IBJNews

Duke to NC regulators: CEO's term not guaranteed

Associated Press
July 11, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Duke Energy Corp.'s surprise CEO said Tuesday that America's largest electric company dumped Progress Energy Inc. CEO Bill Johnson the same evening it was created in a merger because directors of the two merging corporations worried about Johnson's authoritarian style and being forced to pump billions into a troubled Florida nuclear plant.

Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers remained CEO after the merger, though the companies had said they planned for Johnson to head the expanded company.

Meanwhile, Duke Energy announced Tuesday that three top executives have resigned: John McArthur, executive vice president of regulated utilities; Mark Mulhern, executive vice president and chief administrative officer; and Paula Sims, chief integration and innovation officer.

The North Carolina Utilities Commission heard from Rogers on Tuesday as it opened an investigation of whether it was misled before approving the merger June 29.

State law allows the commission to rescind or alter its decision approving the merger. The regulatory board also approves electricity rate increase requests. Both Duke Energy and Progress Energy, which remain separate operating companies in the Carolinas, are expected to seek rate increases later this year.

Rogers told state regulators Duke Energy directors told him they were disappointed in Johnson's authoritarian-seeming style, ongoing problems with Progress Energy's closed Crystal River nuclear plant in Florida, and Progress' financial performance.

"Our board did not feel that his style was appropriate or transferrable to leadership of the combined company," Rogers said. "They felt his style was autocratic and discouraged different points of view."

Duke Energy board members also were concerned that under Johnson, Progress was losing the option of mothballing the troubled Crystal River nuclear plant by marching ahead with repairs. Crystal River has been down for repairs since 2009 and isn't expected to operate again until 2014.

Rogers said Duke Energy's 10 representatives on the expanded company's board of directors voted to oust Johnson within hours of closing the merger July 2, while five Progress Energy directors voted to keep Johnson at the top. Rogers said neither he nor Johnson took part in that closed-door meeting.

Johnson's attorney declined to dispute details of Rogers' testimony.

"The fact that he is held in the highest regard by his peers in the utility industry and in the North Carolina business community speaks volumes about his leadership and business capabilities," attorney Wade Smith said in a statement.

Commission Chairman Edward Finley was noncommittal on whether regulators would call Johnson to offer his side of events under oath. Finley said the commission's six members would discuss how to proceed with its rare post-merger investigation.

Johnson, 58, signed a three-year employment contract five days before the merger concluded. The new company announced hours after the merger closed Johnson was leaving by "mutual agreement." Johnson is due to receive up to almost $45 million in severance, pension benefits, deferred compensation, and stock awards.

The package "will all be paid by the investors and none will be charged to customers of this state," Rogers, 64, assured commission members.

Progress Energy directors agreed to a relatively low sale price to Duke Energy due in part to being assured their top executive would lead the expanded company. Former Progress Energy board members have said publically in the past week they felt misled by the last-minute CEO switch.

While regulators were promised Johnson would become the post-merger CEO, no one said for how long, Rogers said.

Corporate directors asked him more than a week before the deal closed whether he'd consider staying as CEO, but nothing was final until the expanded company's directors met after legalizing the merger, Rogers said.

The utilities commission reopened hearings on the final details pending before the state regulatory body on June 25. That was two days after Rogers said he became aware Johnson might be dumped. Finley asked Rogers whether Duke Energy shouldn't have informed regulators that a possible switch as CEO was in the offing.

"The decision was not made until it was made," Rogers said. "Corporate decisions are announced when they are made, not when they are contemplated."

Duke Energy's directors had a responsibility to shareholders to close the deal, and the commission decided the merger was in the best interest of consumers after placing about 200 conditions on the deal, Rogers said.

He also expressed regret at the resignations of the three executives.

"Our hope was that we could all work together to capitalize on the significant opportunities we now have as one company," he said.

Bernstein Research analyst Hugh Wynne said in a note to investors Tuesday that Duke Energy's legal and regulatory troubles could last for months, during which the company's stock price could suffer. The merger's prolonged aftermath could leave the company's directors and senior managers "preoccupied with protecting the company and themselves from legal and regulatory challenges rather than completing the integration of the two companies," Wynne said.

The combined company will serve more than 7 million customers in North Carolina, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Florida and South Carolina.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • just to clarify
    Did i make it clear in my previous post the neither person lives with us, and that no one in power in indiana lifted a finger to assist in this case of extortion? Forcing you to pay bills you didnt make? extortion.
  • Hope someones watching...
    I really hope someone big is paying attention to duke energy's moves lately. Three months ago we didnt recieve our bill, then they shut us off. Not a big deal, right. Called to pay a 120.00 bill. NOPE. In order to turn it back on, they made us pay off my sisters bill and my borther-in-laws old bill as well, cost me 1100.00 that day. Called the Indiana Regulatory Commision, was told they were behind duke, even tho neither one of those people live with us. True story, I'll go on the news because I have proof of what I just said, the bill I owed, and what I paid. Jason Price Brownsburg Indiana

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. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT