IBJNews

Duke Energy CEO apologizes to regulator over probe

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The head of Duke Energy said he regrets that officials with the nation's largest electric company went too far in their criticism of North Carolina regulators responsible for setting rates in its top power market, according to a letter released Tuesday.

The North Carolina Utilities Commission released the letter from Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers, which was required by a settlement ending the commission's probe into whether regulators were misled about a surprise CEO switch at the company. Duke Energy's takeover of Raleigh-based Progress Energy ended with the combined company dumping a Progress executive who'd been promised the top job, in favor of Rogers.

Charlotte-based Duke Energy denies any wrongdoing, but apologized and admitted it had "fallen short of the commission's understanding of Duke Energy's obligations" as a regulated utility — language required by the settlement finalized last week.

Rogers, the former CEO of Plainfield-based PSI Resources Inc., also said the company regrets criticizing the commission about its investigation. The expression of regret went a step beyond what the letter was supposed to contain.

"I wish we could retract the statements made regarding the manner in which the hearings were conducted and regarding the commission's actions. We cannot undo what was said, but we acknowledge that our public criticism of the commission was inappropriate," Rogers' letter said. "We take our bond of trust with all regulators very seriously, and will work hard to continue to earn and maintain your trust."

Rogers and Duke Energy board members called to testify during hearings the commission held in July urged the regulator to drop its investigation and let the company focus on integrating the two Fortune 500 energy companies based in North Carolina. The deal created the nation's largest electric company. Duke director Ann Maynard Gray called the regulatory body's inquiry "unwarranted."

Last month, Rogers said that unless regulators treated Duke Energy fairly and properly, it might not keep its headquarters in North Carolina.

A Duke Energy spokesman later explained that Rogers wasn't warning the largest U.S. electric utility was thinking about moving its headquarters from Charlotte, just that a hostile regulatory environment in North Carolina could weaken Duke and leave it vulnerable to acquisition by a competitor.

Testimony during the commission's hearings and emails released as a result of its investigation indicated that Duke Energy directors considered for months dumping Progress Energy CEO Bill Johnson as head of the combined company, a leadership position promised to him and to regulators throughout the 18-month merger process. Johnson was dumped hours after the deal closed July 2, surprising regulators and investors.

Duke Energy hopes the settlement will clear the air as it gears up to ask the regulator to approve two large rate increases in its largest market. Duke Energy has 3.2 million customers in North Carolina and another 3.9 million in South Carolina, Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana and Florida.

Rogers will retire by Dec. 31, 2013 — a date announced simultaneously with the settlement.

Johnson was hired last month as chief executive of the Tennessee Valley Authority, the nation's largest public utility.

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. Liberals do not understand that marriage is not about a law or a right ... it is a rite of religous faith. Liberals want "legal" recognition of their homosexual relationship ... which is OK by me ... but it will never be classified as a marriage because marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. You can gain / obtain legal recognition / status ... but most people will not acknowledge that 2 people of the same sex are married. It's not really possible as long as marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

  2. That second phrase, "...nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens..." is the one. If you can't understand that you lack a fundamental understanding of the Constitution and I can't help you. You're blind with prejudice.

  3. Why do you conservatives always go to the marrying father/daughter, man/animal thing? And why should I keep my sexuality to myself? I see straights kissy facing in public all the time.

  4. I just read the XIV Amendment ... I read where no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property ... nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens ... I didn't see anything in it regarding the re-definition of marriage.

  5. I worked for Community Health Network and the reason that senior leadership left is because they were not in agreement with the way the hospital was being ran, how employees were being treated, and most of all how the focus on patient care was nothing more than a poster to stand behind. Hiring these analyst to come out and tell people who have done the job for years that it is all being done wrong now...hint, hint, get rid of employees by calling it "restructuring" is a cheap and easy way out of taking ownership. Indiana is an "at-will" state, so there doesn't have to be a "reason" for dismissal of employment. I have seen former employees that went through this process lose their homes, cars, faith...it is very disturbing. The patient's as well have seen less than disireable care. It all comes full circle.

ADVERTISEMENT