No 'inappropriate communications,' Duke Energy CEO says

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Duke Energy Corp.'s top executive told the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission Wednesday morning that he’s confident the IURC's former top attorney had no influence on decisions regarding the utility’s Edwardsport plant, even though he sought a job with Duke while working for the regulatory body.

The IURC summoned Jim Rogers, CEO of North Carolina-based Duke, to a public hearing to justify the need for the expensive Edwardsport coal-gasification plant, amid a growing ethics controversy involving the company and state regulators.

Following Rogers’ presentation, IURC Chairman Jim Atterholt addressed what he referred to as the “elephant in the room,” questioning Rogers on whether former commission attorney Scott Storms influenced any decisions regarding Duke and its Edwardsport plant.

“In my judgment, I do not believe there have been any inappropriate communications in respect to this plant,” Rogers responded.

He said Duke is “very concerned” about the ethics issues and has launched both internal and external investigations.

The State Ethics Commission in October filed formal charges against Storms for negotiating a job with Duke even as he participated in decisions involving the plant.

The Ethics Commission had initially approved Storm’s September switchover to work at Duke.

Storms’ contact with Duke officials emerged in e-mails discovered in a probe by Gov. Mitch Daniels’ office, according to Duke. Daniels fired former IURC Commissioner David Hardy on Oct. 5 over the matter and Duke placed its Indiana CEO on administrative leave.

The IURC has opened its own investigation into the ethics controversy and said it will review four years of cases regarding the plant in Southwest Indiana.

Watchdog group Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana has called for the cancellation of the project. Costs for building the plant have climbed to $2.9 billion from initial estimates near $1.5 billion. In July, Storms signed off on Duke’s request to pass those costs on to customers.

The Edwardsport plant is about 70-percent complete, and Duke recently reached a settlement with consumer groups to cap the plant’s costs at $2.975 billion. Those costs, when passed on to Duke customers—likely at least not for another year—initially would raise their bills by about 16 percent.

Still, Rogers defended the project to IURC members.

“Completion of the [integrated gasification combined cycle] plant is still the best option for our customers,” he argued. “In no case does the stoppage of this plant look best.”

Duke considered stopping work on the plant or converting it to natural gas, but ruled out both options, Rogers said.

He cited the volatility of natural gas prices and the fact that 22 percent of Duke’s overall electricity capacity is generated by natural gas.

Further, the average age of Duke’s fleet of coal-fired power plants is 47 years old. Increasing environmental regulations could force the retirement of some of those plants, which would drive electricity demand up even further, Rogers said.

“Bottom line,” he said, “Edwardsport is needed to meet our customers’ energy needs over the long run.”


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.