IBJNews

Browning ordered to testify over Duke Energy CEO's ouster

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indianapolis real estate developer and Duke Energy Corp. director Michael Browning has been ordered to appear Friday before the North Carolina Utilities Commission, which is investigating the unexpected ouster of the utility’s new CEO just hours after the company merged with Progress Energy Inc.

Browning and other directors also are targets of a civil probe being conducted by North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper.

North Carolina regulators had approved the $32 billion merger, completed July 2, predicated on Progress CEO Bill Johnson replacing Duke CEO James Rogers as head of the merged utilities. Duke, which provides electricity to 69 of Indiana's 92 counties, is based in Charlotte; Progress in Raleigh.

Regulators and former Progress directors were furious when Duke’s new board asked for Johnson’s resignation this month and offered him a severance package worth $10.3 million.

Rogers was reinstalled as CEO of Duke.

Appearing last week for a grilling before the North Carolina Utilities Commission, Rogers testified he met June 23 with Browning and top Duke director Ann Gray. 

Browning has been director of Duke and its predecessor utilities in Indiana and Ohio under Rogers’ leadership since 1990. The chairman of Browning Investments Inc. is a member of the Central Indiana Business Hall of Fame.

Rogers said the two directors conveyed the Duke board’s growing lack of confidence in Johnson and asked if Rogers would be prepared to stay on as CEO.

“I wasn’t part of their deliberations on this,” Rogers said of the board. “I was just informed. And if they felt strong enough to inform me of that, I was practical enough to realize I couldn’t … there was no way I could change their mind,” Rogers told the commission last week.

Rogers said Duke’s board wasn’t comfortable with Johnson’s leadership style and questioned decisions he made regarding Progress’ nuclear plants in the southeast.

Both Browning and Gray are to be questioned by the utility commission on Friday. 

Browning did not respond to phone and e-mail messages seeking comment.

Last week, North Carolina’s attorney general launched a civil inquiry into the merger and the ouster of Johnson. Borwning is among those from whom he’s seeking documents and phone and travel records.

The former lead director of Progress, John Mullin, called the ouster of Johnson “an incredible act of bad faith” and said that he doubted that any Progress director would have voted for the merger knowing Rogers would remain as CEO.

“In my opinion this is the most blatant example of corporate deceit that I have witnessed during a long career on Wall Street and as a director of 10 publicly traded companies,” Mullin told the Wall Street Journal on July 5.

Duke’s stock price dropped nearly $5 per share after the Johnson ouster. Standard & Poor’s put Duke’s ratings on credit watch.

Duke Energy, the largest electric utility serving Indiana, already is entangled in scandal over spending on its Edwardsport coal-gasification plant, which is nearly $1 billion more than original estimates.

Rogers and his former top Indiana executives are accused of improperly influencing Indiana regulators, leading to Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels' decision to fire former Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission Chairman David Hardy.

Moreover, a former IURC judge, with Hardy’s assistance, wrangled for a job with Duke even while hearing cases before the commission. He later got the job but was fired along with Duke’s top Indiana executive.

The IURC this week is conducting hearings on a proposed settlement between Duke, industrial customers and the Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor that would cap ratepayers’ share of Edwardsport at $2.6 billion.

The estimated cost of the plant, which won’t begin commercial service until the first quarter of next year, has risen to more than $3.3 billion.

 

.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. to mention the rest of Molly's experience- she served as Communications Director for the Indianapolis Department of Public Works and also did communications for the state. She's incredibly qualified for this role and has a real love for Indianapolis and Indiana. Best of luck to her!

  2. Shall we not demand the same scrutiny for law schools, med schools, heaven forbid, business schools, etc.? How many law school grads are servers? How many business start ups fail and how many business grads get low paying jobs because there are so few high paying positions available? Why does our legislature continue to demean public schools and give taxpayer dollars to charters and private schools, ($171 million last year), rather than investing in our community schools? We are on a course of disaster regarding our public school attitudes unless we change our thinking in a short time.

  3. I agree with the other reader's comment about the chunky tomato soup. I found myself wanting a breadstick to dip into it. It tasted more like a marinara sauce; I couldn't eat it as a soup. In general, I liked the place... but doubt that I'll frequent it once the novelty wears off.

  4. The Indiana toll road used to have some of the cleanest bathrooms you could find on the road. After the lease they went downhill quickly. While not the grossest you'll see, they hover a bit below average. Am not sure if this is indicative of the entire deal or merely a portion of it. But the goals of anyone taking over the lease will always be at odds. The fewer repairs they make, the more money they earn since they have a virtual monopoly on travel from Cleveland to Chicago. So they only comply to satisfy the rules. It's hard to hand public works over to private enterprise. The incentives are misaligned. In true competition, you'd have multiple roads, each build by different companies motivated to make theirs more attractive. Working to attract customers is very different than working to maximize profit on people who have no choice but to choose your road. Of course, we all know two roads would be even more ridiculous.

  5. The State is in a perfect position. The consortium overpaid for leasing the toll road. Good for the State. The money they paid is being used across the State to upgrade roads and bridges and employ people at at time most of the country is scrambling to fund basic repairs. Good for the State. Indiana taxpayers are no longer subsidizing the toll roads to the tune of millions a year as we had for the last 20 years because the legislature did not have the guts to raise tolls. Good for the State. If the consortium fails, they either find another operator, acceptable to the State, to buy them out or the road gets turned back over to the State and we keep the Billions. Good for the State. Pat Bauer is no longer the Majority or Minority Leader of the House. Good for the State. Anyway you look at this, the State received billions of dollars for an assett the taxpayers were subsidizing, the State does not have to pay to maintain the road for 70 years. I am having trouble seeing the downside.

ADVERTISEMENT