IBJNews

Browning ordered to testify over Duke Energy CEO's ouster

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

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. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

  2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

  3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

  4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

  5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

ADVERTISEMENT