Duke Energy - Page 10

The North Carolina public is not sold on Duke Energy’s proposed coal-fired Cliffside plant, according to a recent survey by the Opinion Research Corporation (ORC).

• 59% would be inclined to vote for "a candidate for public office who spoke out against Duke Energy's planned coal-fired plant for North Carolina."

• Only 7 % favor coal as a power source.

NC WARN Executive Director Jim Warren said: "The pressure to cancel Cliffside will keep growing as the public learns the intensity of our climate crisis. We urge CEO Rogers to avoid dragging Duke Energy through a four-year battle against the people of North Carolina. The public is eager for some real leadership."

Executive Director, North Carolina Interfaith Power and Light, Alice Loyd said: "What the poll shows would certainly be true for the people we've met as we make presentations in faith congregations over the state. They see that emitting the kind of pollution this plant would create is just wrong. Recently Pope Benedict XVI named environmental pollution as a sin. Jim Rogers' coal plant is not what people want, and building it at this time of climate crisis would fall into the category of moral failure."

Source: Centre Daily Times

Protestors Arrested at Duke Power Plant Site

An expert report, prepared by Actuary Claude Poulin, was recently served on Duke Energy.

Duke Energy Cash Balance Lawsuit

This morning, deputies in Rutherford County arrested eight people protesting Duke Energy's Cliffside coal-fired power plant.

It is under construction and the protestors chained themselves to the construction equipment. The protest is over pollution caused by burning coal for energy.

There were twenty protestors in all, but the deputies only arrested those chained to the equipment.

Students Arrested Protesting Duke Coal

Release: 5465-08

For Release: March 6, 2008

Former Duke Energy Trader Michael Whitney to Pay a $55,000 Penalty in Natural Gas False Reporting Case

Washington, DC − The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced today that it obtained a $55,000 civil monetary penalty and a permanent injunction in a consent order that settles charges against Michael Whitney, a former Houston-based natural gas trader and marketing representative at Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC (DETM). Whitney was charged with false reporting and attempting to manipulate natural gas prices.

The consent order also prohibits Whitney from applying for registration, engaging in any activity requiring registration, acting as a principal (as defined by the National Futures Association) of any registered entity or person or any entity or person required to be registered, for a period of four years. The order, which resolves the CFTC’s enforcement action against Whitney in its entirety, was entered on March 5, 2008, by the Honorable Kenneth M. Hoyt of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

The order arises from a CFTC lawsuit filed on February 1, 2005 (see CFTC Press Release 5045-05, February 1, 2005) alleging that, between June 2001 and August 2002, Whitney submitted false reports of natural gas transaction information directly to at least two natural gas reporting firms, in an effort to attempt to manipulate the price of natural gas in interstate commerce. As alleged, Whitney knew that the reporting firms, including Gas Daily and Enerdata, compiled their natural gas price indexes using submitted price and volume information, and that such indexes were used in the natural gas markets to price and settle transactions.

The following CFTC staff members are responsible for this case: Glenn I. Chernigoff, Michael J. Otten, Michael Solinsky, Gretchen L. Lowe, Richard Wagner, and Vincent A. McGonagle.

Duke Energy Lucks Out

The Charlotte Observer reported that Duke Energy spent a record $2.8 million on lobbyist in 2007. This amount represents only a portion of Duke’s actual lobbying bill, because certain expenses are not reported.

The lobbying time spent by Jim Rogers is not included. The full salaries of Duke’s permanent lobbying staff in Washington is not included either.

Not only has Duke lobbied for a carbon dioxide emission tax on industry, but it has also lobbied for exemptions from it! Duke has talked alternative energy, but has lobbied against laws requiring it. Laws can be so accommodating for the corporation that gets to help write them.

Duke has lobbied on certain employee issues, such as pay. It is reasonable to assume that Duke was not trying to get employees more pay.

Duke has previously lobbied to legalize its cash balance plan - after the fact.

Retroactively Legalizing Cash Balance Plans

The latest federal court filing on behalf of Duke Energy employees was on January 4, 2008.

Duke Energy Cash Balance Lawsuit

We’re saved! Duke Energy has come up with a new vision!

The vision is a lot like the Code of Business Ethics, the Charter, and the Safety Guiding Principles. It may sound good to the totally clueless, but everyone else knows that it is not true.

Always Talking a Good Game

The Employee Advocate conducted an experiment with the new vision. The vision was shown to a number of employees who had never seen it before. Included were hourly, exempt, and employees in supervision. These employees were not coaxed or influenced in any manner. They were simply asked to read the new vision.

Not a single one could read it with a straight face!

Most howled with laughter!

Some even accused the Employee Advocate of making it up!

The vision did accomplish one thing. It boosted morale. There has not been so much laughter on the job in a long time.

The executives could have went all year with bringing up integrity, but bring it up they did:

“Integrity – We do the right thing. We honor our commitments. We admit when we’re wrong.”

Doing the right thing is not chiseling away employee compensation, while loading up executives with even more.

Honoring commitments is not using occult methods to deprive employees of the pensions that they have earned.

The Big Lie

Admitting when we’re wrong is not denying any guilt, even after being fined millions of dollars. One of the most glaring examples was the case of hiding excess profits.

There was credible evidence that Duke Energy was understating profits. A Duke Energy accountant exposed the book cooking, only after his supervision brushed aside his concerns.

Duke Power Investigation

The executive director of South Carolina's Public Service Commission said that he has never seen anything like it in thirty years.

Duke Power's Books to be Audited

The North Carolina Utility Commission also suspected foul play.

Duke probe could bring lower rates

The independent auditor found that Duke Energy was indeed guilty of hiding profits.

Duke Understated Profits

Even after paying a settlement of millions of dollars to ratepayers in North and South Carolina, Duke is still in total denial that it did nothing wrong. Duke never admits when it is wrong. Duke always denies it to the grave.

NC Regulators Approve Duke Settlement

Read of any of the many fines imposed upon Duke Energy. Duke always cuts a deal to pay the money, without admitting any fault.

Duke Executive Pleads Ignorance

Listed as a value was “Openness.”

Openness is not hiding kickbacks paid to large companies from the public.

Duke Energy Sued over Alleged Kickbacks

Credit is given to Duke Energy for having “Passion.” Duke has passion for squeezing extra profits out of employees, ratepayers, and retirees. No one is safe when Duke smells a dollar! Duke Energy earned the title of Biggest Price Gouger during the California energy crisis.

The $3,880 Megawatt-Hour

Duke Settles Price Gouging Lawsuits

“We take personal accountability for our actions.”

As mentioned, Duke consistently takes zero accountability and always denies all culpability!

Noon Rebuttal - July 2001

“Respect…We treat others the way we want to be treated.”

Duke has no respect for the intelligence of the employees. Otherwise it would not put out such rot and expect anyone to fall for it!

Cleaning out the retirement fund is not treating other the way we want to be treated.

“Safety – We put safety first in all we do.”

Many employees questioned why “safety first” was on the bottom of the list. In fact, so many questioned it that Duke posted a disclaimer that the values were listed alphabetically. Employees caught that it was dumb to put what was touted to be first in the last position. But it went right over the executives’ heads.

Then there was a laundry list of “My Commitments.”

These commitments can only apply whoever wrote them. Employees certainly did not give anyone permission to attempt mind control on them. Only the weakest, most gullible, and groveling employees will allow others to dictate what their values and commitments are, if any.

Duke Energy’s Political Mind Control

The controversy over whether Duke Energy made improper deals with some of its largest customers to win their support for a rate hike might have been avoided if the company was as open about how much electricity costs those customers as it is about how much the rest of us pay to keep the lights on.

An antitrust lawsuit, filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court on behalf of Ohio consumers, accuses Duke of engaging in a conspiracy with large industrial and commercial customers against the rest of its electric customers.

The suit claims Duke set up a "sham" company, Cinergy Retail Services, to pay $22 million a year since 2004 to the unidentified industrial and commercial customers. The purpose of the payments, according to the suit, was to get those customers to back off their opposition to the energy company's 2004 request to the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) for a rate increase. The company, then known as Cinergy Corp., received the rate increase. A company e-mail that surfaced in the case Thursday characterized the opposition from the large customers as a "roadblock" to approval of the rate increase.

Duke spokesman Steve Brash acknowledges the payments, but says they were perfectly legal. They weren't payments from the public utility company, but from "a non-regulated entity" owned by Duke. Such maneuvers are legal options for utilities in Ohio trying to keep their biggest customers from buying their electricity from competing companies in the unregulated energy market, he said. He said the timing of the payments in 2004 was simply coincidental to the large customers dropping their opposition to the rate increase.

We don't know exactly how good these deals were - the details are redacted from company records included in the court files. That's all confidential information for competitive reasons, Brash said.

But that is a big part of the problem. For most of its customers, Duke is the only practical source of electricity. That monopolistic status ought to oblige the company to conduct all of its business openly, so customers can see that they are getting a fair deal and are not paying higher rates to benefit favored customers. Setting up an unregulated subsidiary the sole function of which was to make payments to opponents of a rate increase raises suspicions.

The allegations of the suit will be settled in court. The Ohio Legislature, now studying changes to the regulatory system, needs to take careful note of this case and make sure that in the future electric companies are required to keep the lights turned on high to illuminate all the details of how they charge for their services.

Duke Energy Sued over Alleged Kickbacks

Lawyers Randy Freking and Stan Chesley have filed a class-action complaint in federal court in Cincinnati charging that Duke Energy has been overcharging tens of thousands of residential and business customers because of illegal kickbacks given to large corporate customers.

The complaint outlines an alleged illegal scheme by Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke (NYSE: DUK) and its predecessor companies Cinergy Corp. and Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. to funnel kickbacks to unidentified corporate customers in Greater Cincinnati in exchange for their withdrawal of opposition to rate increases that Duke sought from Ohio regulators.

The corporate customers were members of two groups, Industrial Energy Users-Ohio and Ohio Energy Group, that initially opposed a 2003 rate increase request by Cinergy.

The lawsuit was filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Cincinnati. It seeks full restitution of all charges that affected electric customers paid and that beneficiaries of the alleged scheme did not pay since the rate increase at issue became effective in January 2005. It also seeks punitive damages.

The named plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit was filed include BGR Inc. of West Chester, Munafo Inc. of Cincinnati, and Aikido of Cincinnati.

Copies of various agreements between an unregulated Cinergy subsidiary and unidentified beneficiaries of the alleged scheme were filed with the lawsuit, but the identities of the corporate customers are blacked out.

The redacted copies were supplied to Ohio regulators as part of a utility rate case in 2006, during which the so-called "side deals" became an issue, according to a statement released by Freking and Chesley.

Class Action Kickback Complaint Against Duke Energy