Indiana plant a drag on Duke Energy earnings

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Duke Energy Corp.'s third-quarter net income tumbled 30 percent, the company said Thursday, with energy consumption falling at the same time that costs rose unexpectedly for a new plant in Indiana.

While this summer had its heat waves, it was not as steamy as last year and consumers did not use their air conditioners as much, the company said.

Duke, however, said that that there is growing demand from its commercial and industrial customers and earnings topped Wall Street expectations.

The Charlotte, N.C.-based power company, the biggest utility in Indiana, posted earnings of $472 million, or 35 cents per share, for the three months ended Sept. 30. That compares with $670 million, or 51 cents per share, for the same part of 2010. Revenue was flat at $3.96 billion.

Excluding special costs including overruns for its controversial coal-gasification plant in Edwardsport in southwest Indiana, Duke's adjusted earnings were 50 cents per share.

Analysts, who typically exclude special items, expected a profit of 47 cents per share on revenue of $4.11 billion, according to FactSet.

Shares rose 25 cents, to $20.68 each, in midday trading.

The terrible economy has dragged down power usage both in homes and at industrial locations.

Duke Chairman and CEO Jim Rogers said Thursday in an interview that he sees little change in that regard going forward.

"It's hard to envision how unemployment levels drop over the next year or so," Rogers said.

Duke Energy International did see strong results from its Latin American operations and increased earnings from its stake in National Methanol Co.

The cost of building the Edwardsport coal gasification plant in Indiana continued to rise above estimates, however. Duke said its current cost estimate for the project is $2.98 billion, up from original estimates of $1.87 billion and the $2.72 billion cost cap that it proposed. Duke took a $220 million impairment charge in the quarter to account for the higher costs.

Regulators are holding hearings this week on the plant's costs.

Duke Energy Corp., which already serves 4 million electric and gas customers in the Carolinas, Kentucky, Indiana and Ohio, will become the largest U.S. utility if it closes on a deal to buy Progress Energy Inc., based in Raleigh, N.C. The deal is expected to close by the end of the year, although state and federal regulators have yet to approve it.

Progress has more than 3 million retail electric customers and operates in the Carolinas and Florida.


  • According to their Financials the Ratepayors will be covering $900,000,000
    What was the basis to only record the $220 million charge. Duke should be recording a $1,100,000,000 billion dollar charge. Perhaps Gov Mitch told them he would get the IURC to cover the $900,000,000.

    What a pathetic company. Socialize the losses and let the profits go to the investors.

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.