site

A report released by EarthJustice and the Sierra Club in early February 2011 stated that there are many health threats associated with a toxic cancer-causing chemical found in coal ash waste called hexavalent chromium. The report specifically cited 29 sites in 17 states where the contamination was found. The information was gathered from existing EPA data on coal ash and included locations in Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Massachusetts, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virgina and Wisconsin. In North Carolina, the Dan River Steam Station in Eden, the Asheville Plant in Asheville and the Cape Fear Steam Plant in Montcure all were reported as having high levels of chromium seeping into groundwater.[77]

According to the report, hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)) was reported at the Dan River unlined landfill and pond coal waste site above 61 ppb (parts per billion) - 3,050 times the proposed California drinking water goals and 22% above the North Carolina drinking water standard.[77]

As a press release about the report read:

Hexavalent chromium first made headlines after Erin Brockovich sued Pacific Gas & Electric because of poisoned drinking water from hexavalent chromium. Now new information indicates that the chemical has readily leaked from coal ash sites across the U.S. This is likely the tip of the iceberg because most coal ash dump sites are not adequately monitored.[78]

According to the report, the electric power industry is the leading source of chromium and chromium compounds released into the environment, representing 24 percent of releases by all industries in 2009.[77]

Groups report coal waste leaks at Allen and Riverbend

In November 2012 the Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation informed state and federal environmental regulators they discovered four seepage points from coal ash ponds, one from Duke's Allen Steam Station into Lake Wylie and three into Mountain Island Lake from Duke's Riverbend Steam Station. Lake Wylie provides drinking water for York County and Belmont, while Mountain Island Lake provides drinking water for Mecklenburg County.[79]

Rate Hikes

Duke proposes rate increases to cover higher cost of coal

In March 2009, Duke Energy Carolinas proposed a 5 percent increase on its power charges in North Carolina, to compensate the company for higher coal prices. The fuel-charge increase is separate from an upcoming Duke proposal for a general rate hike. The company estimates that the average customer bill would increase from approximately $87 per month to about $91 per month. Similar increases will be proposed in South Carolina in summer 2009.[80]

Duke proposes rate increases to cover costs of expanding Cliffside plant

In September 2009, the North Carolina Utilities Commission held a public hearing on Duke's proposed rate increase of 12.6 percent for its North Carolina customers. Duke says the increases are necessary to recoup $4.8 billion in capital spending, which includes the amount spent to date on the Cliffside expansion. The utility commission's Public Staff, which represents utility customers, is opposed to the increase, describing it as unjustified. About two dozen people spoke at the hearing, most of whom were residents opposed to the rate hike and to the new Cliffside plant. The commission is scheduled to begin hearing expert testimony on Duke's rate hike request ion October 19.[81]

On July 1, 2011, Duke proposed a 15 percent rate increase, to go into effect in February of 2011, to cover costs of the Cliffside coal-fired power plant in North Carolina, along with a new natural gas-fired power plant at the Buck facility in Rowan County, North Carolina, and a new hydroelectric powerhouse at the Bridgewater facility in Burke County, North Carolina. [82] [83] Public hearings on the rate hike on October 12 filled a Charlotte NC hearing room. Many people protested the impact of higher rates, while others insisted that Duke wants more money for the wrong reasons: to build nuclear power plants and continue burning fossil fuels. [84] Greenpeace, Rainforest Action Network, Carolinas Clean Air Coalition, and NC WARN were among organizations with Charlotte chapters that were active in preparing for the hearing.[85]

Duke Ohio to switch from regulated utility rates to market rates by 2012

In November 2010, Duke Energy applied to convert its regulated utility rates to market rates in stages starting in 2012, with fully market-based rates by the middle of 2014. As part of that proposal, Duke planned to transfer all its Ohio power plants out of the utility into an unregulated affiliate. The move is designed to compete with Ohio's mix of regulated and unregulated power producers. Ohio does not require departing customers from regulated companies to pay any fee for transferring, as do many states, to compensate regulated utilities for power plants they built on the expectation of continued demand.[86]

Rate hikes driven by rising fuel costs

An analysis by the NC Sustainable Energy Association shows that residential electricity rate increases proposed by Duke Energy and Progress Energy, and/or approved by the NC Utilities Commission over the past decade, were driven by rising fuel costs for conventional power generation rather than by investments in and purchase of renewable energy and energy efficiency. [87]

Environmental Record

Coal ash

In October 2012 four environmental groups asked North Carolina’s Environmental Management Commission for a ruling to make Duke Energy clean up groundwater contamination found near the company's coal ash ponds at 14 coal-fired power plants. The power plants include Duke’s Riverbend and Allen plants on the Catawba River west of Charlotte, and its Marshall plant on Lake Norman. State officials say contamination has been found at all 14 plants, and that they are working to trace its sources.[88]

Power lines

In August 2010, Duke Energy hired a contractor to spray herbicide to protect its power lines along the the Shopton Road intersection out of Charlotte on N.C. 49, leading to stunted, dead pine trees. Duke Energy spokesman Jason Walls said the company performs regular maintenance on all of its rights of way to ensure quality electrical service. The company used herbicides on the N.C. 49 pines: "Those trees have been maintained as part of our vegetation maintenance - this is part of routine maintenance," he said.[89]

Gallagher Generating Station

On December 22, 2009, the EPA announced the agency had reached a settlement with Duke Energy for New Source Review (NSR) violations of the Clean Air Act at Duke’s Gallagher Generating Station. A jury had found Duke liable for NSR violations at the plant, and the settlement obviated the need for a remedy trial, which had been scheduled for early 2010.

The settlement requires Duke Energy to repower Units 1 and 3 at Gallagher with natural gas or shut them down, and to install scrubbers at Units 2 and 4, reducing sulfur dioxide emissions 86 percent when compared to 2008 emissions. Duke will also pay a $1.75 million penalty and spend $6.25 million on various environmental mitigation projects.[90]

Duke ordered to shut down three coal-fired units in Indiana

On May 29, 2009, U.S. District Judge Larry J. McKinney ordered Duke to shut down three units of the Wabash River Generating Station in Indiana for violations of the federal Clean Air Act. In 2008, a jury found that Duke-owned Cinergy had modified the facilities without installing best-available pollution control technology. In his ruling, Judge McKinney cited increased sulfur dioxide emissions from the units and gave a deadline of September 30, 2009 for closing them. Duke's Chief Legal Officer Marc Manly said the company was disappointed with the court's decision to "accelerate the shutdown." The units, which supply 39 percent of the station's power, were slated to be taken off line in 2012.[91]

Clean Air Act

In 1999 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency commenced an enforcement action against Duke Energy for failure to comply with the Clean Air Act. Duke asserted that EPA regulations under the law were arbitrarily changed over the course of 25 years. Environmental groups asserted that Duke was using loopholes in the law to increase emissions. Initially, Duke prevailed at the trial court level, but in 2006 the case was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court (Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corp. (05-848)). The Court unanimously ruled on April 2, 2007, against Duke Energy and in favor of the environmental groups.[92]

Duke's nuclear stations

Duke Energy operates seven nuclear power stations. Three of these are at the Oconee Nuclear Station in Oconee County, South Carolina and two each at Catawba Nuclear Station in York County, South Carolina and McGuire Nuclear Station in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. [93]

The company is a member of the NuStart Consortium, which aims to obtain one of the new ‘streamlined’ combined Construction and Operating License (COL) for two selected reactor technologies.

Duke Energy is also a member of the Nuclear Energy Institute and the World Nuclear Association.

MOX Enthusiasts

In March 1999, a consortium of companies led by Duke Engineering & Services (a former business unit of Duke Energy), COGEMA and Stone & Webster (DCS) entered into a contract with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to fabricate mixed oxide (MOX) fuel using plutonium from surplus weapons and then to use that fuel in commercial nuclear power plants. The consortium will design, construct and operate a MOX fuel fabrication facility at the DOE Savannah River Site. Duke Energy will use the fuel at McGuire and Catawba nuclear stations beginning around 2011 or later. [94]

Duke Engineering & Services was sold to Framatome ANP, in January 2002. [95] However, Duke Energy continued with the plan to use MoX in its reactors. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) granted permission for the use of MOX fuel at Catawba Nuclear Station, after a two-year review process, in March 2005. [96]

In September 2004, 140 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium oxide (powder) were shipped via Charleston, South Carolina, to France for fabrication into MOX, where it was met by a storm of protest. The plutonium arrived back, as MOX, at Charleston on April 12, 2005, after an 4000 mile round trip. The French state company Areva fabricated the plutonium into MOX. Greenpeace said the shipment flies in the face of global efforts to curb the nuclear threat. The testing was a prelude to the start up of a large-scale plutonium fuel program in the United States.

New Reactors

Duke Power has selected a site in Cherokee County, (South Carolina) – jointly owned with the Southern Company - for a potential new nuclear power plant. The Company will develop an application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a combined construction and operating license (COL) for two Westinghouse AP1000 (advanced passive) reactors.[97] The COL application submittal to the NRC is anticipated in the late 2007 or early 2008 time frame. Submitting the COL application does not commit either company to build new nuclear units. The companies will decide whether to proceed with plant construction at a later date. The US Public Interest Group, Public Citizen, said “Duke is angling to receive billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies to defray the costs of applying for a license as well as operating the plants; it should not be given a government handout for the application … Nor should the government issue a license. Not only does nuclear power pose a threat to public health and safety, but Duke Energy has a track record that indicates it has been dishonest with consumers”. [98]

In addition to selecting the Cherokee County location for a COL application, Duke Power is considering the preparation of early site permit (ESP) applications for locations in Oconee County, S.C., and Davie County, N.C. Early site permits enable companies to complete environmental and site suitability reviews, and obtain approval from the NRC for potential nuclear plant sites in advance of requesting a license to build and operate a plant. [99]

Duke Energy remains committed to nuclear power, despite the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, CEO Jim Rogers told company shareholders [100] and University of Richmond students [101] in late April and early May, 2011.

Report: Duke's nuclear plants not replacing coal

A 2011 report by NC Warn, "New Nuclear Power is Ruining Climate Protection Efforts and Harming Customers", argues that companies like Duke have promoted the utilities’ commitment to lead the way to a “low carbon” future by building more nuclear power plants, but instead of replacing their coal-burning plants with nuclear power, the companies "plan to keep operating most or all of their coal plants indefinitely, while adding more nuclear (and fossil fuel) plants so they can expand electricity sales both within and outside the region. This business model is based largely on the delusion that the U.S. economy will someday return to the unsustainable growth that created the combined economic-ecological predicament we now face."

The report states that "Duke Energy Carolinas plans to add 7,723 megawatts (MW) of generation capacity by 2030, a net addition of 36.5%, while continuing to use its large coal-fired units. Over 2,200 MW would come from two Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear units at Duke’s proposed Lee Nuclear Station. Because Duke’s sales have been relatively flat since long before the recession, CEO Jim Rogers continues to pursue an aggressive program to expand sales inside Duke’s service area" to "force current customers to subsidize new [nuclear plants]; Duke is appealing the N.C. Utilities Commission’s denial of that expansion plan."[102]

Subsidiaries

Duke Energy International

Duke Energy International (DEI) is a subsidiary of Duke Energy and owns or has substantial interests in approximately 4,500 MW of electric generation in Argentina, Brazil, Belize, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Peru. About 70 percent of DEI's generating capacity is hydroelectric.[103][104]

In late June, 2011, DEI was reported to be in negotiations with GDF Suez, a French-Swiss utility company, with a possible sale or merger of Latin American assets valued at $18.8 billion.[105] Duke CEO Jim Rogers put rumors to rest in July, saying the sale of the company's Latin American assets did not make much sense. [106]

Duke Energy Hydrocarbons

Vulcan Capital Management originated, structured, and closed a transaction with Duke Energy Hydrocarbons, LLC in 2003 as a purchase of Duke Energy Inc.’s offshore businesses. Duke Energy Hydrocarbons is an offshore exploration and production company with operations located in the Gulf of Mexico.[107]

Coal lobbying

Duke Energy lobbyists include the firm Dutko Worldwide. [108] Other consultants and lobbying firms working for Duke Energy include Alpine Group, BG-4, Dow Lohnes, Hunton & Williams, Mary Kenkel, Lighthouse Consulting Group, LTD Group, Daryl Owen Associates, Valis & Keelen, and Van Ness Feldman, according to the Lobbyists.info online database. [109]

Duke Energy spent $5,090,598 on in-house lobbying costs in 2008 and a further $1,282,770 to date in 2009.[110] The registered lobbyists were Beverly K. Marshall, John Haysbert, Toby Short and Brian Vanderbloemen.

Duke Energy also spent $240,000 on Dutko Worldwide, LLC in 2008 and a further $50,000 to date in 2009.[110] The registered lobbyists for the first two quarters of 2008 were Tracy Hammond, Andrew Wright and Liz Burdock. The registered lobbyists for the latter half of 2008 and the first quarter of 2009 were Hammond and Wright.

Duke Energy also spent $134,000 on Alliance One in 2008.[110] The registered lobbyist was Mary Kenkel.

Duke Energy also spent $240,000 on the Alpine Group in 2008 and a further $60,000 to date in 2009.[110] The registered lobbyists were James Massie, Rhod Shaw and Jason Schendle.

Duke Energy also spent $25,000 on Walker Nolan in 2008 and a further $15,000 to date in 2009.[110] The registered lobbyist was Walker Nolan.

Duke Energy also spent $110,000 on The Accord Group in 2008 and a further $30,000 to date in 2009. [110] The registered lobbyist was Patrick Quinn.

Duke Energy also spent $118,000 on Bracewell & Giuliani in 2008 and a further $50,000 to date in 2009.[110] The registered lobbyists were Scott H. Segal, E. Dee Martin, Edward Krenik, Jeffrey Holmstead and Joshua Zive.

Duke Energy also spent $90,000 on the LTD Group in 2008 and a further $30,000 to date in 2009. [110] The registered lobbyist was Michael Haywood.

Duke Energy also spent $100,000 on Daryl Owen Associates in 2008. [110] The registered lobbyist was Daryl Owen.

  • Total Lobbying expenditures for 2008: $6,147,598
  • Total Lobbying expenditures to date for 2009: $1,517,770

Duke Energy is a member of the American Coal Ash Association (ACAA), an umbrella lobbying group for all coal ash interests that includes major coal burners Southern Company and American Electric Power as well as dozens of other companies. The group argues that the so-called "beneficial-use industry" would be eliminated if a "hazardous" designation was given for coal ash waste.[111]

ACAA set up a front group called Citizens for Recycling First, which argues that using toxic coal ash as fill in other products is safe, despite evidence to the contrary.[111]

Line of credit for 2012 Democratic convention

In March 2011 Politico reported reported that Duke Energy had agreed to provide a $10 million line of credit to the Democratic Party's 2012 convention in Charlotte. Duke Energy is headquartered in Charlotte. "Duke Energy was actively involved in recruiting the Democratic National Convention to Charlotte," company spokesman Tom Williams told POLITICO. "As a part of the application process, the DNC required there be a letter of credit, a line of credit, ultimately available if the host city was selected. … And our corporation stepped up."[112] The Center for Public Integrity reported that some environmentalists "see the move as an attempt by Duke to curry favor with the party controlling the White House. After all, there’s a long list of pending federal environmental rules that would have a direct impact on the utility industry — regulating against greenhouse gas emissions, for instance, and classifying coal ash as a hazardous waste."[113]

Reports

According to the 2012 Greenpeace report, "Charting the Correction Course: A Clean Energy Pathway for Duke Energy," Duke Energy customers in the Carolinas could save $108 billion, or 57% of their total bills, over the next 20 years by choosing solar and wind energy. The savings are achieved by using energy efficiency to its fullest degree and sourcing 33% of Duke Energy’s power from renewable energy by 2020, while phasing out coal by 2020 and nuclear energy by 2026.[114]

Personnel

Contact details

Web: http://www.duke-energy.com/

External links

Related SourceWatch articles

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 Duke Energy Corp., BusinessWeek Company Insight Center, accessed July 2008.
  2. http://www.duke-energy.com/pdfs/Oct_fact_sheet_rev.pdf
  3. Overview - Duke Energy, Duke website.
  4. American Legislative Exchange Council, "Solutions for the States," 38th Annual Meeting agenda, on file with CMD, August 3-6, 2011
  5. American Legislative Exchange Council, Energy, Environment, and Agriculture Task Force Meeting 2010 States and Nation Policy Summit December 2, 2010 Meeting Minutes, organizational document, March 31, 2011, p. 43, obtained and released by Common Cause April 2012
  6. Duke Energy News "Duke Energy, Cinergy Complete Merger", Duke Energy Website, August 2009
  7. Matt Daily, "Duke Energy to buy Progress Energy for $13.7 billion" Reuters, Jan. 10, 2011.
  8. "Coal's Dim Future" Steve LeVine, Foreign Policy, January 10, 2011.
  9. Docket Search, NCUC North Carolina Utilities Commission.
  10. Testimony of Richard H. Hahn, Docket No. E-2, Sub 998 / E-7, Sub 986, Sept. 8, 2011.
  11. Emery P. Dalesio, "NC opens hearings on Progress-Duke Energy merger," Associated Press, Sept. 20, 2011.
  12. Paul Chesser, "Duke - Progress Merger Provides Shakedown Opportunity for Activists," American Tradition Institute, Sept. 14, 2011.
  13. John Murawski, "Duke, Progress execs say they will address federal concerns over merger," Raleigh News & Observer, Oct. 3, 2011.
  14. "Order on Disposition of Jurisdictional Facilities and Merger," FERC Docket No. EC11-60-000, Sept. 30, 2011.
  15. Philip Bump, "Duke Energy CEO Bill Johnson resigns after one day, gets $44 million in severance," Grist, July 6, 2012.
  16. Brad Johnson, "Corporate Welfare For Energy Companies Means We Paid $24 Billion In Taxes To Them," Think Progress, Nov. 7, 2011.
  17. Robert S. McIntyre, Matthew Gardner, Rebecca J. Wilkins, Richard Phillips, "Corporate Taxpayers & Corporate Tax Dodgers: 2008-10" Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, November 2011 Report.
  18. Public Campaign, For Hire: Lobbyists or the 99%? How Corporations Pay More for Lobbyists Than in Taxes, organizational report, December 2011
  19. Public Interest Research Group and Citizens for Tax Justice, "Representation Without Taxation: Fortune 500 Companies that Spend Big on Lobbying and Avoid Taxes," Public Interest Research Group and Citizens for Tax Justice, January 2012 Report
  20. "Consumer group criticizes Indiana regulator's move to Duke Energy" Indystar.com, Sep. 22, 2010.
  21. "Duke Energy Indiana Files Cost Update for Clean Coal Gasification Power Plant" Duke Energy, April 16, 2010.
  22. "Post-Employment Restrictions" Indiana.gov, accessed September 2010.
  23. "Duke Energy’s recent hirings raise ethics questions," Citizens Action Coalition News Release, Sep. 21, 2010.
  24. 24.0 24.1 24.2 Chris O'Malley, "Duke Energy puts local CEO on leave amid state probe" Indiana Business Journal, Oct. 5, 2010.
  25. "Ethics Scandal Zaps Former Duke Energy Attorney" ABC, Oct. 20, 2011.
  26. "Ethics Scandal Zaps Former Duke Energy Attorney" ABC, Oct. 20, 2011.
  27. John Russell, "Regulator, utility power player discussed a lot -- including Duke's hiring process" Indy Star, Nov. 28, 2010.
  28. Julie Rose, "Duke Energy Exec James Turner Resigns Over Ethics Flap" WFAE 90.7FM, Dec. 6, 2010.
  29. John Russell, "Ex-Duke executive will be grilled at deposition" IndyStar.com, Dec. 23, 2010.
  30. CEO Compensation: #174 James E Rogers, Forbes.com, May 3, 2007.
  31. Gerard Wynn, "Duke Energy building "last two" coal plants: CEO," Reuters, May 26, 2009.
  32. Llewellyn Wells, "Unlikely Partners: RMI and Duke Work Together to Create a New Energy Future", Solutions Journal, Fall 2009, pages 20-21. (Llewellyn Wells is RMI’s Vice President of Outreach).
  33. Robert Annis, "Coal group's opposition to climate-change bill sparks Duke's departure," Indianapolis Star, September 8, 2009.
  34. "Another Company Leaves 'Mixed Messaging' Coal Alliance," Greenwire, September 9, 2009.
  35. 35.0 35.1 Connor Gibson, "Duke Energy Uses ALEC to Attack Climate and Clean Energy Laws in Pay-to-Play Politics", "Greenpeace", July 17, 2012.
  36. John Downey, "Duke Energy buys in to ALEC meeting", "Charlotte Business Journal", May 11, 2012.
  37. Connor Gibson, "What's on ALEC's Polluter Agenda Tomorrow?", "Greenpeace", May 10, 2012.
  38. "American Legislative Exchange Council Bylaws", "PR Watch", PDF created February 6, 2012 from ALEC's 2007 IRS 990 tax filing.
  39. 39.0 39.1 39.2 John Downey, "Duke Energy says 900 employees will take buyouts", "MSN Money", April 14, 2010.
  40. Laura Baverman, [http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2007/03/19/story6.html "Business Courier", March 16, 2007.
  41. Dan Gearino, "AEP to cut up to 10% of workers", "Columbus Dispatch", April 15, 2010.
  42. 42.0 42.1 Existing Electric Generating Units in the United States, 2005, Energy Information Administration, accessed April 2008.
  43. "Duke Energy taking steps to deal with slowing power needs," Charlotte Business Journal, November 7, 2008.
  44. 44.0 44.1 44.2 44.3 Bruce Henderson, "Duke considers closing old coal plants" Charlotte Observer, Sep. 2, 2010.
  45. 45.0 45.1 Environmental Integrity Project, Dirty Kilowatts: America’s Most Polluting Power Plants, July 2007.
  46. Dig Deeper, Carbon Monitoring for Action database, accessed June 2008.
  47. Jacqui Patterson, "Day VIII Clearing the Air Road Tour—Hammond, IN—State Line Plant" NAACP Climate Justice Initiative, April 21, 2010.
  48. Jim Warren, "New Nuclear Power is Ruining Climate Protection Efforts and Harming Customers" NC Warn, 2011 Report.
  49. "Duke to begin razing Indiana's oldest coal plant" AP, Sep. 26, 2011.
  50. Daniel Suddeath, "Duke plans to shut 2 coal-burning units, buy share in 3rd" Clarion, May 30, 2011.
  51. "Duke Energy expects Ohio coal plant retirement" reuters, July 15, 2011.
  52. Andrew M. Harris, "Duke Energy Ordered to Shut Indiana Coal-Fired Units," Bloomberg, May 29, 2009.
  53. 53.0 53.1 "Duke expects closing much of W. Ind. power plant" Chron.com, Sep. 16, 2011.
  54. "Charting the Correction Course: A Clean Energy Pathway for Duke Energy," Greenpeace, 2012.
  55. "Duke Energy files plans for carbon-storage study," Charlotte Business Journal, July 7, 2009.
  56. "Charting the Correction Course: A Clean Energy Pathway for Duke Energy," Greenpeace, 2012.
  57. "Charting the Correction Course: A Clean Energy Pathway for Duke Energy," Greenpeace, 2012.
  58. "The Toll from Coal: An Updated Assessment of Death and Disease from America's Dirtiest Energy Source," Clean Air Task Force, September 2010.
  59. "Technical Support Document for the Powerplant Impact Estimator Software Tool," Prepared for the Clean Air Task Force by Abt Associates, July 2010
  60. Students Chain Selves to Duke, Raleigh News & Observer, November 16, 2007.
  61. Direct Action at Duke Energy Over Proposed Coal Expansion, It's Getting Hot In Here blog, November 15, 2007.
  62. "Eight Climate Protesters Arrested at U.S. Coal Plant", Reuters, April 1, 2008.
  63. "Eight Arrested as North Carolina Residents Shut Down Construction at Cliffside Coal Plant", Fossil Fools Day blog, April 1, 2008.
  64. "Hundreds March and 44 Arrested to Stop Cliffside Power Plant," Power Past Coal, April 21, 2009.
  65. "Coal debate highlights Duke meeting," Triangle Business Journal, May 8, 2009.
  66. "Citizens Block Shipment fo Generator to Cliffside Coal Plant," Rising Tide North America, November 30, 2009.
  67. "Critics from left and right raise voices at Duke meet", Bruce Henderson, Charlotte Observer, May 6, 2011.
  68. Evan B. Kozierach"Nuclear energy watchdog touts alternative sources" The Times News, June 28, 2011.
  69. John Murawski "Duke can count trees as 'biomass'" Raleigh News & Observer, Aug. 12, 2011.
  70. "Breaking: Activists Block Shipment of Mountain Top Removal Coal" QuitCoal.org, May 3, 2012.
  71. Shaila Dewan, "E.P.A. Lists ‘High Hazard’ Coal Ash Dumps," New York Times, June 30, 2009.
  72. Fact Sheet: Coal Combustion Residues (CCR) - Surface Impoundments with High Hazard Potential Ratings, Environmental Protection Agency, June 2009.
  73. Sue Sturgis, "All North Carolina coal ash ponds are leaking toxic pollution to groundwater," Institute for Southern Studies, October 7, 2009.
  74. Coal waste
  75. "Study of coal ash sites finds extensive water contamination" Renee Schoff, Miami Herald, August 26, 2010.
  76. "Enviro groups: ND, SD coal ash polluting water" Associated Press, August 24, 2010.
  77. 77.0 77.1 77.2 "EPA’s Blind Spot: Hexavalent Chromium in Coal Ash" Earthjustice & Sierra Club, February 1, 2011.
  78. "Coal ash waste tied to cancer-causing chemicals in water supplies" Alicia Bayer, Examiner.com, February 1, 2011.
  79. John Marks, "Group reports coal ash leaking into Lake Wylie," Charlotte Observer, Charlotte Observer, Nov. 20, 2012.
  80. "Bills may rise as Duke pays more for coal," Charlotte Business Journal, March 13, 2009.
  81. Bruce Henderson, "Speakers oppose rate hike, coal-fired plant," Charlotte Observer, September 10, 2009.
  82. "Duke seeks 15 pct power rate hike in North Carolina" Reuters, July 1, 2011.
  83. Bruce Henderson "Duke Energy seeks 15 percent N.C. rate hike" Charlotte Observer, July 19, 2011.
  84. Bruce Henderson, Crowd jams hearing on Duke Energy's proposed rate hike" Charlotte Observer, Oct. 12, 2011.
  85. Sally Kneidel, "Crowd overflows hearing for Duke Energy rate hike: more coal and nuclear at stake," Veggie Revolution, Oct. 12, 2011.
  86. John Downey, "Duke Energy wants market rates in Ohio" Charlotte Business Journal, Nov. 15, 2010.
  87. "Understanding the impact of electrical generation choices on North Carolina residential electricity rates," NC Sustainable Energy Association, Nov. 2011.
  88. Bruce Henderson, "Environmental groups petition state over coal ash near plants," www.charlotteobserver.com, Oct. 10, 2012.
  89. Katie Oliver, "N.C. 49 pines dead under power lines" charlotteobserver.com, August 12, 2010.
  90. "Duke Energy to Spend $93 Million to Resolve Clean Air Act Violations" EPA Press Release, December 22, 2009.
  91. Andrew M. Harris, "Duke Energy Ordered to Shut Indiana Coal-Fired Units," Bloomberg, May 29, 2009.
  92. Supreme Court Says EPA Can Regulate Greenhouse Gases
  93. Duke Energy, website, accessed December 2006.
  94. Duke Power, Mixed Oxide Fuel Program undated.
  95. Duke Energy Duke Energy Announces Sale of Duke Enginering & Services Unit to Further Align Focus on Wholesale Energy Markets. Press Release, January 31, 2002.
  96. Duke Power Duke Power Granted Licence Amendment by Nuclear Regulatory Commission to use MOX Fuel Press Release, March 3, 2005.
  97. Duke Power, Duke Power selects Cherokee County site for Nuclear Application, Press Release, March 16, 2006.
  98. Public Citizen, Duke Energy Should Be Denied Taxpayer Subsidies to Build New Nuclear Reactors; Better Alternatives Exist, Press Release March 17, 2006.
  99. Public Citizen website, accessed December 2006 page on Cherokee County South Carolina.
  100. PR Newswire "Duke Energy Remains Committed to Nuclear Power, CEO Rogers Tells Shareholderscompany shareholders" May 5, 2011
  101. Peter Bacque, "Duke Energy CEO says U.S. needs to develop new energy technologies" Richmond Times Dispatch, April 19, 2011.
  102. Jim Warren, "New Nuclear Power is Ruining Climate Protection Efforts and Harming Customers" NC Warn, 2011 Report.
  103. "Duke Energy International" Duke Energy web site, accessed July 19, 2011.
  104. "Duke Energy International, LLC" Bloomberg Business Week, accessed July 19, 2011.
  105. Paulo Winterstein "GDF, Duke in talks to merge LatAm electric assets" Market Watch, June 28, 2011.
  106. "Rogers Sticking with Latam as Duke's Stock Powers Higher" Nasdaq, July 7, 2011.
  107. "Select Portfolio Firms" Vulcan Capital Website, August 2009.
  108. Carrie Levine, "Fuel Fight," The blog of Legal Times, December 7, 2007.
  109. "Duke Energy," Lobbyists.info (sub req'd), accessed December 2007.
  110. 110.0 110.1 110.2 110.3 110.4 110.5 110.6 110.7 110.8 "Duke Energy", Center for Public Integrity, accessed July 2009.
  111. 111.0 111.1 Coal-Fired Utilities to American Public: Kiss my Ash DeSmogBlog.com & PolluterWatch, October 27, 2010.
  112. Jennifer Epstein, "Republicans cry foul over Democratic National Convention credit line", Politico, March 14, 2011.
  113. Kristen Lombardi, "Stimulus recipient, polluter gives Dems $10 million credit line", Center for Public Integrity, March 17, 2011.
  114. "Charting the Correction Course: A Clean Energy Pathway for Duke Energy," Greenpeace, 2012.
  115. U.S. Chamber of Commerce, "Board of Directors", U.S. Chamber of Commerce website, accessed July 2011.

Articles

Wikipedia also has an article on Duke Energy. This article may use content from the Wikipedia article under the terms of the GFDL.