IBJOpinion

Duke Energy maintains trust

October 2, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
IBJ Letters To The Editor

A [Sept. 27] IBJ article reported on a settlement Duke Energy and several customer groups have reached on costs associated with construction of the company’s clean-coal technology power plant in Edwardsport.

The facility will be the first major plant built in Indiana in more than two decades and is key to modernizing the state’s aging electric system. The Edwardsport project will be the largest in the world to use advanced technology to gasify coal, strip out many of the pollutants, and then burn that cleaner gas to produce power.

The size and complexity of the Edwardsport plant have caused costs to rise significantly over original estimates. The settlement agreement we reached with the Indiana Industrial Group, Nucor Steel, and the state’s consumer advocate, the Indiana Utility Consumer Counselor, reflects a balanced approach that lowers the customer-bill impacts of the escalating costs and requires Duke shareholders to absorb a financial hit. The Citizens Action Coalition has adopted an aggressively anti-coal approach so its opposition on the proposed settlement is not a surprise.

Your article also referred to the CAC’s objection to the company’s hiring of Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission attorney Scott Storms. Storms received an opinion from the Indiana Ethics Commission that stated it was within the state’s rules for him to accept employment with Duke Energy, provided he not work on any matters for Duke that he had worked on [at] IURC.

Duke Energy appreciates the fact that appearances matter and trust is critical. For that reason, we will exclude Storms from working on or appearing before the commission on any Duke Energy case that was pending while he was employed at the IURC, whether Storms was assigned to the case or not.

Also, for a period of one year, Duke Energy will impose a “no contact” policy. During the next 12 months, Storms will not appear before or contact his former employer, the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, or their staff on any matter involving Duke Energy Indiana.

We value the trust our customers have in us, and we’re committed to doing all that we can to maintain that trust.

__________

Jim Turner, President

Duke Energy Franchised Electric and Gas
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Not Likely
    Between the bait and switch project costing, five dead Indiana workers, apparent collusion between the regulator and the utility, unethical lawyers and an arrogant "I don't care what we spend because the rate payers will pay for it and like it" attitude, this article seems to expose some hubris.

    This project should be paused. First, fix the safety issues. Your engineering is not complete, you are wasting taxpayer monies and endangering our workers. Second, establish a rate payer maximum of $2B, Duke can eat the rest. If I ran my business the way you are running this project, we would have to shut our plant down in less than a year. No customer would be willing nor should be asked to pay for the inefficiencies of business. The governor (who I voted for and would again) should be embarrassed!!!

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. I am also a "vet" of several Cirque shows and this one left me flat. It didn't have the amount of acrobatic stunts as the others that I have seen. I am still glad that I went to it and look forward to the next one but I put Varekai as my least favorite.

  2. Looking at the two companies - in spite of their relative size to one another -- Ricker's image is (by all accounts) pretty solid and reputable. Their locations are clean, employees are friendly and the products they offer are reasonably priced. By contrast, BP locations are all over the place and their reputation is poor, especially when you consider this is the same "company" whose disastrous oil spill and their response was nothing short of irresponsible should tell you a lot. The fact you also have people who are experienced in franchising saying their system/strategy is flawed is a good indication that another "spill" has occurred and it's the AM-PM/Ricker's customers/company that are having to deal with it.

  3. Daniel Lilly - Glad to hear about your points and miles. Enjoy Wisconsin and Illinois. You don't care one whit about financial discipline, which is why you will blast the "GOP". Classic liberalism.

  4. Isn't the real reason the terrain? The planners under-estimated the undulating terrain, sink holes, karst features, etc. This portion of the route was flawed from the beginning.

  5. You thought no Indy was bad, how's no fans working out for you? THe IRl No direct competition and still no fans. Hey George Family, spend another billion dollars, that will fix it.

ADVERTISEMENT