IBJNews

Duke fires Indiana chief, lawyer after ethics flap

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Duke Energy Corp. has fired the president of its Indiana operations and a staff attorney following an ethics flap over its dealings with state utility regulators.

Duke spokeswoman Angeline Protogere on Monday confirmed the company had fired Indiana president Mike Reed and attorney Scott Storms, who both formerly worked for the state regulatory commission. A Securities and Exchange Commission document filed by Duke on Monday also verified the firings.

Protogere said Duke notified its employees of the dismissals in an internal memo. The Associated Press wasn't immediately able to find phone numbers for Storms and Reed, and Protogere said she couldn't provide contact information.

Duke's SEC filing said Douglas F. Esamann would replace Reed. Esamann had been interim president of the Indiana operations since October 11, after Reed and Storms were suspended.

Duke's action came about a month after Gov. Mitch Daniels fired commission Chairman David Lott Hardy for allowing Storms to handle matters related to Duke while he pursued a job with the Charlotte, N.C.-based company.

The State Ethics Commission initially approved Storm's September move to work at Duke but later filed formal charges against Storms for negotiating the job while participating in decisions involving a nearly $3 billion coal-gasification plant the utility is building in southwest Indiana. Storms is scheduled to appear before the Ethics Commission on Thursday to answer questions about the controversy.

Duke CEO Jim Rogers told the commission last week he was confident Storms exerted no influence on decisions regarding the Edwardsport plant.

Duke suspended Storms and Reed last month pending the completion of a review by outside counsel. Reed became president of Duke Energy-Indiana in June, about 16 months after leaving the utility commission as its executive director.

A copy of the internal memo obtained by The Associated Press said Duke decided to fire Reed and Storms after "careful consideration" of the legal review's findings.

The Duke memo also said the company would change its hiring guidelines to "ensure that job candidates linked to regulatory and oversight groups are removed from all Duke Energy affairs prior to being considered for opportunities."

The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission has opened its own investigation into the ethics controversy and said it will review four years of cases regarding the Edwardsport plant.

Watchdog group Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana has called for cancellation of the project. In July, Storms signed off on Duke's request to pass the rising costs of the plant, which is about 70 percent complete, on to its Indiana customers.

The project's costs initially would raise their bills by about 16 percent.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Say that again?
    My question to Duke is how do you plan to go about ensuring that potential job candidates working for the IURC/similar organizations are no longer working on your cases? You will have to tell the IURC that you are interested in pursuing an employee before you even decide if you're going to hire the person. Isn't that a bit of a stretch?

    If I wanted to work for Duke but worked for the IURC, I sure as heck would not want you telling my boss that I'm thinking of leaving unless you were darn well going to give me the job. How else do you plan on getting me off of your cases?
  • "Flap" is a scandal
    Considering at least the the ratepayer money involved, the public trust at stake, and number of heads that have recently rolled, the term "flap" scarcely captures the import.

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. Apologies for the wall of text. I promise I had this nicely formatted in paragraphs in Notepad before pasting here.

  2. I believe that is incorrect Sir, the people's tax-dollars are NOT paying for the companies investment. Without the tax-break the company would be paying an ADDITIONAL $11.1 million in taxes ON TOP of their $22.5 Million investment (Building + IT), for a total of $33.6M or a 50% tax rate. Also, the article does not specify what the total taxes were BEFORE the break. Usually such a corporate tax-break is a 'discount' not a 100% wavier of tax obligations. For sake of example lets say the original taxes added up to $30M over 10 years. $12.5M, New Building $10.0M, IT infrastructure $30.0M, Total Taxes (Example Number) == $52.5M ININ's Cost - $1.8M /10 years, Tax Break (Building) - $0.75M /10 years, Tax Break (IT Infrastructure) - $8.6M /2 years, Tax Breaks (against Hiring Commitment: 430 new jobs /2 years) == 11.5M Possible tax breaks. ININ TOTAL COST: $41M Even if you assume a 100% break, change the '30.0M' to '11.5M' and you can see the Company will be paying a minimum of $22.5, out-of-pocket for their capital-investment - NOT the tax-payers. Also note, much of this money is being spent locally in Indiana and it is creating 430 jobs in your city. I admit I'm a little unclear which tax-breaks are allocated to exactly which expenses. Clearly this is all oversimplified but I think we have both made our points! :) Sorry for the long post.

  3. Clearly, there is a lack of a basic understanding of economics. It is not up to the company to decide what to pay its workers. If companies were able to decide how much to pay their workers then why wouldn't they pay everyone minimum wage? Why choose to pay $10 or $14 when they could pay $7? The answer is that companies DO NOT decide how much to pay workers. It is the market that dictates what a worker is worth and how much they should get paid. If Lowe's chooses to pay a call center worker $7 an hour it will not be able to hire anyone for the job, because all those people will work for someone else paying the market rate of $10-$14 an hour. This forces Lowes to pay its workers that much. Not because it wants to pay them that much out of the goodness of their heart, but because it has to pay them that much in order to stay competitive and attract good workers.

  4. GOOD DAY to you I am Mr Howell Henry, a Reputable, Legitimate & an accredited money Lender. I loan money out to individuals in need of financial assistance. Do you have a bad credit or are you in need of money to pay bills? i want to use this medium to inform you that i render reliable beneficiary assistance as I'll be glad to offer you a loan at 2% interest rate to reliable individuals. Services Rendered include: *Refinance *Home Improvement *Inventor Loans *Auto Loans *Debt Consolidation *Horse Loans *Line of Credit *Second Mortgage *Business Loans *Personal Loans *International Loans. Please write back if interested. Upon Response, you'll be mailed a Loan application form to fill. (No social security and no credit check, 100% Guaranteed!) I Look forward permitting me to be of service to you. You can contact me via e-mail howellhenryloanfirm@gmail.com Yours Sincerely MR Howell Henry(MD)

  5. It is sad to see these races not have a full attendance. The Indy Car races are so much more exciting than Nascar. It seems to me the commenters here are still a little upset with Tony George from a move he made 20 years ago. It was his decision to make, not yours. He lost his position over it. But I believe the problem in all pro sports is the escalating price of admission. In todays economy, people have to pay much more for food and gas. The average fan cannot attend many events anymore. It's gotten priced out of most peoples budgets.

ADVERTISEMENT