Duke Energy

10/1510/15, see main older ?capt 116  See DUKE 2 4/16
<div>=


reason mag and some left? trashes solar subsidy

http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/news/cut-corporate-welfare-its-time-rein-crony-capitalism

duke and exelon?

http://www.seia.org/policy/finance-tax/1603-treasury-program

</div><div>tool:</div><div>Examining Duke Energy using <a href="http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/violation-tracker" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">Violation Tracker</a>, the first online data set to track corporate misconduct across federal agencies, the public can see that between 2010 and 2015, Duke Energy and its subsidiaries were subject to 20 penalties totaling a whopping <a href="http://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/prog.php?parent=duke-energy&order=penalty&sort=desc" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">$112,150,534</a>.</div><div>=
<h1 class="title" itemprop="name">NC environmental officials: Too anti-regulation even for Duke Energy?</h1>

    <p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Just how extreme is the administration of North Carolina Gov. Pat

McCrory (R) when it comes to obstructing efforts to protect the

environment?

So extreme that even Duke Energy — McCrory's former <a href="http://www.southernstudies.org/2014/02/duke-energys-inside-connections-to-the-mccrory-adm.html">longtime employer</a>, one of his <a href="http://www.southernstudies.org/2014/04/new-details-emerge-on-gov-mccrorys-duke-energy-mon.html">top political benefactors</a>, and a <a href="https://www.southernenvironment.org/news-and-press/news-feed/duke-energy-pleads-guilty-to-environmental-crimes-in-north-carolina">major polluter</a> in the state — is calling on it to dial back the anti-environmental obstructionism.

Speaking at a Jan. 29 forum on the state's energy future, Mark

McIntire, Duke's director of environmental policy and affairs, urged

North Carolina to take a different approach to the Obama

administration's <a href="http://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/clean-power-plan-existing-power-plants">Clean Power Plan</a> to cut global warming pollution. The plan is being <a href="https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/content/2016.01.26_wv_et_al._scotus_stay_application.pdf">challenged in court by 29 states</a>, including North Carolina, as well as by corporations and industry groups. The lawsuit is being led by Texas and West Virginia.

McCrory <a href="https://governor.nc.gov/press-release/governor-mccrory-criticizes-overreaching-regulations-will-raise-consumer-power-bills">has charged</a>

that the plan would raise electricity rates and amounts to "federal

intrusion." So his administration submitted a compliance proposal that <a href="http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2015/11/05/advocates-respond-to-mccrory-administrations-assault-on-clean-power-plan/">fell short </a>of

EPA's requirements, with the intention of taking the rejection to court

— an approach that's earned condemnation from environmental advocates

and criticism from Duke Energy.

"Quite frankly, the approach our state is taking is one that is not collaborative," McIntire <a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/blog/energy/2016/01/duke-energy-wants-n-c-to-open-up-planning-for-epa.html">told</a>

the N.C. Leadership Forum panel. "We are continuing to encourage the

Department of Environmental Quality to think a little bit larger — let's

bring all the stakeholders in the room."

At the urging of some of those stakeholders, including utilities and industry groups, the McCrory administration did <a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/blog/energy/2015/11/n-c-agrees-to-submit-alternate-clean-power-plan.html">agree to develop a backup plan</a> that would comply with EPA requirements in order to avoid having a federal plan imposed on it.

But apparently that was not enough to assuage Duke Energy's concerns

that the administration isn't doing enough to involve affected parties

in shaping a constructive response to federal efforts to curb carbon

emissions.

NC fights rules despite being on track for compliance

The Clean Power Plan experienced a setback this week, when the U.S. Supreme Court <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/10/us/politics/supreme-court-blocks-obama-epa-coal-emissions-regulations.html?smid=fb-share&_r=3&referer">temporarily blocked it</a> as an appeals court considers the expedited challenge to the rule. The Obama administration <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/02/09/press-secretary-josh-earnest-supreme-courts-decision-stay-clean-power">says</a> it's "confident" it will "prevail on the merits." Most Americans <a href="http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/11/02/61-percent-of-public-supports-clean-power-plan-in-states-suing-to-stop-it">support the plan</a> — including a majority of North Carolina residents and those in most of the other states suing over the regulations.

First proposed in 2014, the Clean Power Plan sets standards for

power plants and goals for states to cut carbon pollution. States are

supposed to submit compliance plans by September, though they can apply

for a two-year extension. The first deadline for emission cuts comes in

2022, with full compliance required by 2030.

Duke Energy challenged the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions through the <a href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jwalke/UARG%20members%20from%202006%20filing%20on%20PM%20standards.pdf%20-%20Adobe%20Acrobat%20Pro.pdf">Utility Air Regulatory Group</a>, a broad alliance of energy companies; the case, which went to the U.S. Supreme Court, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_Air_Regulatory_Group_v._Environmental_Protection_Agency">largely upheld the EPA's powers</a>. Duke is <a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/blog/energy/2015/10/duke-energy-looks-to-cooperate-with-states-on.html">now working with the six states in which it operates</a>

— the Carolinas, Florida, Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio — to discuss ways

to comply with the Clean Power Plan. All of those states are parties to

the lawsuit against the plan.

Under the federal rules, North Carolina would have to cut its carbon

emissions 32 percent by 2030. Environmental advocates have pointed out

that the state is already <a href="https://mountainx.com/news/nc-fights-epas-clean-power-plan/">on track to reach the required reductions</a> thanks to existing environmental laws including the Clean Smokestacks Act and the state's renewable energy portfolio standard.

In a <a href="http://wcqs.org/post/sec-van-der-vaart-defends-oft-criticized-deq#stream/0">recent radio interview</a>,

N.C. DEQ Secretary Donald van der Vaart acknowledged that the state

would "probably be able to achieve that mandate naturally." However, he

said, "that doesn't mean that I'm going to sign on to a rule that is

inherently illegal." An engineer and attorney, van der Vaart previously

worked as a North Carolina air quality regulator and in research and

regulatory positions for private-sector energy companies.

But his judgment of the plan's legality is not shared by the 18

states, two dozen power companies, clean-energy associations, and public

health and environmental groups <a href="http://www.nrdc.org/media/2016/160204.asp">supporting the plan</a>. North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper, a Democrat who is running for governor, has also <a href="http://www.citizen-times.com/story/elections/2015/08/12/roy-cooper-clean-power-plan/31534109/">called on the state to comply</a>.

"When a politician and his appointees are dragging their feet on

climate action even over the objections of one of America's biggest

corporate owners of coal and nuclear generating plants, you know that

they have gone off the deepest end of the unreasonable scale," according

to an <a href="http://nclcv.org/news/cib/20160208/">analysis by the N.C. League of Conservation Voters</a>.

Is nuclear power really "clean"?

Speaking of North Carolina's renewable energy portfolio standard,

that has also emerged as a point of disagreement between the McCrory

administration and Duke Energy.

Passed into law in 2007 by an <a href="http://ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2007&BillID=s3&submitButton=Go">overwhelming majority </a>of state lawmakers as a way to jumpstart a cleaner energy economy, <a href="http://www.ncuc.commerce.state.nc.us/reps/reps.htm">North Carolina's standard</a>

requires the state's investor-owned utilities to meet 12.5 percent of

their retail sales through energy efficiency or renewable sources by

North Carolina was the first state in the Southeast to adopt such a

standard.

What constitutes a renewable source? Here's <a href="http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_62/GS_62-133.8.html">what North Carolina's law says</a>:

a solar electric, solar thermal, wind, hydropower, geothermal, or ocean

current or wave energy  resource; a biomass resource, including

agricultural waste, animal waste, wood waste, spent pulping liquors,

combustible residues, combustible liquids, combustible gases, energy

crops, or landfill methane; waste heat derived from a renewable energy

resource and used to produce electricity or useful, measurable thermal

energy at a retail electric customer's facility; or hydrogen derived

from a renewable energy resource.</blockquote>

What doesn't constitute a renewable source? The law is<a href="http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_62/GS_62-133.8.html"> clear on that, too</a>:

'Renewable energy resource' does not include peat, a fossil fuel, or nuclear energy resource.</blockquote>

But at a recent meeting of the <a href="http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/web/lr/energy-policy-council">N.C. Energy Policy Council</a>, a state advisory group, DEQ's van der Vaart <a href="http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/why-is-duke-energy-pushing-to-make-nuclear-clean/Content?oid=4988947">pushed hard</a>

for the group to call on the legislature to amend the law to include

nuclear power on the list of approved energy resources — despite its

serious safety and security risks, radioactive-waste disposal

challenges, and intense water requirements. <a href="http://www.wral.com/nc-environmental-chief-backs-restriction-on-solar-farms-incentives-for-nuclear-plants/15284709/">Describing nuclear energy as "clean,"</a> van der Vaart and said it "needs to be incentivized."

Duke Energy is heavily dependent on nuclear power, which accounts for <a href="https://www.duke-energy.com/north-carolina/nc-rate-case/our-energy-mix.asp">56.8 percent of its generation mix</a> in the Carolinas, and CEO Lynn Good recently <a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/blog/energy/2016/01/duke-energy-ceo-we-need-to-talk-about-nuclear.html">discussed its importance</a> in a carbon-restricted energy economy. But even so, it was Duke Energy's representative on the council, Rob Caldwell, who <a href="http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/why-is-duke-energy-pushing-to-make-nuclear-clean/Content?oid=4988947">pushed back against van der Vaart's proposal</a>,

arguing that a "one-off" vote for nuclear power wasn't wise. He also

said the issue was "significantly more complicated" than van der Vaart

described.

In the end, the council delayed its vote on the recommendation. They plan to discuss it again at their next meeting in March.
</div><div>=fac so<h1 class="title" itemprop="name" style="margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1; letter-spacing: -0.05em; position: relative; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">INSTITUTE INDEX: The big money behind the latest attacks on renewable energy</h1><div id="node-13092" class="node node-type-article node-promoted clearfix" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="content" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;"><article class="article-content">Date on which North Carolina state Rep. Mike Hager (R-Rutherford) told the audience at an event in Wilmington sponsored by Americans for Prosperity — a front group for the billionaires behind the Koch Industries oil refining and pipeline conglomerate — that he will continue his fight to freeze the state's renewable energy portfolio standard (REPS) during next year's legislative session: <a href="http://www.carolinajournal.com/articles/display_story.html?id=12561" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(71, 109, 151); text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">11/12/2015</a>Under North Carolina's REPS, percent of electric utilities' retail sales that must now come from renewable sources: <a href="http://www.ncuc.commerce.state.nc.us/reps/reps.htm" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(71, 109, 151); text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">6</a>Percent the REPS says must come from renewable sources by 2021: <a href="http://www.ncuc.commerce.state.nc.us/reps/reps.htm" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(71, 109, 151); text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">12.5</a>Number of legislative proposals to freeze the REPS at current levels that Hager, a retired Duke Energy engineer and vice chair of the Public Utilities Committee, championed in this year's legislative session, and which passed the state House with AFP's backing and are pending in the Senate: <a href="http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/under-the-dome/article21400155.html" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(71, 109, 151); text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">2</a>Hager's rank among the North Carolina legislature's top recipients of Duke Energy's campaign contributions: <a href="http://www.followthemoney.org/show-me?s=NC&y=2016,2015,2014,2013,2012,2011,2010,2009&f-core=1&f-fc=2&d-eid=856#[{1|gro=c-t-id" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(71, 109, 151); text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">1</a>While Duke Energy claims to be "neutral" on North Carolina's REPS, amount it has contributed to a group called Consumers for Smart Solar, which is challenging a proposed pro-solar constitutional amendment in Florida: <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2015/09/12940/koch-brothers-backing-misleading-anti-solar-campaign-florida" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(71, 109, 151); text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">$60,000</a>Amount Duke Energy spent to help elect Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R), who has campaigned against pro-solar policies: <a href="http://www.southernstudies.org/2015/01/duke-energys-donations-pay-off-in-florida-governor.html" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(71, 109, 151); text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">at least $600,000</a>Amount contributed to Consumers for Smart Solar by the 60 Plus Association: <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2015/09/12940/koch-brothers-backing-misleading-anti-solar-campaign-florida" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(71, 109, 151); text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">$100,000</a>Between 2008 and 2013, amount 60 Plus received from five Koch-connected nonprofits: <a href="http://www.environmentamerica.org/sites/environment/files/reports/EA_BlockingtheSun_scrn_0.pdf" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(71, 109, 151); text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">more than $40 million</a>Date on which Florida voters will go to the polls to vote on a pro-solar ballot initiative, as well as a competing anti-solar measure put forward by Consumers for Smart Solar: <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/10/22/3715134/sunshine-state-solar-court-decision/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(71, 109, 151); text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">11/8/2016</a>Amount invested in clean energy development in North Carolina since it adopted its REPS in 2007: <a href="http://www.southernstudies.org/sites/default/files/NCSEA_econimpact2014.pdf" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(71, 109, 151); text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">over $2.6 billion</a>Number of full-time jobs that development supported in the state annually: <a href="http://www.southernstudies.org/sites/default/files/NCSEA_econimpact2014.pdf" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(71, 109, 151); text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">37,100</a>Monthly REPS charge for the average Duke Energy Carolinas customer, which Hager and his allies claim is excessive: <a href="http://www.cleanenergyconservatives.com/reps-2015/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(71, 109, 151); text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">$.39</a>Amount REPS is expected to save North Carolina electricity customers through 2029 by avoiding the need for expensive new power plants: <a href="http://www.cleanenergyconservatives.com/reps-2015/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(71, 109, 151); text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">$651 million</a>(Click on figure to go to source.)</article></div></div></div><div></div><div><div>Koch Brothers + 11 Other Special Interest Groups Wage War on Solar</div><div>
</div><div> ecowatch.com/2015/10/09/koch-brothers-wage-war-solar/</div><div>
</div><div>The Koch brothers, Duke Energy and Arizona Public Service are among 12 special interest groups waging aggressive anti-solar campaigns across the country, often coordinated and behind the scenes, a new Environment America Research and Policy Center report said today. </div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>While American solar power has increased four-fold since 2010, state by state, utilities and powerful industry front groups have begun chipping away at key policies that helped spur this solar boom, according to the analysis, “Blocking the Sun: 12 Utilities and Fossil Fuel Interests That Are Undermining American Solar Power.”</div><div>“Fossil-fuel interests and their allies have been using the same playbook to undermine solar power across the country,” said Bret Fanshaw, the solar program coordinator for Environment America. “And they’ve largely been operating in the shadows.”</div><div>
</div><div>The playbook: a national network of utility interest groups and fossil fuel industry-funded think tanks provides funding, model legislation and political cover for anti-solar campaigns. The report examines five of these major national players—Edison Electric Institute, American Legislative Exchange Council, Koch brothers and their front group Americans for Prosperity, Heartland Institute and Consumer Energy Alliance.</div><div>
</div><div>Then, in state after state, electric utilities use the support provided by these national anti-solar interests, supplemented by their own ample resources, to attack key solar energy policies. The report features seven utilities—Arizona Public Service, Duke Energy, American Electric Power, Berkshire Hathaway Industries, Salt River Project, FirstEnergy and We Energies.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>“We found that most attacks on solar energy happen behind closed doors in utility agencies or in dense regulatory filings—away from public view,” said Gideon Weissman of the Frontier Group and co-author of the report. “That’s probably because they’re aimed at very popular policies that give regular consumers the chance to go solar.”</div><div>Charles and David Koch have an enormous financial stake in the fossil fuel industry through their company Koch Industries and its many subsidiaries. Koch Industries alone operates around 4,000 miles of pipeline, along with oil refineries in Alaska, Minnesota and Texas.</div><div>
</div><div>Through its front group Americans for Prosperity and funding to other like-minded entities, the Koch brothers have attacked solar laws in several states including Florida, Georgia, Kansas, North Carolina, Arizona, Minnesota, Ohio, South Carolina and Washington.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Utilities like Arizona Public Service augment resources from interests like the Kochs to forward an anti-solar agenda. Arizona Public Service admitted to funding anti-solar ads by 60 plus, a national Koch-backed front group that purports to represent seniors and it has been accused of improper influence with the Arizona Corporation Commission.</div><div>
</div><div>“I’ve seen first-hand how some energy monopolies have used money in campaigns to intimidate and manipulate policy makers and elected officials,” said Rep. Ken Clark, a state representative from Arizona who has pushed Arizona Public Service to disclose its political spending. “Aside from the question of renewable energy, this activity has become a threat to our electoral system.”</div><div>
</div><div>Arizona Public Service’s latest stealth move against solar has been to withdraw its request to raise fees on solar owners until the commission completes a study that would only examine costs and not benefits, of the resource.</div><div>
</div><div>In Florida, where solar capacity is far beneath its potential, Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity and Duke Energy, the largest utility in the U.S., have teamed up to block pro-solar policies. Duke Energy spent heavily to help re-elect Gov. Rick Scott, who campaigned against a state renewable electricity standard. Americans for Prosperity has mobilized its members and waged an aggressive ad campaign against a ballot initiative to expand rooftop solar by allowing third-party sales of panels. Duke Energy has also contributed to that effort. </div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>The anti-solar coalition Consumers for Smart Solar, backed by Americans for Prosperity, Duke Energy and others, has now put forward a competing ballot measure in Florida to undermine the rooftop solar amendment.</div><div>
</div><div>“By wide margins, Americans support pro-solar policies,” said Fanshaw. “That’s why fossil fuel interests and their front groups have resorted to shady and deceptive tactics to undermine them. Ultimately it will be up to state leaders to reject these attacks and support a clean energy future.”</div></div><div></div>6/15<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px none; outline: 0px none; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Powerful interests are facing off on the future of renewable energy in North Carolina.<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px none; outline: 0px none; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">A <a href="http://ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2015&BillID=H332&submitButton=Go" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">bill</a> to freeze the state’s renewable portfolio standard (RPS) — a mandate on how much clean energy utilities have to use — was <a href="http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/under-the-dome/article21491055.html" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">shoved through committee</a> last month, but despite a wide Republican majority (34-16), the bill hasn’t been brought to the Senate floor. Similar legislation has been introduced and shot down in past years.<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px none; outline: 0px none; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><span id="trigger-slidedown" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Environmental and business groups fighting the bill say that reintroducing the same bill until it passes is a classic American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) tactic. The North Carolina bill was brought by a legislator affiliated with ALEC, the conservative group backed by the Koch brothers, whose billion-dollar enterprise is built largely on fossil fuels.<div id="in-content-ad" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px none; outline: 0px none; font-size: 12px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px none; outline: 0px none; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">But despite the time and money ALEC is pouring into fighting the transition to renewable energy, it seems that wind and solar have some powerful supporters, as well. Big businesses, including data services and clean energy developers, have paired with environmental advocates to stymie many of ALEC’s challenges.<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px none; outline: 0px none; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><a href="https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/ALEC-Coordinates-New-Attacks-on-Renewables-Mandates" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Last year</a>, ALEC-affiliated legislators in Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, and Ohio proposed rolling back state RPSs. New Mexico and New Hampshire saw efforts, as well. Only the efforts in Ohio were <a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/ohio-gov-kasich-sign-freeze-state-clean-energy-mandate-saturday-1598602" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">successful</a>, while Kansas reached a <a title="In Kansas, Renewable Energy Could Soon Be A Goal, Not A Requirement" href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/05/04/3654527/kansas-rolls-back-rps/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">different agreement</a> this year.<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px none; outline: 0px none; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Across the country, supporters have relied on free market rhetoric to say RPSs make electricity more expensive. “The high cost of renewable energy is paid by all state citizens, including those who already struggle to pay the cost of electricity,” according to ALEC’s <a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/market-power-renewables-act/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">sample legislation</a> for repealing an RPS.<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px none; outline: 0px none; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">In North Carolina, where a companion bill already passed in the House, Americans for Prosperity’s North Carolina state director Donald Bryson echoed ALEC’s position, saying that the customer fees were set to triple.<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px none; outline: 0px none; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">“This compromise measure provides relief to families who pay their utility bills and work hard to grow the economy without taxpayer support or government favors,” Bryson said.<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px none; outline: 0px none; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">The local utility company, though, disagreed with that analysis.<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px none; outline: 0px none; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Duke Energy, North Carolina’s giant electricity company — which <a title="BREAKING: Duke Energy Pleads Guilty To Nine Environmental Crimes, Agrees To Pay $102 Million" href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/05/14/3659065/duke-pleads-guilty-to-coal-ash-pollution/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">doesn’t</a> have the <a title="‘Thick Orange Gooey Stuff’ With Arsenic, Lead Found In River Near Duke Energy Power Plant" href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/12/05/3600131/thick-orange-gooey-stuff/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">cleanest</a> <a title="Duke Energy Was Warned About Potential For Dan River Spill Decades Ago, Documents Show" href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/20/3451276/duke-energy-dan-river-warnings/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">record</a> — doesn’t have a problem with the RPS, and says that ratepayers have not been put on the hook for clean power investment in the state.<aside class="left" style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">We don’t think the current REP is a cost burden to customers.</aside><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px none; outline: 0px none; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">“We did not ask for this legislation; we are actually neutral on this legislation,” Randy Wheeless, a spokesman for Duke Energy, told ThinkProgress. The utility has stayed “well under” the cost cap stipulated in the RPS, Wheeless said. “We don’t think the current REP is a cost burden to customers,” he said. In his home area, customers pay about 50 cents a month to support renewable energy development.<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px none; outline: 0px none; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">North Carolina has been something of a solar success story. Last year, the state was in the top <a href="http://pre.thesolarfoundation.org/solarstates/north-carolina" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">five</a> for solar job growth, adding 2,500 workers, , $652 million was invested in solar installations, and <a href="http://www.seia.org/state-solar-policy/north-carolina" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">13 times more solar</a> was installed than in 2010. In fact, North Carolina <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/05/01/3653810/north-carolinas-solar-investment/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">recently extended</a> an investment tax credit for solar, and the state <a href="http://www.seia.org/map/corporate-solar-projects.php" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">has attracted</a> some of the biggest names in technology. Data centers use a phenomenal amount of power, and for tech companies, renewable energy is a key component in plans to go green.<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px none; outline: 0px none; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">While the bill flounders awaiting Senate vote, Apple, Facebook, and Google co-signed a letter to state leadership last week, saying the RPS actually saves money for ratepayers. The companies cited the RPS as a reason they have located in North Carolina.<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px none; outline: 0px none; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">“The undersigned companies have chosen to locate in North Carolina in part because the state’s existing energy policies enable us to operate and grow our businesses in furtherance of the goals mentioned above,” the letter<a href="http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/energync.site-ym.com/resource/resmgr/legislative/TechNet_NC_H322_Letter.pdf" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">says</a>.<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px none; outline: 0px none; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Renewable energy might save money, but it also has widespread support. A recent <a href="https://record.umich.edu/articles/poll-shows-most-americans-support-renewable-energy-standards" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">University of Michigan poll</a>found that the majority of Americans, “of every race, income and education level, and religious and political affiliation,” support state-level mandates on renewable energy.<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px none; outline: 0px none; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">The more popular renewable energy is, the more pressure companies have to get off fossil fuels. In one stark example, Amazon has been asked to account for its energy mix after announcing new cloud computing centers in coal-heavy Ohio (which did freeze its RPS last year). Yahoo, Hootsuite, and 17 other online companies <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/06/03/aws-customers-demand-amazon-come-clean-on-cloud-power/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">have all asked the company</a> to reveal its energy sources....<a href="http://www.globalpossibilities.org/the-tide-is-turning-against-alec-in-the-renewable-energy-battle/">http://www.globalpossibilities.org/the-tide-is-turning-against-alec-in-the-renewable-energy-battle/</a>===

3/15

<span style="color: rgb(68, 68, 68); font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 19.6px; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; float: none; display: inline ! important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">North Carolina has fined the utility giant Duke Energy $25.1 million, the largest environmental fine in state history.<span style="color: rgb(68, 68, 68); font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 19.6px; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; display: inline ! important; float: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> The penalty concerns groundwater contamination from a coal ash plant near Wilmington. It is separate from a pending fine at the federal level for Duke’s spill of more than 35 million gallons of coal ash into the Dan River, one of the worst such spills in U.S. history.  DN

==

INSTITUTE INDEX - Letting Duke Energy off the hook for its coal ash mess

<img src="/f0d7f938-64b3-55d1-b24e-cd53c9a7da67.jpg"/>Date on which Duke Energy contractors finished their cleanup of coal ash left in the Dan River by a February spill from one of the company's dumps: <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://org2.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=hSpt%2FWSt9Oifrq5oOPA6d8zVWvzapPCb" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0); line-height: 1.2em; outline: none;">7/3/2014</a>

Estimated tons of coal ash that spilled from Duke's retired Dan River plant when a pipe beneath the dump broke: <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://org2.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=lfSVjqNYwDXuG0JyURHN68zVWvzapPCb" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0); line-height: 1.2em; outline: none;">39,000</a>

Percent of the spilled coal ash that's being left behind in the river post-cleanup:<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://org2.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=gJArj79EWZjRCO0UFnc4sszVWvzapPCb" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0); line-height: 1.2em; outline: none;">more than 90</a>

Miles of the Dan River the spill left coated in toxic gray coal ash sludge, which contains toxins including arsenic, chromium, lead and mercury: <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://org2.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=56pzWsSXGZG95kfM%2FViX2KQAGTDLq%2Ben" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0); line-height: 1.2em; outline: none;">70</a>

Depth in inches of coal ash deposits that reportedly remain in sections of the river just a few inches below the sandy bottom, where it could be stirred up by heavy flows: <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://org2.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=Nc6mW7nt%2BG0lcsXVA%2B3OVMzVWvzapPCb" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0); line-height: 1.2em; outline: none;">2 to 4</a>

Number of farms along the Dan River between the site where the spill occurred and the Virginia border, some of which <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://org2.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=bGk4DCtlmpF51lQjb5MSdszVWvzapPCb" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); line-height: 16.8px; outline: medium none; font-size: 14px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">use the river </a>for irrigation or watering livestock: <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://org2.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=w1yoJt%2F9C5aOeK9sj0dE9MzVWvzapPCb" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0); line-height: 1.2em; outline: none;">about 20</a>

Tons of coal ash spilled into the Emory River in the 2008 disaster at TVA's Kingston plant in eastern Tennessee: <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://org2.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=rT1R%2FoXOWBMCvWwuSfR0Z8zVWvzapPCb" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0); line-height: 1.2em; outline: none;">1.4 million</a>

Percent of that coal ash that was eventually removed from the river: <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://org2.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=ThgAWEIyWu544z%2BbB1IC7MzVWvzapPCb" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0); line-height: 1.2em; outline: none;">65</a>

Total number of coal ash pits Duke Energy has at its 14 plants across North Carolina: <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://org2.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=KR1aMCN53NyFWyPqPK%2BsDszVWvzapPCb" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0); line-height: 1.2em; outline: none;">33</a>

Percent of those pits that are leaking toxins to groundwater and waterways:<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://org2.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=ZA8kyuvIOwOq4U0HXNArM8zVWvzapPCb" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0); line-height: 1.2em; outline: none;">100</a>

Under legislation now being considered by North Carolina lawmakers, number of those leaking coal ash pits that would be targeted for immediate cleanup, including the one on the Dan River: <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://org2.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=U6Zi71bRL9qmU%2BwYpZTYmszVWvzapPCb" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0); line-height: 1.2em; outline: none;">4</a>

Date on which the N.C. Senate rejected the House version of the bill because it extended the cleanup's timeline and placed the Coal Ash Management Commission it creates in the Department of Environment and Natural Resources rather than the Department of Public Safety: <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://org2.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=HQBI7qou%2BZcSvBbJsg4V%2B8zVWvzapPCb" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0); line-height: 1.2em; outline: none;">7/14/2014</a>

Under the legislation, dollars Duke Energy ratepayers could end up paying for cleaning up the company's coal ash dumps: <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://org2.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=J4IMsKgc1rEEYAYOwc%2BSGczVWvzapPCb" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0); line-height: 1.2em; outline: none;">billions</a>

Amount the N.C. League of Conservation Voters is spending on <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://org2.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=KR1aMCN53NyJ3H1jDOdrrczVWvzapPCb" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); line-height: 16.8px; outline: medium none; font-size: 14px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">TV ads</a> calling out state House Speaker and U.S. Senate candidate Thom Tillis (R) for his role in weakening the coal ash legislation, which is being negotiated in a conference committee: <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://org2.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=TUHCt%2B84itnN2i9zGqjR%2FczVWvzapPCb" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0); line-height: 1.2em; outline: none;">$845,000</a>

Date on which a group of North Carolina environmental activists attempted to deliver a fake check for $10 billion -- Duke Energy's estimated cost of cleaning up all its coal ash dumps -- to Tillis' U.S. Senate campaign office, saying it was compensation for his efforts to weaken the coal ash bill: <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://org2.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=9lFH54Wo04ov%2FLK2jBJaYszVWvzapPCb" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0); line-height: 1.2em; outline: none;">7/17/2014</a>

(Click on figure to go to source. To comment on or to share this index, click<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://org2.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=5TPKMH5qG0KNZx3cS9E2C8zVWvzapPCb" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0); line-height: 1.2em; outline: none;">here</a>. Photo of protest at Tillis' campaign office by Brieanna Carey for Greenpeace.)

==

huffpo

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) -- Environmental and wildlife officials in North Carolina and Virginia signed an agreement with Duke Energy Monday for the cleanup of toxic coal ash from the Dan River, which flows through the two states.

The agreement requires Duke to pay any "reasonable" cost associated with the Feb. 2 spill at its power plant near Eden, which coated 70 miles of the river in gray sludge. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is also a party to the deal.

Duke signed a similar agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency last month.

The nation's largest electricity company has begun the task of vacuuming up large pockets of toxic ash that settled to the bottom of the river as far downstream as Danville, Virgina. Duke must also pay for the ongoing monitoring by government agencies of the spill's impact on aquatic life.

The agreement places no cap on what the company might be required to spend. Duke said in April that it had spent $15 million on containing the spill and the immediate aftermath. But it reiterated in a regulatory filing to investors on Monday that it is unable to predict future costs for the cleanup, new laws passed in the wake of the spill or any environmental fines that might be levied against the company.

N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources spokeswoman Susan Massengale said Monday that the agreement provides "a process that attempts to avoid lawsuits by the parties," but does not bar the states from filing suit if the company does not uphold its commitments.

"This is an important step in the process of returning, as closely as possible, the Dan River to the condition it was before the spill," Massengale said.

Recent testing of water samples from the river show the level of contamination decreased quickly after the spill as the ash and the toxic heavy metals it contains sank to the bottom. However, environmental officials say those contaminated sediments are churned back up into the water at time of high flow, such as after a big rainstorm.

The byproduct left behind when coal is burned to generate electricity, the ash contains numerous toxic substances, including arsenic, selenium, chromium, thallium, mercury and lead. Wildlife officials will be collecting tissue samples from fish in the Dan to monitor whether the contamination works its way up the food chain. Public health officials in both states have advised residents not to eat fish caught downstream of the spill site.

The recent agreements do not resolve an ongoing criminal investigation into the spill and the close relationships between Duke executives and North Carolina politicians and regulators. Federal prosecutors issued at least 23 grand jury subpoenas after the spill to Duke and state officials.

North Carolina lawmakers are currently debating a bill about what to do with Duke's 33 ash dumps at 14 power plants in North Carolina, which are located along rivers and lakes that cities and towns rely on for drinking water. State environmental officials say all of Duke's unlined waste pits, which contain more than 100 million tons of ash, are contaminating groundwater.

Duke has agreed to remove all of its remaining ash at the Eden plant and three other sites, but wants to consider options for its other facilities that could include leaving the ash where it is, capped with plastic sheeting and a layer of soil. Duke has warned lawmakers it could cost as much as $10 billion if it is forced to remove its ash at all 14 sites in North Carolina, with the company's electricity customers footing most of the bill.

==

coal blue:

Bailey was a congressional staffer for nine years, working for Rahall and former Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.). He is now <a href="http://www.prime-policy.com/talent/bailey" style=" list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: underline; overflow: visible; color: rgb(0, 136, 195) !important; text-indent: 0px !important; outline: 0px;">a director</a> at the government relations firm Prime Policy Group, whose <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmsum.php?id=D000045879&year=" style=" list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: underline; overflow: visible; color: rgb(0, 136, 195) !important; text-indent: 0px !important; outline: 0px;">lobbying clients</a> include energy companies such as Duke Energy, the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/04/business/energy-environment/duke-energy-merger-creates-largest-us-utility.html" style=" list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: underline; overflow: visible; color: rgb(0, 136, 195) !important; text-indent: 0px !important; outline: 0px;">largest electric utility</a> in the U.S. Bailey said that he's working with CoalBlue as a volunteer, and that the group is not affiliated with his firm.

CoalBlue Project resident Jon Wood is the former vice president of government and external affairs for Alpha Natural Resources, one of the largest coal producers in the U.S. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmsum.php?id=F26836&year=2013" style=" list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: underline; overflow: visible; color: rgb(0, 136, 195) !important; text-indent: 0px !important; outline: 0px;">Wood is still a registered lobbyist</a> for Alpha. He <a href="http://www.sseb.org/images/woodbio.pdf" style=" list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: underline; overflow: visible; color: rgb(0, 136, 195) !important; text-indent: 0px !important; outline: 0px;">worked previously</a> for the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.).

==

ranks 5 <a href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&com=29812#view=connections">http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&com=29812#view=connections</a>

Burr, Richard (R-NC)

$137,095

<a class="zoom icon" href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&com=29812#" title="Show Contributions" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 255); text-decoration: none; display: block; height: 16px; width: 20px; text-indent: -9999px; background-image: url(http://dirtyenergymoney.com/style/icons/magnifier.png); float: left; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Show Contributions</a><a href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&can=N00002221&searchtype=candidate" title="Go to Profile" class="profilelink go" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 255); text-decoration: none; background-image: url(http://dirtyenergymoney.com/style/icons/arrow.png); float: left; width: 20px; text-indent: -9999px; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Go to Profile</a></li>

Spratt, John (D-SC)

$99,250

Myrick, Sue (R-NC)

$87,750

Hayes, Robin (R-NC)

$82,050

Clyburn, Jim (D-SC)

$80,750

<a class="zoom icon" href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&com=29812#" title="Show Contributions" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 255); text-decoration: none; display: block; height: 16px; width: 20px; text-indent: -9999px; background-image: url(http://dirtyenergymoney.com/style/icons/magnifier.png); float: left; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Show Contributions</a><a href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&can=N00002408&searchtype=candidate" title="Go to Profile" class="profilelink go" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 255); text-decoration: none; background-image: url(http://dirtyenergymoney.com/style/icons/arrow.png); float: left; width: 20px; text-indent: -9999px; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Go to Profile</a></li>

Etheridge, Bob (D-NC)

$76,500

Graham, Lindsey (R-SC)

$75,775

<a class="zoom icon" href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&com=29812#" title="Show Contributions" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 255); text-decoration: none; display: block; height: 16px; width: 20px; text-indent: -9999px; background-image: url(http://dirtyenergymoney.com/style/icons/magnifier.png); float: left; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Show Contributions</a><a href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&can=N00009975&searchtype=candidate" title="Go to Profile" class="profilelink go" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 255); text-decoration: none; background-image: url(http://dirtyenergymoney.com/style/icons/arrow.png); float: left; width: 20px; text-indent: -9999px; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Go to Profile</a></li>

Dole, Elizabeth (R-NC)

$69,050

Dingell, John (D-MI)

$65,500

<a class="zoom icon" href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&com=29812#" title="Show Contributions" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 255); text-decoration: none; display: block; height: 16px; width: 20px; text-indent: -9999px; background-image: url(http://dirtyenergymoney.com/style/icons/magnifier.png); float: left; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Show Contributions</a><a href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&can=N00001783&searchtype=candidate" title="Go to Profile" class="profilelink go" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 255); text-decoration: none; background-image: url(http://dirtyenergymoney.com/style/icons/arrow.png); float: left; width: 20px; text-indent: -9999px; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Go to Profile</a></li>

McIntyre, Mike (D-NC)

$62,500

<a class="zoom icon" href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&com=29812#" title="Show Contributions" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 255); text-decoration: none; display: block; height: 16px; width: 20px; text-indent: -9999px; background-image: url(http://dirtyenergymoney.com/style/icons/magnifier.png); float: left; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Show Contributions</a><a href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&can=N00002356&searchtype=candidate" title="Go to Profile" class="profilelink go" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 255); text-decoration: none; background-image: url(http://dirtyenergymoney.com/style/icons/arrow.png); float: left; width: 20px; text-indent: -9999px; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Go to Profile</a></li>

Hoyer, Steny (D-MD)

$61,000

<a class="zoom icon" href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&com=29812#" title="Show Contributions" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 255); text-decoration: none; display: block; height: 16px; width: 20px; text-indent: -9999px; background-image: url(http://dirtyenergymoney.com/style/icons/magnifier.png); float: left; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Show Contributions</a><a href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&can=N00001821&searchtype=candidate" title="Go to Profile" class="profilelink go" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 255); text-decoration: none; background-image: url(http://dirtyenergymoney.com/style/icons/arrow.png); float: left; width: 20px; text-indent: -9999px; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Go to Profile</a></li>

Boehner, John (R-OH)

$60,600

<a class="zoom icon" href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&com=29812#" title="Show Contributions" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 255); text-decoration: none; display: block; height: 16px; width: 20px; text-indent: -9999px; background-image: url(http://dirtyenergymoney.com/style/icons/magnifier.png); float: left; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Show Contributions</a><a href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&can=N00003675&searchtype=candidate" title="Go to Profile" class="profilelink go" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 255); text-decoration: none; background-image: url(http://dirtyenergymoney.com/style/icons/arrow.png); float: left; width: 20px; text-indent: -9999px; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Go to Profile</a></li>

Boucher, Rick (D-VA)

$60,050

Voinovich, George (R-OH)

$54,850

Barton, Joe (R-TX)

$50,000

<a class="zoom icon" href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&com=29812#" title="Show Contributions" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 255); text-decoration: none; display: block; height: 16px; width: 20px; text-indent: -9999px; background-image: url(http://dirtyenergymoney.com/style/icons/magnifier.png); float: left; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Show Contributions</a><a href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&can=N00005656&searchtype=candidate" title="Go to Profile" class="profilelink go" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 255); text-decoration: none; background-image: url(http://dirtyenergymoney.com/style/icons/arrow.png); float: left; width: 20px; text-indent: -9999px; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Go to Profile</a></li>

Butterfield, G.k. (D-NC)

$50,000

<a class="zoom icon" href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&com=29812#" title="Show Contributions" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 255); text-decoration: none; display: block; height: 16px; width: 20px; text-indent: -9999px; background-image: url(http://dirtyenergymoney.com/style/icons/magnifier.png); float: left; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Show Contributions</a><a href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&can=N00027035&searchtype=candidate" title="Go to Profile" class="profilelink go" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 255); text-decoration: none; background-image: url(http://dirtyenergymoney.com/style/icons/arrow.png); float: left; width: 20px; text-indent: -9999px; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Go to Profile</a></li>

Coble, Howard (R-NC)

$49,000

<a class="zoom icon" href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&com=29812#" title="Show Contributions" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 255); text-decoration: none; display: block; height: 16px; width: 20px; text-indent: -9999px; background-image: url(http://dirtyenergymoney.com/style/icons/magnifier.png); float: left; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Show Contributions</a><a href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&can=N00002247&searchtype=candidate" title="Go to Profile" class="profilelink go" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 255); text-decoration: none; background-image: url(http://dirtyenergymoney.com/style/icons/arrow.png); float: left; width: 20px; text-indent: -9999px; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Go to Profile</a></li>

Jones, Walter (R-NC)

$46,750

<a class="zoom icon" href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&com=29812#" title="Show Contributions" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 255); text-decoration: none; display: block; height: 16px; width: 20px; text-indent: -9999px; background-image: url(http://dirtyenergymoney.com/style/icons/magnifier.png); float: left; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Show Contributions</a><a href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&can=N00002299&searchtype=candidate" title="Go to Profile" class="profilelink go" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 255); text-decoration: none; background-image: url(http://dirtyenergymoney.com/style/icons/arrow.png); float: left; width: 20px; text-indent: -9999px; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Go to Profile</a></li>

Taylor, Charles (R-NC)

$46,000

McConnell, Mitch (R-KY)

$43,350

<a class="zoom icon" href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&com=29812#" title="Show Contributions" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 255); text-decoration: none; display: block; height: 16px; width: 20px; text-indent: -9999px; background-image: url(http://dirtyenergymoney.com/style/icons/magnifier.png); float: left; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Show Contributions</a><a href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&can=N00003389&searchtype=candidate" title="Go to Profile" class="profilelink go" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 255); text-decoration: none; background-image: url(http://dirtyenergymoney.com/style/icons/arrow.png); float: left; width: 20px; text-indent: -9999px; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Go to Profile</a></li>

McHenry, Patrick (R-NC)

$41,500

<a class="zoom icon" href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&com=29812#" title="Show Contributions" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 255); text-decoration: none; display: block; height: 16px; width: 20px; text-indent: -9999px; background-image: url(http://dirtyenergymoney.com/style/icons/magnifier.png); float: left; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Show Contributions</a><a href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&can=N00026627&searchtype=candidate" title="Go to Profile" class="profilelink go" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 255); text-decoration: none; background-image: url(http://dirtyenergymoney.com/style/icons/arrow.png); float: left; width: 20px; text-indent: -9999px; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Go to Profile</a></li>

Foxx, Virginia (R-NC)

$40,250

<a class="zoom icon" href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&com=29812#" title="Show Contributions" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 255); text-decoration: none; display: block; height: 16px; width: 20px; text-indent: -9999px; background-image: url(http://dirtyenergymoney.com/style/icons/magnifier.png); float: left; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Show Contributions</a><a href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&can=N00026166&searchtype=candidate" title="Go to Profile" class="profilelink go" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 255); text-decoration: none; background-image: url(http://dirtyenergymoney.com/style/icons/arrow.png); float: left; width: 20px; text-indent: -9999px; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Go to Profile</a></li>

Price, David (D-NC)

$38,750

<a class="zoom icon" href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&com=29812#" title="Show Contributions" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 255); text-decoration: none; display: block; height: 16px; width: 20px; text-indent: -9999px; background-image: url(http://dirtyenergymoney.com/style/icons/magnifier.png); float: left; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Show Contributions</a><a href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&can=N00002260&searchtype=candidate" title="Go to Profile" class="profilelink go" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 255); text-decoration: none; background-image: url(http://dirtyenergymoney.com/style/icons/arrow.png); float: left; width: 20px; text-indent: -9999px; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Go to Profile</a></li>

Stearns, Cliff (R-FL)

$38,000

Landrieu, Mary (D-LA)

$37,500

<a class="zoom icon" href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&com=29812#" title="Show Contributions" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 255); text-decoration: none; display: block; height: 16px; width: 20px; text-indent: -9999px; background-image: url(http://dirtyenergymoney.com/style/icons/magnifier.png); float: left; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Show Contributions</a><a href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&can=N00005395&searchtype=candidate" title="Go to Profile" class="profilelink go" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 255); text-decoration: none; background-image: url(http://dirtyenergymoney.com/style/icons/arrow.png); float: left; width: 20px; text-indent: -9999px; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Go to Profile</a></li>

Wilson, Joe (R-SC)

$37,000

<a class="zoom icon" href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&com=29812#" title="Show Contributions" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 255); text-decoration: none; display: block; height: 16px; width: 20px; text-indent: -9999px; background-image: url(http://dirtyenergymoney.com/style/icons/magnifier.png); float: left; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Show Contributions</a><a href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&can=N00024809&searchtype=candidate" title="Go to Profile" class="profilelink go" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 255); text-decoration: none; background-image: url(http://dirtyenergymoney.com/style/icons/arrow.png); float: left; width: 20px; text-indent: -9999px; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Go to Profile</a></li>

Barrett, J. Gresham (R-SC)

$37,000

Walden, Greg (R-OR)

$36,500

<a class="zoom icon" href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&com=29812#" title="Show Contributions" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 255); text-decoration: none; display: block; height: 16px; width: 20px; text-indent: -9999px; background-image: url(http://dirtyenergymoney.com/style/icons/magnifier.png); float: left; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Show Contributions</a><a href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&can=N00007690&searchtype=candidate" title="Go to Profile" class="profilelink go" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 255); text-decoration: none; background-image: url(http://dirtyenergymoney.com/style/icons/arrow.png); float: left; width: 20px; text-indent: -9999px; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Go to Profile</a></li>

Portman, Rob (R-OH)

$36,250

<a class="zoom icon" href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&com=29812#" title="Show Contributions" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 255); text-decoration: none; display: block; height: 16px; width: 20px; text-indent: -9999px; background-image: url(http://dirtyenergymoney.com/style/icons/magnifier.png); float: left; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Show Contributions</a><a href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&can=N00003682&searchtype=candidate" title="Go to Profile" class="profilelink go" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 255); text-decoration: none; background-image: url(http://dirtyenergymoney.com/style/icons/arrow.png); float: left; width: 20px; text-indent: -9999px; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Go to Profile</a></li>

Murkowski, Lisa (R-AK)

$34,050

<a class="zoom icon" href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&com=29812#" title="Show Contributions" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 255); text-decoration: none; display: block; height: 16px; width: 20px; text-indent: -9999px; background-image: url(http://dirtyenergymoney.com/style/icons/magnifier.png); float: left; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Show Contributions</a><a href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&can=N00026050&searchtype=candidate" title="Go to Profile" class="profilelink go" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 255); text-decoration: none; background-image: url(http://dirtyenergymoney.com/style/icons/arrow.png); float: left; width: 20px; text-indent: -9999px; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Go to Profile</a></li>

Boyd, Allen (D-FL)

$33,250

Brown, Henry (R-SC)

$33,000

Miller, Brad (D-NC)

$33,0

</li>

</ul>

===

10 worst power plants

<a href="http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/worst-10-power-plants.png">http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/worst-10-power-plants.png</a>

luminant, duke, salt river, NRG 1stenergy

www.globalpossibilities.org/lets-fight-the-1-percent-of-power-plants/

==

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Duke Energy has agreed to retire five coal-fired power plants in western Indiana by June 2018 under a settlement announced Friday with environmental and citizens groups that also calls for the company to increase its investments in renewable energy.

A state administrative law judge oversaw the settlement, which was signed Wednesday by Duke Energy, the Sierra Club, Citizens Action Coalition, Valley Watch and Save the Valley.

The settlement ends the activist groups' challenge of Duke Energy's state air permit for its new $3.5 billion, coal-gasification plant that went online this summer. That southwestern Indiana plant was the subject of an ethical flap after Duke officials and regulators were found to be discussing the project's rising costs.

The 618-megawatt plant's original 2007 cost estimate was $1.9 billion, but that eventually ballooned to about $3.5 billion. Duke Energy has said ratepayers can expect to see a 14 percent to 16 percent increase in their monthly bills by early 2014 as a result of the higher costs of the plant near Edwardsport, about 60 miles north of Evansville.

==

<h2>ALEC Corporations Reap the Rewards</h2>

The corporations bankrolling ALEC and benefitting from bills advanced by the Energy, Environment, and Agriculture Task Force include:

<ul>

<li>Keystone XL Pipeline Operator TransCanada, a member of the ALEC Energy, Environment, and Agriculture Task Force and which sponsored ALEC's Spring Task Force Summit at the "Vice Chairman" level. It was one of the sponsors of the ALEC "Oil Sands Academy" where nine ALEC member legislators were given an all-expenses-paid trip to Calgary and flown around the Alberta tarsands while accompanied by oil industry lobbyists. </li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>Shell Oil, one of the largest fossil fuel conglomerates in the world, operates a tarsands extraction facility and sponsored lunch at the ALEC "Oil Sands Academy." Shell has long been an ALEC member and funder, for example sponsoring ALEC's 2011 Annual Meeting at the "Chairman" level (which in the past has cost $50,000) and hosting plenary sessions. Shell is also a member of the ALEC Civil Justice Task Force, presumably to advance legislation that would protect it from liability in case of oil spills or other disasters.</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>British Petroleum (BP), the United Kingdom's largest corporation and the company responsible for the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, has long supported ALEC, including sponsoring ALEC's 2011 meeting in New Orleans -- not far from the site of BP's oil spill -- at the "Presidential" level (which in the past has cost $100,000). </li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>Peabody Energy is the largest producer of coal in the U.S. and boasts that it generates 10% of the country's energy, and also has a lobbyist representative on the ALEC corporate board; it was the 2011 winner of ALEC's "Private Sector Member of the Year" award and has sponsored ALEC meetings and events. In 2007, it spun-off coal mines it owned in West Virginia and Kentucky into an independent company, which then filed for bankruptcy and sought to be released from its pension and retirement operations.</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>Duke Energy is one of the largest electric utility companies in the United States, and has publicly expressed concern about global warming and support for clean energy, but its continued support for ALEC undermines those rhetorical positions. A coalition of environmental groups <a href="http://greenpeaceblogs.org/2012/08/29/coalition-to-duke-energy-dump-alec/" target="_blank">have been urging Duke to drop ALEC</a> for the past year, so far to no avail.</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>Koch Industries, the privately-held multinational corporation owned by billionaire financiers David and Charles Koch, is involved in an array of industries including petroleum refining, fuel pipelines, coal supply and trading, oil and gas exploration, chemicals and polymers, fertilizer production, and commodity speculation. Koch Industries has long funded ALEC, sponsored its meetings, and had a lobbyist representative on the ALEC Private Enterprise Board. Charitable foundations associated with David and Charles have also been ALEC funders, with the Charles G. Koch Foundation giving ALEC a half-million-dollar loan in 1996.</li>

</ul>

==<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy">

</a>

</a>

<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy">http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy</a>

<h1 id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading">Duke Energy</h1>

<h3 id="siteSub">From SourceWatch</h3>

<div id="jump-to-nav">Jump to: <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#column-one">navigation</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#searchInput">search</a></div>

Other corporate sponsors of the 2011 ALEC SNPS included GlaxoSmithKline, AT&T, ExxonMobil, Time Warner Cable, PhRMA, Peabody Energy, Duke Energy, Bayer Healthcare, AstraZeneca, and Reynolds American.---

---

Duke Energy is a major electricity generating company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Duke Energy owns and operates 36,000 MW of base-load and peak generation that it distributes to its 4 million customers. Duke Energy's service territory covers 47,000 square miles with 106,000 miles of distribution lines.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-1" title="">[2]</a> Almost all of Duke Energy's Midwest generation comes from coal, natural gas or oil, while half of its Carolinas generation comes from its nuclear power plants. During 2006, Duke Energy generated 148,798,332 MWh of electrical energy.

Duke Energy Generation Services (DEGS), a subsidiary of Duke Energy, specializes in the development, ownership and operation of various generation facilities throughout the United States. This segment of the company operates 6,600 MW of generation. 240 MW of wind generation are under construction and 1,500 additional MW of wind generation are in planning stages.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-2" title="">[3]</a>

<h2>Contents</h2>

[<a id="togglelink" href="javascript:toggleToc()" class="internal">hide</a>]</div>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#History">1 History</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#Congressional_Campaign_Contributions">2 Congressional Campaign Contributions</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#Duke_Indiana_hires_state_regulators">3 Duke Indiana hires state regulators</a>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#Duke_CEO_put_on_leave">3.1 Duke CEO put on leave</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#CEO_compensation">4 CEO compensation</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#Switching_sides_on_global_warming">5 Switching sides on global warming</a>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#CEO_Jim_Rogers_suggests_Duke_moving_away_from_coal">5.1 CEO Jim Rogers suggests Duke moving away from coal</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#Duke_Energy_and_Alstom_Power_leave_ACCCE_over_climate_change_legislation">5.2 Duke Energy and Alstom Power leave ACCCE over climate change legislation</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#Workforce_cuts">6 Workforce cuts</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#Power_portfolio">7 Power portfolio</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#Decreasing_power_demand">8 Decreasing power demand</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#Existing_coal-fired_power_plants">9 Existing coal-fired power plants</a>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#Duke_Energy.27s_Gallagher_Generating_Station_and_Environmental_Justice">9.1 Duke Energy's Gallagher Generating Station and Environmental Justice</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#Coal_Projects_Sponsored_by_Duke_Energy">10 Coal Projects Sponsored by Duke Energy</a>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#Duke_files_plans_for_carbon_sequestration_study_in_Indiana">10.1 Duke files plans for carbon sequestration study in Indiana</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#Protests_against_Duke.27s_proposed_coal_plants">11 Protests against Duke's proposed coal plants</a>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#Nov.15.2C_2007:Student_blockade_of_Duke_Energy_headquarters">11.1 Nov. 15, 2007: Student blockade of Duke Energy headquarters</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#April_1.2C_2008:_Rising_Tide.2FEarth_First.21_occupation_of_Cliffside_construction_site">11.2 April 1, 2008: Rising Tide/Earth First! occupation of Cliffside construction site</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#April_20.2C_2009:Hundreds_protest_in_Charlotte.2C_N.C.against_Duke.27s_proposed_Cliffside_plant">11.3 April 20, 2009: Hundreds protest in Charlotte, N.C. against Duke's proposed Cliffside plant</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#May_7.2C_2009:_Activists_protest_Cliffside_Plant_at_Duke_Energy_shareholder_meeting_in_Charlotte.2C_NC">11.4 May 7, 2009: Activists protest Cliffside Plant at Duke Energy shareholder meeting in Charlotte, NC</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#November_30.2C_2009:_Activists_block_delivery_of_generator_to_Cliffside_coal_plant_in_Greenville.2C_SC">11.5 November 30, 2009: Activists block delivery of generator to Cliffside coal plant in Greenville, SC</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#Coal_waste">12 Coal waste</a>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#EPA_releases_list_of_44_.22high_hazard.22_coal_ash_dumps">12.1 EPA releases list of 44 "high hazard" coal ash dumps</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#Study_shows_Duke.27s_N.C._coal_ash_ponds_are_contaminating_groundwater">12.2 Study shows Duke's N.C. coal ash ponds are contaminating groundwater</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#Rate_Hikes">13 Rate Hikes</a>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#Duke_proposes_rate_increases_to_cover_higher_cost_of_coal">13.1 Duke proposes rate increases to cover higher cost of coal</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#Duke_proposes_second_rate_increase_to_cover_costs_of_expanding_Cliffside_plant">13.2 Duke proposes second rate increase to cover costs of expanding Cliffside plant</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#Environmental_Record">14 Environmental Record</a>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#Duke_ordered_to_shut_down_three_coal-fired_units_in_Indiana">14.1 Duke ordered to shut down three coal-fired units in Indiana</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#Duke_Fined_for_Violating_the_Clean_Air_Act">14.2 Duke Fined for Violating the Clean Air Act</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#Killing_trees_for_power_lines">14.3 Killing trees for power lines</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#Duke.27s_nuclear_empire">15 Duke's nuclear empire</a>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#MOX_Enthusiasts">15.1 MOX Enthusiasts</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#New_Reactors">15.2 New Reactors</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#Lobbyists">16 Lobbyists</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#Personnel">17 Personnel</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#Related_SourceWatch_articles">18 Related SourceWatch articles</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#Contact_details">19 Contact details</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#External_links">20 External links</a>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#References">20.1 References</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#Articles">20.2 Articles</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

</ul>

</td></tr></tbody></table>

<h2>History</h2>

The company began in 1900 as the Catawba Power Company, when Dr. Walker Gill Wylie and his brother financed the building of a hydroelectric power station at India Hook Shoals along the Catawba River. In need of additional funding to further his ambitious plan for construction of a series of hydroelectric power plants, Wylie convinced James B. Duke to invest in the Southern Power Company, founded in 1905, which later became known as Duke Power. In 1988, Nantahala Power & Light Co., which served southwestern North Carolina, was purchased by Duke and is now operated under the Duke Power - Nantahala Area brand. Duke Power merged with PanEnergy in 1997 to form Duke Energy. The Duke Power name continued as the electric utility business of Duke Energy until the Cinergy merger (Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company with Kentucky subsidiary Union Light, Heat & Power and Plainfield, Indiana-based PSI Energy).<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-3" title="">[4]</a>

With the purchase of the Cinergy Corporation, announced in 2005 and completed on April 3, 2006, Duke Energy Corporation's customer base now includes the midwestern U.S. as well. The company operates nuclear power plants, coal-fired plants, conventional hydroelectric plants, natural-gas turbines to handle peak demand, and pumped hydro storage. During 2006, Duke Energy also acquired Chatham, Ontario-based Union Gas, which is regulated under the Ontario Energy Board Act (1998).

On January 3, 2007, Duke Energy spun off its gas business to form Spectra Energy. Duke Energy shareholders received 1 share of Spectra Energy for each 2 shares of Duke Energy. After the spin-off, Duke Energy now receives the majority of its revenue from its electric operations in portions of North Carolina, South Carolina, Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana. The spinoff to Spectra also included Union Gas, which Duke Energy acquired the previous year.

<h2>Congressional Campaign Contributions</h2>

Duke Energy is one of the largest contributors to both Republican and Democratic candidates for Congress. These contributions total $392,600 to the 110th US Congress (as of the third quarter), the largest of which has been to Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) for $28,000. Senator Voinovich, for his part, has consistently voted with the coal industry on energy bills.<a href="http://www.followthecoalmoney.org" class="external autonumber" title="http://www.followthecoalmoney.org" rel="nofollow">[1]</a>

Contributions like this from from fossil fuel companies to members of Congress are often seen as a political barrier to pursuing clean energy.<a href="http://www.followthecoalmoney.org" class="external autonumber" title="http://www.followthecoalmoney.org" rel="nofollow">[2]</a>

More information on coal industry contributions to Congress can be found at <a href="http://www.followthecoalmoney.org" class="external text" title="http://www.followthecoalmoney.org" rel="nofollow">FollowtheCoalMoney.org</a>, a project sponsored by the nonpartisan, nonprofit <a href="http://www.priceofoil.org" class="external text" title="http://www.priceofoil.org" rel="nofollow">Oil Change International</a> and <a href="http://www.appalachianvoices.org" class="external text" title="http://www.appalachianvoices.org" rel="nofollow">Appalachian Voices</a>.

<h2>Duke Indiana hires state regulators</h2>

In September 2010, Duke Energy Indiana hired as assistant general counsel Scott Storms, the General Counsel and Chief Administrative Law Judge at the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC), raising questions about the revolving door relationship between regulators and utilities.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-4" title="">[5]</a> Storms served as General Counsel to the state Commission that regulates Duke and other Indiana utilities, and was the presiding Judge over most hearings regarding the controversial <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Edwardsport_Plant" title="Edwardsport Plant">Edwardsport Plant</a>, a $2.35 billion <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Integrated_Gasification_Combined_Cycle" class="mw-redirect" title="Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle">Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle</a> coal plant currently under construction, which is projected to raise customer rates an average 19 percent rate by 2013.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-5" title="">[6]</a> Storms signed many of the IURC’s decisions related to Edwardsport – the last as recent as July 23, 2010. Citizens Action Coalition noted that this violates the Indiana Ethics Commission's direction for State employees, which states on its website: “[If] you work for the Utility Regulatory Commission making regulatory decisions concerning a public utility company, you may not work for this utility company for a year.”<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-6" title="">[7]</a>

Grant Smith, Executive Director of Citizens Action Coalition, stated: “It’s disturbing that a required, one-year cooling off period so easily became less than 60 days. When you add Mr. Storms hiring with Duke’s recent hiring of former IURC Executive Director Michael W. Reed as the new President of Duke Energy Indiana it raises ethics questions. We are also concerned about the timing of Mr. Storm’s announcement as it relates to a recent settlement agreed upon by Duke Energy Indiana and the Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor pertaining to the troubled Edwardsport IGCC power plant.” The current Chairman of the IURC, David Lott Hardy, also worked for one of Duke’s predecessor companies, PSI Energy, several years ago.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-7" title="">[8]</a>

<h3>Duke CEO put on leave</h3>

In October 2010, Duke placed Mike Reed, president and CEO of its Indiana operations, on administrative leave in the wake of a state investigation that involves the company and resulted in the dismissal of the chairman of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC). Early that month, Gov. Mitch Daniels fired IURC chief David Lott Hardy for allegedly allowing an agency official to continue presiding over a Duke Energy case even after talking with the utility about a job opportunity.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-co-8" title="">[9]</a>

The firing of Hardy follows the recent departure to Duke’s Plainfield office of Scott Storms, who had been administrative law judge for the IURC. Storms was presiding over a handful of cases involving Duke, including matters involving cost overruns at Duke’s Edwardsport generating plant. Duke said it was also putting Storms on administrative leave from his position in Duke’s legal-regulatory department, “pending the completion of a full evaluation.”<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-co-8" title="">[9]</a>

Daniels has directed that administrative opinions over which Storms presided will be reopened and reviewed “to ensure no undue influence was exerted in the decisions.” Daniels also directed that a one-year cooling off period for decision makers is to be considered for those at the administrative law judge level. The administration said it has referred the matter to the inspector general to determine if any laws were broken or whether misinformation was presented to the Ethics Commission.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-co-8" title="">[9]</a>

<h2>CEO compensation</h2>

In May 2007, Forbes listed Duke Energy CEO <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jim_Rogers_%28Duke_Energy_CEO%29" title="Jim Rogers (Duke Energy CEO)">Jim Rogers</a> as receiving $10.2 million in total compensation for the latest fiscal year. He ranked 10th on the list of CEOs in the Utilities industry, and 174th out of all CEOs in the United States.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-9" title="">[10]</a>

<h2>Switching sides on global warming</h2>

The company, previously called Duke Power, was a member of the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Climate_Coalition" title="Global Climate Coalition">Global Climate Coalition</a>, a now-defunct industry group that fought plants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/improp/gcc.html" class="external autonumber" title="http://www.prwatch.org/improp/gcc.html" rel="nofollow">[3]</a>

In January 2007, Duke Energy was one of 10 major companies to form the U.S. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_Action_Partnership" title="Climate Action Partnership">Climate Action Partnership</a>, an industry group that called on U.S. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_Walker_Bush" title="George Walker Bush">President Bush</a> to "to fight global warming by limiting greenhouse gases, funding research into renewable energy and creating a market for carbon dioxide emissions." <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/23/CEOCLIMATE.TMP" class="external autonumber" title="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/23/CEOCLIMATE.TMP" rel="nofollow">[4]</a>

Duke's role in the group was widely seen as visionary and/or selfless despite the fact that it proposed to construct two new coal-fired power plants in its service territory (<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cliffside_Plant" title="Cliffside Plant">Cliffside</a> and <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Edwardsport_Plant" title="Edwardsport Plant">Edwardsport</a>). "About half of Duke's electricity comes from coal-fired power plants, which release more carbon dioxide than those burning natural gas," noted the San Francisco Chronicle. <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/23/CEOCLIMATE.TMP" class="external autonumber" title="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/23/CEOCLIMATE.TMP" rel="nofollow">[5]</a> Duke also remains a member in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce - a group that vehemently opposes climate legislation.

<h3>CEO Jim Rogers suggests Duke moving away from coal</h3>

In May 2009, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jim_Rogers_%28Duke_Energy_CEO%29" title="Jim Rogers (Duke Energy CEO)">Jim Rogers</a> told reporters that that Duke was likely building its last two coal plants, until and unless <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Carbon_Capture_and_Storage" title="Carbon Capture and Storage">carbon capture and storage</a> (CCS) technology becomes commercially available. Rogers said he would instead focus on nuclear power generation. He said nuclear power presents less of a waste disposal problem than coal plants, because a smaller area is required for waste storage, and because CCS will require a system to transport CO2 gas long distances.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-10" title="">[11]</a>

One of key trends being considered in a joint Duke - <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Rocky_Mountains_Institute&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Rocky Mountains Institute (page does not exist)">Rocky Mountains Institute</a> project on the company's business scenarios is "whether key technological developments, such as carbon capture and sequestration, develop or not".<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-11" title="">[12]</a>

<h3>Duke Energy and Alstom Power leave ACCCE over climate change legislation</h3>

In September 2009, both Duke Energy and Alstom Power, a French company that makes parts for power plants, announced they were resigning from the industry group <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Coalition_for_Clean_Coal_Electricity" title="American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity">American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity</a>. Both companies cited concerns about alliance's opposition of the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Waxman-Markey_Climate_Bill" title="Waxman-Markey Climate Bill">Waxman-Markey Climate Bill</a>, which is attempting to cap greenhouse gas emissions. Tim Brown, a spokesman for Alstom, said the company wanted to remove any doubt about its full support for the legislation.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-12" title="">[13]</a><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-13" title="">[14]</a>

<h2>Workforce cuts</h2>

Almost 900 Duke employees took buyout offer made by the company in early 2010, reducing Duke's workforce by almost five percent.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-jdmsn-14" title="">[15]</a> The offer was made to Duke's 8,700 non-union workers, who represent about forty-seven percent of the company's 18,700 person workforce.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-jdmsn-14" title="">[15]</a> The cuts have come from workers in the five states that Duke has operations.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-jdmsn-14" title="">[15]</a>

In 2006, Duke cut 1,500 jobs after a merger with Cinergy Corporation.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-15" title="">[16]</a> Utility companies Dominion Resources and Duke Energy made similar cuts in 2010.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-dgear-16" title="">[17]</a>

<h2>Power portfolio</h2>

Out of its total 43,761 MW of electric generating capacity in 2005 (4.10% of the U.S. total), Duke produces 42.5% from coal, 32.4% from natural gas, 17.2% from nuclear, 6.5% from hydroelectricity, and 1.3% from oil. Duke owns power plants in Arkansas, Arizona, California, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-EIA-17" title="">[18]</a>

<h2>Decreasing power demand</h2>

In November 2008, Duke announced plans to roll back on new power generation because of a decline in demand. The company will delay the construction of two gas-fired power plants in North Carolina and postpone the approval process for the a nuclear plant in South Carolina. The changes were announced along with a 65% decline in third quarter earnings and are expected to reduce capital costs by $200 million this year. The cost-cutting moves did not include any changes to Duke's heavily-opposed coal plant proposals.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-18" title="">[19]</a>

<h2>Existing coal-fired power plants</h2>

Duke had 70 coal-fired generating stations in 2005, with 18,591 MW of capacity. Here is a list of Duke's coal power plants with capacity over 100 MW:<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-EIA-17" title="">[18]</a><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-DirtyKilowatts-19" title="">[20]</a><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-20" title="">[21]</a>

<table class="wikitable"><tbody><tr><th>Plant Name</th><th>State</th><th>County</th><th width="175">Year(s) Built</th><th width="75">Capacity</th><th width="100">2007 CO2 Emissions</th><th width="100">2006 SO2 Emissions</th></tr><tr><th align="left"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Gibson_Generating_Station" title="Gibson Generating Station">Gibson</a></th><td align="center">IN</td><td align="center">Gibson</td><td align="center">1975, 1976, 1978, 1979, 1982</td><td align="right">3340 MW</td><td align="right">20,400,000 tons</td><td align="right">155,057 tons</td></tr><tr><th align="left"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Belews_Creek_Steam_Station" title="Belews Creek Steam Station">Belews Creek</a></th><td align="center">NC</td><td align="center">Stokes</td><td align="center">1974, 1975</td><td align="right">2160 MW</td><td align="right">13,600,000 tons</td><td align="right">95,290 tons</td></tr><tr><th align="left"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marshall_Steam_Station" title="Marshall Steam Station">Marshall</a></th><td align="center">NC</td><td align="center">Catawba</td><td align="center">1965, 1966, 1969, 1970</td><td align="right">1996 MW</td><td align="right">12,600,000 tons</td><td align="right">85,050 tons</td></tr><tr><th align="left"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Zimmer_Generating_Station" title="Zimmer Generating Station">W.H. Zimmer</a></th><td align="center">OH</td><td align="center">Clermont</td><td align="center">1991</td><td align="right">1426 MW</td><td align="right">8,597,000 tons</td><td align="right">22,054 tons</td></tr><tr><th align="left"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Miami_Fort_Station" title="Miami Fort Station">Miami Fort</a></th><td align="center">OH</td><td align="center">Hamilton</td><td align="center">1949, 1960, 1975, 1978</td><td align="right">1378 MW</td><td align="right">7,546,000 tons</td><td align="right">62,028 tons</td></tr><tr><th align="left"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Beckjord_Generating_Station" title="Beckjord Generating Station">Beckjord</a></th><td align="center">OH</td><td align="center">Clermont</td><td align="center">1952, 1953, 1954, 1958, 1962, 1969</td><td align="right">1221 MW</td><td align="right">6,330,000 tons</td><td align="right">62,480 tons</td></tr><tr><th align="left"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Wabash_River_Generating_Station" title="Wabash River Generating Station">Wabash River</a></th><td align="center">IN</td><td align="center">Vigo</td><td align="center">1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1968, 1995</td><td align="right">1165 MW</td><td align="right">4,738,000 tons</td><td align="right">58,793 tons</td></tr><tr><th align="left"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=G.G.Allen_Steam_Plant" title="G.G. Allen Steam Plant">G.G. Allen</a></th><td align="center">NC</td><td align="center">Gaston</td><td align="center">1957, 1959, 1960, 1961</td><td align="right">1155 MW</td><td align="right">5,864,000 tons</td><td align="right">45,395 tons</td></tr><tr><th align="left"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cayuga_Generating_Station" title="Cayuga Generating Station">Cayuga</a></th><td align="center">IN</td><td align="center">Vermillion</td><td align="center">1970, 1972</td><td align="right">1062 MW</td><td align="right">6,914,000 tons</td><td align="right">86,174 tons</td></tr><tr><th align="left"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cliffside_Plant%28existing%29" title="Cliffside Plant (existing)">Cliffside</a></th><td align="center">NC</td><td align="center">Cleveland</td><td align="center">1940, 1948, 1972</td><td align="right">781 MW</td><td align="right">3,591,000 tons</td><td align="right">28,878 tons</td></tr><tr><th align="left"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=East_Bend_Generating_Station" title="East Bend Generating Station">East Bend</a></th><td align="center">KY</td><td align="center">Boone</td><td align="center">1981</td><td align="right">669 MW</td><td align="right">4,332,000 tons</td><td align="right">3,947 tons</td></tr><tr><th align="left"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Gallagher_Generating_Station" title="Gallagher Generating Station">Gallagher</a></th><td align="center">IN</td><td align="center">Floyd</td><td align="center">1958, 1959, 1960, 1961</td><td align="right">600 MW</td><td align="right">3,383,000 tons</td><td align="right">50,819 tons</td></tr><tr><th align="left"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Riverbend_Steam_Station" title="Riverbend Steam Station">Riverbend</a></th><td align="center">NC</td><td align="center">Gaston</td><td align="center">1952, 1954</td><td align="right">466 MW</td><td align="right">1,676,000 tons</td><td align="right">16,481 tons</td></tr><tr><th align="left"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Buck_Steam_Station" title="Buck Steam Station">Buck</a></th><td align="center">NC</td><td align="center">Rowan</td><td align="center">1941, 1942, 1953</td><td align="right">370 MW</td><td align="right">1,626,000 tons</td><td align="right">12,054 tons</td></tr><tr><th align="left"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=W.S.Lee_Steam_Station" title="W.S. Lee Steam Station">W.S. Lee</a></th><td align="center">SC</td><td align="center">Anderson</td><td align="center">1951, 1958</td><td align="right">355 MW</td><td align="right">1,151,000 tons</td><td align="right">10,256 tons</td></tr><tr><th align="left"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dan_River_Steam_Station" title="Dan River Steam Station">Dan River</a></th><td align="center">NC</td><td align="center">Rockingham</td><td align="center">1949, 1950, 1955</td><td align="right">290 MW</td><td align="right">827,000 tons</td><td align="right">7,882 tons</td></tr><tr><th align="left"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Edwardsport_Generating_Station%28existing%29" title="Edwardsport Generating Station (existing)">Edwardsport</a></th><td align="center">IN</td><td align="center">Knox</td><td align="center">1949, 1951</td><td align="right">109 MW</td><td align="right">680,000 tons</td><td align="right">8,281 tons</td></tr></tbody></table>

In 2006, Duke's 17 major coal-fired power plants emitted 103.8 million tons of CO2 (1.7% of all U.S. CO2 emissions) and 811,000 tons of SO2 (5.4% of all U.S. SO2 emissions).

In 2006, Duke's Gallagher plant emitted more tons of SO2 per MWh than any other major power plant in the country; Wabash River ranked 6th in tons of SO2 per MWh, and Cayuga ranked 8th.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-DirtyKilowatts-19" title="">[20]</a>

<h3>Duke Energy's <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Gallagher_Generating_Station" title="Gallagher Generating Station">Gallagher Generating Station</a> and Environmental Justice</h3>

<div class="thumbcaption">Resident and Nurse Rhoda Temple Morton's father worked at the Gallagher plant and died of cancer</div>

</div>

Duke Energy's <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Gallagher_Generating_Station" title="Gallagher Generating Station">Gallagher Generating Station</a> is located in the town of New Albany, across the river from Louisville, Kentucky. The majority of the African American population living within a 3 mile radius of the power plant are in an income bracket which is substantially lower than the rest of the community, raising issues around <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Environmental_justice_and_coal" class="mw-redirect" title="Environmental justice and coal">environmental justice and coal</a>. Gallagher is among over 100 <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal_plants_near_residential_areas" title="Coal plants near residential areas">coal plants near residential areas</a>.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-21" title="">[22]</a>

<h2>Coal Projects Sponsored by Duke Energy</h2>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cliffside_Plant" title="Cliffside Plant">Cliffside Plant</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Edwardsport_Plant" title="Edwardsport Plant">Edwardsport Plant</a></li>

</ul>

<h3>Duke files plans for carbon sequestration study in Indiana</h3>

In July 2009, Duke filed a proposal for a carbon dioxide storage project with the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission. Duke would invest over $120 million to store a portion of the CO2 emissions from its proposed <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Edwardsport_Plant" title="Edwardsport Plant">Edwardsport Plant</a> in Knox County, Indiana. The three-year project would attempt to store emissions in saline aquifers and in depleted oil and gas fields.

The experiment would result in an average 1 percent rate increase for customers between 2010 and 2013. The company is also applying for a federal grant to cover about half of the project's costs. If the project is successful, Duke will apply to capture and store the emissions on a permanent basis.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-22" title="">[23]</a>

<h2>Protests against Duke's proposed coal plants</h2>

<h3>Nov. 15, 2007: Student blockade of Duke Energy headquarters</h3>

On November 15, 2007, two Warren Wilson College students - dressed as polar bears - chained themselves to the door of Duke Energy's headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina, in protest of Duke's plans to build the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cliffside_Plant" title="Cliffside Plant">Cliffside coal-fired power plant</a> in western North Carolina. Several dozen people held a rally in support of their blockade, dressing as Santa Claus and elves and presenting a stocking full of coal to the company. The two students were arrested on charges of trespassing and disorderly conduct.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-23" title="">[24]</a><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-24" title="">[25]</a>

<h3>April 1, 2008: Rising Tide/Earth First! occupation of Cliffside construction site</h3>

On April 1, 2008, as part of the Fossil Fools International Day of Action, a group of North Carolina activists with Rising Tide and Earth First! locked themselves to bulldozers to prevent the construction of the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cliffside_Plant" title="Cliffside Plant">Cliffside coal-fired power plant</a> proposed by Duke in western North Carolina. Others roped off the site with "Global Warming Crime Scene" tape, and held banners protesting the construction of the plant. Police used pain compliance holds and tasers to force the activists to unlock themselves from the construction equipment. Eight people were arrested.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-25" title="">[26]</a><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-26" title="">[27]</a>

<h3>April 20, 2009: Hundreds protest in Charlotte, N.C. against Duke's proposed Cliffside plant</h3>

Hundreds of people marched and rallied against <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cliffside_Plant" title="Cliffside Plant">Cliffside</a> in Charlotte, N.C. The demonstration was organized by more than a dozen environmental, faith-based, and social justice groups, which are calling on Duke and the state of North Carolina to cancel construction of the Cliffside plant. The plant, if built, would release 6 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year, and would use coal extracted through <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mountaintop_removal" title="Mountaintop removal">mountaintop removal</a>. 44 activists were arrested.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-27" title="">[28]</a>

To see video of this protest, see <a href="http://vimeo.com/4347727" class="external text" title="http://vimeo.com/4347727" rel="nofollow">Stop Cliffside</a>

<h3>May 7, 2009: Activists protest Cliffside Plant at Duke Energy shareholder meeting in Charlotte, NC</h3>

Activists dominated Duke Energy's annual shareholder meeting in Charlotte, NC. About 25 protesters gathered outside the company's headquarters, calling for Duke to cancel its proposed <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cliffside_Plant" title="Cliffside Plant">Cliffside Plant</a>. Inside the meeting, activists who own shares of the company grilled CEO <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jim_Rogers_%28Duke_Energy_CEO%29" title="Jim Rogers (Duke Energy CEO)">Jim Rogers</a> about the company's coal and nuclear investments.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-28" title="">[29]</a>

<h3>November 30, 2009: Activists block delivery of generator to Cliffside coal plant in Greenville, SC</h3>

Two protesters locked themselves to a 1.5 million pound generator being delivered to the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cliffside_Plant" title="Cliffside Plant">Cliffside Plant</a> in North Carolina. The activists vowed to prevent the generator from reaching the plant. Protesters also displayed a large banner reading "Stop Cliffside" from the top of the generator. More than 20 activists attended the protest; four were arrested. The action was organized by <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Rising_Tide_North_America" title="Rising Tide North America">Asheville Rising Tide</a> and Croatan <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earth_First%21" title="Earth First!">Earth First!</a> as part of a national day of action with dozens of protests planned around the U.S.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-29" title="">[30]</a>

<h2>Coal waste</h2>

<h3>EPA releases list of 44 "high hazard" coal ash dumps</h3>

In response to demands from environmentalists as well as Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California), chair of the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works, the EPA made public a list of 44 "high hazard potential" coal waste dumps. The rating applies to sites at which a dam failure would most likely cause loss of human life, but does not include an assessment of the likelihood of such an event. Duke owns 10 of the sites, all of which are located in North Carolina.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-30" title="">[31]</a>

The following table is derived from EPA's official list of Coal Combustion Residue (CCR) Surface Impoundments with High Hazard Potential Ratings. To see the full list of sites, see <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal_waste" title="Coal waste">Coal waste</a>.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-31" title="">[32]</a>

<table class="wikitable"><tbody><tr><th width="200">Facility Name</th><th width="200">Unit Name</th><th width="200">Location</th></tr><tr><th align="center"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=G.G._Allen_Steam_Plant" title="G.G. Allen Steam Plant">G.G. Allen Steam Plant</a></th><th align="center">Active Ash Pond</th><th align="center">Belmont, NC</th></tr><tr><th align="center"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Belews_Creek_Steam_Station" title="Belews Creek Steam Station">Belews Creek Steam Station</a></th><th align="center">Active Ash Pond</th><th align="center">Walnut Cove, NC</th></tr><tr><th align="center"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Buck_Steam_Station" title="Buck Steam Station">Buck Steam Station</a></th><th align="center">New Primary Pond</th><th align="center">Spencer, NC</th></tr><tr><th align="center"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Buck_Steam_Station" title="Buck Steam Station">Buck Steam Station</a></th><th align="center">Secondary Pond</th><th align="center">Spencer, NC</th></tr><tr><th align="center"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Buck_Steam_Station" title="Buck Steam Station">Buck Steam Station</a></th><th align="center">Primary Pond</th><th align="center">Spencer, NC</th></tr><tr><th align="center"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dan_River_Steam_Station" title="Dan River Steam Station">Dan River Steam Station</a></th><th align="center">Secondary Pond</th><th align="center">Eden, NC</th></tr><tr><th align="center"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dan_River_Steam_Station" title="Dan River Steam Station">Dan River Steam Station</a></th><th align="center">Primary Pond</th><th align="center">Eden, NC</th></tr><tr><th align="center"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marshall_Steam_Station" title="Marshall Steam Station">Marshall Steam Station</a></th><th align="center">Active Ash Pond</th><th align="center">Terrell, NC</th></tr><tr><th align="center"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Riverbend_Steam_Station" title="Riverbend Steam Station">Riverbend Steam Station</a></th><th align="center">Secondary Pond</th><th align="center">Mount Holly, NC</th></tr><tr><th align="center"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Riverbend_Steam_Station" title="Riverbend Steam Station">Riverbend Steam Station</a></th><th align="center">Primary Pond</th><th align="center">Mount Holly, NC</th></tr></tbody></table>

<h3>Study shows Duke's N.C. coal ash ponds are contaminating groundwater</h3>

In October 2009, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Appalachian_Voices" title="Appalachian Voices">Appalachian Voices</a> released an analysis of monitoring data from <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal_waste" title="Coal waste">coal waste</a> ponds at 13 coal plants in North Carolina. The study revealed that all of them are contaminating ground water with toxic pollutants, in some cases with over 350 times the allowable levels according to state standards. The contaminants include the toxic metals arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and lead, which can cause cancer and neurological disorders. The study was based on data submitted by Duke and <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Progress_Energy" title="Progress Energy">Progress Energy</a> to state regulators. The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources is attempting to confirm the results before determining whether current state law can mandate corrective action.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-32" title="">[33]</a>

<h2>Rate Hikes</h2>

<h3>Duke proposes rate increases to cover higher cost of coal</h3>

In March 2009, Duke Energy Carolinas proposed a 5 percent increase on its power charges in North Carolina, to compensate the company for higher coal prices. The fuel-charge increase is separate from an upcoming Duke proposal for a general rate hike. The company estimates that the average customer bill would increase from approximately $87 per month to about $91 per month. Similar increases will be proposed in South Carolina in summer 2009.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-33" title="">[34]</a>

<h3>Duke proposes second rate increase to cover costs of expanding Cliffside plant</h3>

In September 2009, the North Carolina Utilities Commission held a public hearing on Duke's proposed rate increase of 12.6 percent for its North Carolina customers. Duke says the increases are necessary to recoup $4.8 billion in capital spending, which includes the amount spent to date on the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cliffside_Plant" title="Cliffside Plant">Cliffside expansion</a>. The utility commission's Public Staff, which represents utility customers, is opposed to the increase, describing it as unjustified. About two dozen people spoke at the hearing, most of whom were residents opposed to the rate hike and to the new Cliffside plant. The commission is scheduled to begin hearing expert testimony on Duke's rate hike request ion October 19.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-34" title="">[35]</a>

<h2>Environmental Record</h2>

In 1999 the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=U.S._Environmental_Protection_Agency" title="U.S. Environmental Protection Agency">U.S. Environmental Protection Agency</a> commenced an enforcement action against Duke Energy for failure to comply with the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clean_Air_Act" title="Clean Air Act">Clean Air Act</a>. Duke asserted that EPA regulations under the law were arbitrarily changed over the course of 25 years. Environmental groups asserted that Duke was using loopholes in the law to increase emissions. Initially, Duke prevailed at the trial court level, but in 2006 the case was argued before the U.S. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Supreme_Court" title="Supreme Court">Supreme Court</a> (Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corp. (05-848)). The Court unanimously ruled on April 2, 2007, against Duke Energy and in favor of the environmental groups.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-35" title="">[36]</a>

<h3>Duke ordered to shut down three coal-fired units in Indiana</h3>

On May 29, 2009, U.S. District Judge Larry J. McKinney ordered Duke to shut down three units of the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Wabash_River_Generating_Station" title="Wabash River Generating Station">Wabash River Generating Station</a> in Indiana for violations of the federal Clean Air Act. In 2008, a jury found that Duke-owned Cinergy had modified the facilities without installing best-available pollution control technology. In his ruling, Judge McKinney cited increased <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Sulfur_dioxide_and_coal" title="Sulfur dioxide and coal">sulfur dioxide emissions</a> from the units and gave a deadline of September 30, 2009 for closing them. Duke's Chief Legal Officer Marc Manly said the company was disappointed with the court's decision to "accelerate the shutdown." The units, which supply 39 percent of the station's power, were slated to be taken off line in 2012.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-36" title="">[37]</a>

<h3>Duke Fined for Violating the Clean Air Act</h3>

On December 22, 2009, the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=EPA" class="mw-redirect" title="EPA">EPA</a> announced the agency had reached a settlement with Duke Energy for <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=New_Source_Review" title="New Source Review">New Source Review</a> (NSR) violations of the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clean_Air_Act" title="Clean Air Act">Clean Air Act</a> at Duke’s <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Gallagher_Generating_Station" title="Gallagher Generating Station">Gallagher Generating Station</a>. A jury had found Duke liable for NSR violations at the plant, and the settlement obviated the need for a remedy trial, which had been scheduled for early 2010.

The settlement requires Duke Energy to repower Units 1 and 3 at Gallagher with natural gas or shut them down, and to install <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Scrubbers" title="Scrubbers">scrubbers</a> at Units 2 and 4, reducing <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Sulfur_dioxide_and_coal" title="Sulfur dioxide and coal">sulfur dioxide</a> emissions 86 percent when compared to 2008 emissions. Duke will also pay a $1.75 million penalty and spend $6.25 million on various environmental mitigation projects.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-37" title="">[38]</a>

<h3>Killing trees for power lines</h3>

In August 2010, Duke Energy hired a contractor to spray herbicide to protect its power lines along the the Shopton Road intersection out of Charlotte on N.C. 49, leading to stunted, dead pine trees. Duke Energy spokesman Jason Walls said the company performs regular maintenance on all of its rights of way to ensure quality electrical service. Routine maintenance includes trimming back tree limbs and treating trees and vegetation with herbicides, he said. Walls said the methods used for controlling tree growth in the right of way depend on the area the company is working in and the denseness of vegetation. The company used herbicides on the N.C. 49 pines: "Those trees have been maintained as part of our vegetation maintenance - this is part of routine maintenance," he said.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-38" title="">[39]</a>

<h2>Duke's nuclear empire</h2>

Duke Energy operates seven nuclear power stations. Three of these are at the Oconee Nuclear Station in Oconee County, South Carolina and two each at Catawba Nuclear Station in York County, South Carolina and McGuire Nuclear Station in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-39" title="">[40]</a>

The company is a member of the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=NuStart_Consortium" class="mw-redirect" title="NuStart Consortium">NuStart Consortium</a>, which aims to obtain one of the new ‘streamlined’ combined Construction and Operating License (COL) for two selected reactor technologies.

Duke Energy is also a member of the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Nuclear_Energy_Institute" title="Nuclear Energy Institute">Nuclear Energy Institute</a> and the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=World_Nuclear_Association" title="World Nuclear Association">World Nuclear Association</a>.

<h3>MOX Enthusiasts</h3>

In March 1999, a consortium of companies led by Duke Engineering & Services (a former business unit of Duke Energy), COGEMA and Stone & Webster (DCS) entered into a contract with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to fabricate mixed oxide (MOX) fuel using plutonium from surplus weapons and then to use that fuel in commercial nuclear power plants. The consortium will design, construct and operate a MOX fuel fabrication facility at the DOE Savannah River Site. Duke Energy will use the fuel at McGuire and Catawba nuclear stations beginning around 2011 or later. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-40" title="">[41]</a>

Duke Engineering & Services was sold to Framatome ANP, in January 2002. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-41" title="">[42]</a> However, Duke Energy continued with the plan to use MoX in its reactors. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) granted permission for the use of MOX fuel at Catawba Nuclear Station, after a two-year review process, in March 2005. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-42" title="">[43]</a>

In September 2004, 140 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium oxide (powder) were shipped via Charleston, South Carolina, to France for fabrication into MOX, where it was met by a storm of protest. The plutonium arrived back, as MOX, at Charleston on April 12, 2005, after an 4000 mile round trip. The French state company <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Areva" title="Areva">Areva</a> fabricated the plutonium into MOX. Greenpeace said the shipment flies in the face of global efforts to curb the nuclear threat. The testing was a prelude to the start up of a large-scale plutonium fuel program in the United States.

<h3>New Reactors</h3>

Duke Power has selected a site in Cherokee County, (South Carolina) – jointly owned with the Southern Company - for a potential new nuclear power plant. The Company will develop an application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a combined construction and operating license (COL) for two Westinghouse AP1000 (advanced passive) reactors.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-43" title="">[44]</a> The COL application submittal to the NRC is anticipated in the late 2007 or early 2008 time frame. Submitting the COL application does not commit either company to build new nuclear units. The companies will decide whether to proceed with plant construction at a later date. The US Public Interest Group, Public Citizen, said “Duke is angling to receive billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies to defray the costs of applying for a license as well as operating the plants; it should not be given a government handout for the application … Nor should the government issue a license. Not only does nuclear power pose a threat to public health and safety, but Duke Energy has a track record that indicates it has been dishonest with consumers”. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-44" title="">[45]</a>

In addition to selecting the Cherokee County location for a COL application, Duke Power is considering the preparation of early site permit (ESP) applications for locations in Oconee County, S.C., and Davie County, N.C. Early site permits enable companies to complete environmental and site suitability reviews, and obtain approval from the NRC for potential nuclear plant sites in advance of requesting a license to build and operate a plant. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-45" title="">[46]</a>

<h2>Lobbyists</h2>

Duke Energy lobbyists include the firm <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dutko_Worldwide" title="Dutko Worldwide">Dutko Worldwide</a>. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-46" title="">[47]</a> Other consultants and lobbying firms working for Duke Energy include <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Alpine_Group" title="Alpine Group">Alpine Group</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=BG-4&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="BG-4 (page does not exist)">BG-4</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dow_Lohnes&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Dow Lohnes (page does not exist)">Dow Lohnes</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hunton%26_Williams" title="Hunton & Williams">Hunton & Williams</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mary_Kenkel" title="Mary Kenkel">Mary Kenkel</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lighthouse_Consulting_Group&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Lighthouse Consulting Group (page does not exist)">Lighthouse Consulting Group</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=LTD_Group" title="LTD Group">LTD Group</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Daryl_Owen_Associates" title="Daryl Owen Associates">Daryl Owen Associates</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Valis%26_Keelen&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Valis & Keelen (page does not exist)">Valis & Keelen</a>, and <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Van_Ness_Feldman" title="Van Ness Feldman">Van Ness Feldman</a>, according to the Lobbyists.info online database. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-47" title="">[48]</a>

Duke Energy spent $5,090,598 on in-house lobbying costs in 2008 and a further $1,282,770 to date in 2009.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-Duke_Energy-48" title="">[49]</a> The registered lobbyists were <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Beverly_K._Marshall" title="Beverly K. Marshall">Beverly K. Marshall</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_Haysbert" title="John Haysbert">John Haysbert</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Toby_Short" title="Toby Short">Toby Short</a> and <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Brian_Vanderbloemen" title="Brian Vanderbloemen">Brian Vanderbloemen</a>.

Duke Energy also spent $240,000 on <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dutko_Worldwide" title="Dutko Worldwide">Dutko Worldwide</a>, LLC in 2008 and a further $50,000 to date in 2009.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-Duke_Energy-48" title="">[49]</a> The registered lobbyists for the first two quarters of 2008 were <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tracy_Hammond" title="Tracy Hammond">Tracy Hammond</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Andrew_Wright" class="mw-redirect" title="Andrew Wright">Andrew Wright</a> and <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Liz_Burdock" title="Liz Burdock">Liz Burdock</a>. The registered lobbyists for the latter half of 2008 and the first quarter of 2009 were Hammond and Wright.

Duke Energy also spent $134,000 on <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Alliance_One" title="Alliance One">Alliance One</a> in 2008.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-Duke_Energy-48" title="">[49]</a> The registered lobbyist was <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mary_Kenkel" title="Mary Kenkel">Mary Kenkel</a>.

Duke Energy also spent $240,000 on the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Alpine_Group" title="Alpine Group">Alpine Group</a> in 2008 and a further $60,000 to date in 2009.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-Duke_Energy-48" title="">[49]</a> The registered lobbyists were <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_Massie" title="James Massie">James Massie</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Rhod_Shaw" title="Rhod Shaw">Rhod Shaw</a> and <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jason_Schendle" title="Jason Schendle">Jason Schendle</a>.

Duke Energy also spent $25,000 on <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Walker_Nolan" title="Walker Nolan">Walker Nolan</a> in 2008 and a further $15,000 to date in 2009.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-Duke_Energy-48" title="">[49]</a> The registered lobbyist was <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Walker_Nolan" title="Walker Nolan">Walker Nolan</a>.

Duke Energy also spent $110,000 on The Accord Group in 2008 and a further $30,000 to date in 2009. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-Duke_Energy-48" title="">[49]</a> The registered lobbyist was Patrick Quinn.

Duke Energy also spent $118,000 on <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bracewell%26_Giuliani" title="Bracewell & Giuliani">Bracewell & Giuliani</a> in 2008 and a further $50,000 to date in 2009.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-Duke_Energy-48" title="">[49]</a> The registered lobbyists were <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Scott_H.Segal" title="Scott H. Segal">Scott H. Segal</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=E._Dee_Martin" title="E. Dee Martin">E. Dee Martin</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Edward_Krenik" title="Edward Krenik">Edward Krenik</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jeffrey_Holmstead" title="Jeffrey Holmstead">Jeffrey Holmstead</a> and <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Joshua_Zive" title="Joshua Zive">Joshua Zive</a>.

Duke Energy also spent $90,000 on the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=LTD_Group" title="LTD Group">LTD Group</a> in 2008 and a further $30,000 to date in 2009. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-Duke_Energy-48" title="">[49]</a> The registered lobbyist was <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Michael_Haywood" title="Michael Haywood">Michael Haywood</a>.

Duke Energy also spent $100,000 on <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Daryl_Owen_Associates" title="Daryl Owen Associates">Daryl Owen Associates</a> in 2008. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_note-Duke_Energy-48" title="">[49]</a> The registered lobbyist was <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Daryl_Owen" title="Daryl Owen">Daryl Owen</a>.

Total Lobbying expenditures for 2008: $6,147,598

Total Lobbying expenditures to date for 2009: $1,517,770

<h2>Personnel</h2>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_E._Rogers" class="mw-redirect" title="James E. Rogers">James E. Rogers</a>, President and Chief Executive Officer</li>

</ul>

<h2>Related SourceWatch articles</h2>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clean_coal-quotable_quotes" title="Clean coal - quotable quotes">Clean coal - quotable quotes</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_Action_Partnership" title="Climate Action Partnership">Climate Action Partnership</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Climate_Coalition" title="Global Climate Coalition">Global Climate Coalition</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=North_Carolina_and_coal" title="North Carolina and coal">North Carolina and coal</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Nuclear_Boosters" title="Nuclear Boosters">Nuclear Boosters</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Nuclear_Energy_Institute" title="Nuclear Energy Institute">Nuclear Energy Institute</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Paul_Anderson" title="Paul Anderson">Paul Anderson</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_warming" title="Global warming">Global warming</a></li>

</ul>

<h2>Contact details</h2>

Web: <a href="http://www.duke-energy.com/" class="external free" title="http://www.duke-energy.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.duke-energy.com/</a>

<h2>External links</h2>

<h3>References</h3>

<li id="cite_note-businessweek-0">↑ <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-businessweek_0-0" title="">1.0</a> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-businessweek_0-1" title="">1.1</a> <a href="http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials/financials.asp?symbol=DUK" class="external text" title="http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials/financials.asp?symbol=DUK" rel="nofollow">Duke Energy Corp.</a>, BusinessWeek Company Insight Center, accessed July 2008.</li>

<li id="cite_note-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-1" title="">↑</a> <a href="http://www.duke-energy.com/pdfs/Oct_fact_sheet_rev.pdf" class="external free" title="http://www.duke-energy.com/pdfs/Oct_fact_sheet_rev.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.duke-energy.com/pdfs/Oct_fact_sheet_rev.pdf</a></li>

<li id="cite_note-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-2" title="">↑</a> <a href="http://www.de-gs.com/degs-overview.asp" class="external text" title="http://www.de-gs.com/degs-overview.asp" rel="nofollow">Overview - Duke Energy</a>, Duke website.</li>

<li id="cite_note-3"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-3" title="">↑</a> Duke Energy News <a href="http://www.duke-energy.com/news/releases/2006/apr/2006040301.asp" class="external text" title="http://www.duke-energy.com/news/releases/2006/apr/2006040301.asp" rel="nofollow">"Duke Energy, Cinergy Complete Merger"</a>, Duke Energy Website, August 2009</li>

<li id="cite_note-4"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-4" title="">↑</a> <a href="http://www.indystar.com/article/20100922/BUSINESS/9220385/Indiana-regulator-s-move-to-Duke-Energy-criticized?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CIndyStar.com" class="external text" title="http://www.indystar.com/article/20100922/BUSINESS/9220385/Indiana-regulator-s-move-to-Duke-Energy-criticized?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CIndyStar.com" rel="nofollow">"Consumer group criticizes Indiana regulator's move to Duke Energy"</a> Indystar.com, Sep. 22, 2010.</li>

<li id="cite_note-5"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-5" title="">↑</a> <a href="http://www.duke-energy.com/news/releases/2010041601.asp" class="external text" title="http://www.duke-energy.com/news/releases/2010041601.asp" rel="nofollow">"Duke Energy Indiana Files Cost Update for Clean Coal Gasification Power Plant"</a> Duke Energy, April 16, 2010.</li>

<li id="cite_note-6"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-6" title="">↑</a> <a href="http://www.in.gov/ig/2340.htm" class="external text" title="http://www.in.gov/ig/2340.htm" rel="nofollow">"Post-Employment Restrictions"</a> Indiana.gov, accessed September 2010.</li>

<li id="cite_note-7"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-7" title="">↑</a> "Duke Energy’s recent hirings raise ethics questions," Citizens Action Coalition News Release, Sep. 21, 2010.</li>

<li id="cite_note-co-8">↑ <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-co_8-0" title="">9.0</a> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-co_8-1" title="">9.1</a> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-co_8-2" title="">9.2</a> Chris O'Malley, <a href="http://www.ibj.com/duke-energy-puts-ceo-on-leave-after-state-probe/PARAMS/article/22676" class="external text" title="http://www.ibj.com/duke-energy-puts-ceo-on-leave-after-state-probe/PARAMS/article/22676" rel="nofollow">"Duke Energy puts local CEO on leave amid state probe"</a> Indiana Business Journal, Oct. 5, 2010.</li>

<li id="cite_note-9"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-9" title="">↑</a> <a href="http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/12/lead_07ceos_James-E-Rogers_LS2L.html" class="external text" title="http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/12/lead_07ceos_James-E-Rogers_LS2L.html" rel="nofollow">CEO Compensation: #174 James E Rogers,</a> Forbes.com, May 3, 2007.</li>

<li id="cite_note-10"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-10" title="">↑</a> Gerard Wynn, <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE54P1LG20090526" class="external text" title="http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE54P1LG20090526" rel="nofollow">"Duke Energy building "last two" coal plants: CEO,"</a> Reuters, May 26, 2009.</li>

<li id="cite_note-11"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-11" title="">↑</a> Llewellyn Wells, <a href="http://www.rmi.org/Content/Files/DukeEnergy_SJ_Fall09.pdf" class="external text" title="http://www.rmi.org/Content/Files/DukeEnergy_SJ_Fall09.pdf" rel="nofollow">"Unlikely Partners: RMI and Duke Work Together to Create a New Energy Future"</a>, Solutions Journal, Fall 2009, pages 20-21. (Llewellyn Wells is RMI’s Vice President of Outreach).</li>

<li id="cite_note-12"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-12" title="">↑</a> Robert Annis, <a href="http://www.indystar.com/article/20090908/BUSINESS/909080316/Duke+pulls+out+of+clean-coal+industry+group" class="external text" title="http://www.indystar.com/article/20090908/BUSINESS/909080316/Duke+pulls+out+of+clean-coal+industry+group" rel="nofollow">"Coal group's opposition to climate-change bill sparks Duke's departure,"</a> Indianapolis Star, September 8, 2009.</li>

<li id="cite_note-13"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-13" title="">↑</a> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/09/09/09greenwire-another-company-leaves-mixed-messaging-coal-al-88273.html" class="external text" title="http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/09/09/09greenwire-another-company-leaves-mixed-messaging-coal-al-88273.html" rel="nofollow">"Another Company Leaves 'Mixed Messaging' Coal Alliance,"</a> Greenwire, September 9, 2009.</li>

<li id="cite_note-jdmsn-14">↑ <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-jdmsn_14-0" title="">15.0</a> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-jdmsn_14-1" title="">15.1</a> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-jdmsn_14-2" title="">15.2</a> John Downey, <a href="http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?feed=ACBJ&date=20100414&id=11411307" class="external text" title="http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?feed=ACBJ&date=20100414&id=11411307" rel="nofollow">"Duke Energy says 900 employees will take buyouts",</a> "MSN Money", April 14, 2010.</li>

<li id="cite_note-15"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-15" title="">↑</a> Laura Baverman, [<a href="http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2007/03/19/story6.html" class="external free" title="http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2007/03/19/story6.html" rel="nofollow">http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2007/03/19/story6.html</a> "Business Courier", March 16, 2007.</li>

<li id="cite_note-dgear-16"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-dgear_16-0" title="">↑</a> Dan Gearino, <a href="http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/business/stories/2010/04/15/aep-to-cut-up-to-10-of-workers.html?sid=101" class="external text" title="http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/business/stories/2010/04/15/aep-to-cut-up-to-10-of-workers.html?sid=101" rel="nofollow">"AEP to cut up to 10% of workers",</a> "Columbus Dispatch", April 15, 2010.</li>

<li id="cite_note-EIA-17">↑ <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-EIA_17-0" title="">18.0</a> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-EIA_17-1" title="">18.1</a> <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat2p2.html" class="external text" title="http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat2p2.html" rel="nofollow">Existing Electric Generating Units in the United States, 2005</a>, Energy Information Administration, accessed April 2008.</li>

<li id="cite_note-18"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-18" title="">↑</a> <a href="http://charlotte.bizjournals.com/charlotte/stories/2008/11/10/story2.html?b=1226293200%5E1728972" class="external text" title="http://charlotte.bizjournals.com/charlotte/stories/2008/11/10/story2.html?b=1226293200^1728972" rel="nofollow">"Duke Energy taking steps to deal with slowing power needs,"</a> Charlotte Business Journal, November 7, 2008.</li>

<li id="cite_note-DirtyKilowatts-19">↑ <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-DirtyKilowatts_19-0" title="">20.0</a> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-DirtyKilowatts_19-1" title="">20.1</a> Environmental Integrity Project, <a href="http://www.dirtykilowatts.org/Dirty_Kilowatts2007.pdf" class="external text" title="http://www.dirtykilowatts.org/Dirty_Kilowatts2007.pdf" rel="nofollow">Dirty Kilowatts: America’s Most Polluting Power Plants</a>, July 2007.</li>

<li id="cite_note-20"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-20" title="">↑</a> <a href="http://carma.org/dig" class="external text" title="http://carma.org/dig" rel="nofollow">Dig Deeper</a>, Carbon Monitoring for Action database, accessed June 2008.</li>

<li id="cite_note-21"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-21" title="">↑</a> Jacqui Patterson, <a href="http://climatejusticeinitiative.wordpress.com/" class="external text" title="http://climatejusticeinitiative.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow">"Day VIII Clearing the Air Road Tour—Hammond, IN—State Line Plant"</a> NAACP Climate Justice Initiative, April 21, 2010.</li>

<li id="cite_note-22"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-22" title="">↑</a> <a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/stories/2009/07/06/daily12.html" class="external text" title="http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/stories/2009/07/06/daily12.html" rel="nofollow">"Duke Energy files plans for carbon-storage study,"</a> Charlotte Business Journal, July 7, 2009.</li>

<li id="cite_note-23"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-23" title="">↑</a> <a href="http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=11CF600A280DB150&p_docnum=6&s_dlid=DL0108012622505321732&s_ecproduct=SUB-FREE&s_ecprodtype=INSTANT&s_subterm=Subscription%20until%3A%2012%2F14%2F2015%2011%3A59%20PM&s_subexpires=12%2F14%2F2015%2011%3A59%20PM&s_username=FreeAccess&s_accountid=AC0107030117170502657&s_upgradeable=no" class="external text" title="http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=11CF600A280DB150&p_docnum=6&s_dlid=DL0108012622505321732&s_ecproduct=SUB-FREE&s_ecprodtype=INSTANT&s_subterm=Subscription%20until%3A%2012%2F14%2F2015%2011%3A59%20PM&s_subexpires=12%2F14%2F2015%2011%3A59%20PM&s_username=FreeAccess&s_accountid=AC0107030117170502657&s_upgradeable=no" rel="nofollow">Students Chain Selves to Duke</a>, Raleigh News & Observer, November 16, 2007.</li>

<li id="cite_note-24"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-24" title="">↑</a> <a href="http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/11/15/breaking-news-direct-action-at-duke-energy-over-proposed-coal-expansion/" class="external text" title="http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/11/15/breaking-news-direct-action-at-duke-energy-over-proposed-coal-expansion/" rel="nofollow">Direct Action at Duke Energy Over Proposed Coal Expansion</a>, It's Getting Hot In Here blog, November 15, 2007.</li>

<li id="cite_note-25"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-25" title="">↑</a> <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN0128806320080401" class="external text" title="http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN0128806320080401" rel="nofollow">"Eight Climate Protesters Arrested at U.S. Coal Plant"</a>, Reuters, April 1, 2008.</li>

<li id="cite_note-26"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-26" title="">↑</a> <a href="http://www.fossilfoolsdayofaction.org/2008/04/01/8-arrested-as-north-carolina-residents-shut-down-construction-at-cliffside-coal-plant/#more-64" class="external text" title="http://www.fossilfoolsdayofaction.org/2008/04/01/8-arrested-as-north-carolina-residents-shut-down-construction-at-cliffside-coal-plant/#more-64" rel="nofollow">"Eight Arrested as North Carolina Residents Shut Down Construction at Cliffside Coal Plant"</a>, Fossil Fools Day blog, April 1, 2008.</li>

<li id="cite_note-27"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-27" title="">↑</a> <a href="http://www.powerpastcoal.org/article.php?id=152" class="external text" title="http://www.powerpastcoal.org/article.php?id=152" rel="nofollow">"Hundreds March and 44 Arrested to Stop Cliffside Power Plant,"</a> Power Past Coal, April 21, 2009.</li>

<li id="cite_note-28"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-28" title="">↑</a> <a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/2009/05/04/daily67.html" class="external text" title="http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/2009/05/04/daily67.html" rel="nofollow">"Coal debate highlights Duke meeting,"</a> Triangle Business Journal, May 8, 2009.</li>

<li id="cite_note-29"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-29" title="">↑</a> <a href="http://www.risingtidenorthamerica.org/wordpress/2009/11/30/citizens-block-shipment-fo-generator-to-cliffside-coal-plan/" class="external text" title="http://www.risingtidenorthamerica.org/wordpress/2009/11/30/citizens-block-shipment-fo-generator-to-cliffside-coal-plan/" rel="nofollow">"Citizens Block Shipment fo Generator to Cliffside Coal Plant,"</a> Rising Tide North America, November 30, 2009.</li>

<li id="cite_note-30"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-30" title="">↑</a> Shaila Dewan, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/science/earth/01ash.html?ref=us" class="external text" title="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/science/earth/01ash.html?ref=us" rel="nofollow">"E.P.A. Lists ‘High Hazard’ Coal Ash Dumps,"</a> New York Times, June 30, 2009.</li>

<li id="cite_note-31"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-31" title="">↑</a> <a href="http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccrs-fs/index.htm" class="external text" title="http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccrs-fs/index.htm" rel="nofollow">Fact Sheet: Coal Combustion Residues (CCR) - Surface Impoundments with High Hazard Potential Ratings,</a> Environmental Protection Agency, June 2009.</li>

<li id="cite_note-32"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-32" title="">↑</a> Sue Sturgis, <a href="http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/10/all-north-carolina-coal-ash-ponds-are-leaking-toxic-pollution-to-groundwater.html" class="external text" title="http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/10/all-north-carolina-coal-ash-ponds-are-leaking-toxic-pollution-to-groundwater.html" rel="nofollow">"All North Carolina coal ash ponds are leaking toxic pollution to groundwater,"</a> Institute for Southern Studies, October 7, 2009.</li>

<li id="cite_note-33"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-33" title="">↑</a> <a href="http://charlotte.bizjournals.com/charlotte/stories/2009/03/16/story7.html?b=1237176000%5E1793362" class="external text" title="http://charlotte.bizjournals.com/charlotte/stories/2009/03/16/story7.html?b=1237176000^1793362" rel="nofollow">"Bills may rise as Duke pays more for coal,"</a> Charlotte Business Journal, March 13, 2009.</li>

<li id="cite_note-34"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-34" title="">↑</a> Bruce Henderson, <a href="http://www.charlotteobserver.com/local/story/937957.html" class="external text" title="http://www.charlotteobserver.com/local/story/937957.html" rel="nofollow">"Speakers oppose rate hike, coal-fired plant,"</a> Charlotte Observer, September 10, 2009.</li>

<li id="cite_note-35"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-35" title="">↑</a> <a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june07/scotus_04-02.html" class="external text" title="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june07/scotus_04-02.html" rel="nofollow">Supreme Court Says EPA Can Regulate Greenhouse Gases</a></li>

<li id="cite_note-36"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-36" title="">↑</a> Andrew M. Harris, <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=awcG5uWwJwOA&refer=us" class="external text" title="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=awcG5uWwJwOA&refer=us" rel="nofollow">"Duke Energy Ordered to Shut Indiana Coal-Fired Units,"</a> Bloomberg, May 29, 2009.</li>

<li id="cite_note-37"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-37" title="">↑</a> <a href="http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/2520F12F7372FE1D85257694005AB7A7" class="external text" title="http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/2520F12F7372FE1D85257694005AB7A7" rel="nofollow">"Duke Energy to Spend $93 Million to Resolve Clean Air Act Violations"</a> EPA Press Release, December 22, 2009.</li>

<li id="cite_note-38"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-38" title="">↑</a> Katie Oliver, <a href="http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/08/12/1616463/nc-49-pines-dead-under-power-lines.html#ixzz0wp8Vq6qP" class="external text" title="http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/08/12/1616463/nc-49-pines-dead-under-power-lines.html#ixzz0wp8Vq6qP" rel="nofollow">"N.C. 49 pines dead under power lines"</a> charlotteobserver.com, August 12, 2010.</li>

<li id="cite_note-39"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-39" title="">↑</a> <a href="http://www.duke-energy.com/" class="external text" title="http://www.duke-energy.com/" rel="nofollow">Duke Energy</a>, website, accessed December 2006.</li>

<li id="cite_note-40"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-40" title="">↑</a> Duke Power, <a href="http://www.duke-energy.com/about/plants/franchised/nuclear/mox_facts.pdf" class="external text" title="http://www.duke-energy.com/about/plants/franchised/nuclear/mox_facts.pdf" rel="nofollow">Mixed Oxide Fuel Program</a> undated.</li>

<li id="cite_note-41"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-41" title="">↑</a> Duke Energy <a href="http://www.duke-energy.com/news/releases/2002/Jan/2002023101.html" class="external text" title="http://www.duke-energy.com/news/releases/2002/Jan/2002023101.html" rel="nofollow">Duke Energy Announces Sale of Duke Enginering & Services Unit to Further Align Focus on Wholesale Energy Markets</a>. Press Release, January 31, 2002.</li>

<li id="cite_note-42"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-42" title="">↑</a> Duke Power <a href="http://www.duke-energy.com/news/releases/2005/Mar/2005030301.asp" class="external text" title="http://www.duke-energy.com/news/releases/2005/Mar/2005030301.asp" rel="nofollow">Duke Power Granted Licence Amendment by Nuclear Regulatory Commission to use MOX Fuel</a> Press Release, March 3, 2005.</li>

<li id="cite_note-43"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-43" title="">↑</a> Duke Power, <a href="http://www.duke-energy.com/news/releases/2006/Mar/2006031601.asp" class="external text" title="http://www.duke-energy.com/news/releases/2006/Mar/2006031601.asp" rel="nofollow">Duke Power selects Cherokee County site for Nuclear Application</a>, Press Release, March 16, 2006.</li>

<li id="cite_note-44"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-44" title="">↑</a> Public Citizen, <a href="http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=2155" class="external text" title="http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=2155" rel="nofollow">Duke Energy Should Be Denied Taxpayer Subsidies to Build New Nuclear Reactors; Better Alternatives Exist</a>, Press Release March 17, 2006.</li>

<li id="cite_note-45"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-45" title="">↑</a> <a href="http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/newnukes/cherokee/index.cfm" class="external text" title="http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/newnukes/cherokee/index.cfm" rel="nofollow">Public Citizen website, accessed December 2006</a> page on Cherokee County South Carolina.</li>

<li id="cite_note-46"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-46" title="">↑</a> Carrie Levine, "<a href="http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2007/12/fuel-fight.html" class="external text" title="http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2007/12/fuel-fight.html" rel="nofollow">Fuel Fight</a>," The blog of Legal Times, December 7, 2007.</li>

<li id="cite_note-47"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-47" title="">↑</a> "<a href="http://www.lobbyists.info/detail.cfm?organization_id=1544&page=1&RequestTimeout=1500" class="external text" title="http://www.lobbyists.info/detail.cfm?organization_id=1544&page=1&RequestTimeout=1500" rel="nofollow">Duke Energy</a>," Lobbyists.info (sub req'd), accessed December 2007.</li>

<li id="cite_note-Duke_Energy-48">↑ <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-Duke_Energy_48-0" title="">49.0</a> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-Duke_Energy_48-1" title="">49.1</a> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-Duke_Energy_48-2" title="">49.2</a> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-Duke_Energy_48-3" title="">49.3</a> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-Duke_Energy_48-4" title="">49.4</a> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-Duke_Energy_48-5" title="">49.5</a> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-Duke_Energy_48-6" title="">49.6</a> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-Duke_Energy_48-7" title="">49.7</a> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy#cite_ref-Duke_Energy_48-8" title="">49.8</a> <a href="http://projects.publicintegrity.org/climatelobby/Results.aspx?ClientName=Duke%20Energy&LobbyingFirm=&Expense=-1&LobbyistName=&Quarter=&BizCategory=&Results_BizCategory=1&Results_ClientName=1&Results_Expense=1&Results_LobbyingFirm=1&Results_Quarter=1" class="external text" title="http://projects.publicintegrity.org/climatelobby/Results.aspx?ClientName=Duke%20Energy&LobbyingFirm=&Expense=-1&LobbyistName=&Quarter=&BizCategory=&Results_BizCategory=1&Results_ClientName=1&Results_Expense=1&Results_LobbyingFirm=1&Results_Quarter=1" rel="nofollow">"Duke Energy"</a>, Center for Public Integrity, accessed July 2009.</li>

</ol>

<h3>Articles</h3>

<ul>

<li>David R. Baker And Zachary Coile, "<a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/23/CEOCLIMATE.TMP" class="external text" title="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/23/CEOCLIMATE.TMP" rel="nofollow">Lobbying effort signals corporate climate change: Business leaders urge reduction of greenhouse gases</a>," San Francisco Chronicle, January 23, 2007.</li>

</ul>

<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Wikipedia" title="Wikipedia">Wikipedia</a> also has an article on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Energy" class="external text" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Energy" rel="nofollow">Duke Energy</a>. This article may use content from the Wikipedia article under the terms of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFDL" class="external text" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFDL" rel="nofollow">GFDL</a>.

</div>

---

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Energy">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Energy</a>

...

<h2>New nuclear power plant</h2>

<div class="rellink relarticle mainarticle">Main article: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_States_Lee_III_Nuclear_Generating_Station" title="William States Lee III Nuclear Generating Station">William States Lee III Nuclear Generating Station</a></div>

On March 16, 2006 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Power" class="mw-redirect" title="Duke Power">Duke Power</a> announced that a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_County,_South_Carolina" title="Cherokee County, South Carolina">Cherokee County, SC</a> site had been selected for a potential new <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_plant" class="mw-redirect" title="Nuclear power plant">nuclear power plant</a>. The site is jointly owned by Duke Power and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Company" title="Southern Company">Southern Company</a>. Duke plans to develop the site for two <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westinghouse_Electric_Company" title="Westinghouse Electric Company">Westinghouse Electric Company</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000" title="AP1000">AP1000</a> (advanced passive) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressurized_water_reactor" title="Pressurized water reactor">pressurized water reactors</a>. Each reactor is capable of producing approximately 1,117 megawatts. (See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Power_2010_Program" title="Nuclear Power 2010 Program">Nuclear Power 2010 Program</a>.)

On December 14, 2007, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Power" class="mw-redirect" title="Duke Power">Duke Power</a> submitted a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Construction_and_Operating_License" title="Combined Construction and Operating License">Combined Construction and Operating License</a> to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Regulatory_Commission" title="Nuclear Regulatory Commission">Nuclear Regulatory Commission</a>, with an announcement that it will spend $160 million in 2008 on the plant with a total cost of 5-6 billion dollars.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Energy#cite_note-7">[8]</a>

This site will be adjacent to the old site which was never completed and abandoned in the early '80s, and used by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Cameron" title="James Cameron">James Cameron</a> as a film set for the 1989 movie <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Abyss" title="The Abyss">The Abyss</a>.

<h2>[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Duke_Energy&action=edit&section=4" title="Edit section: Environmental record">edit</a>] Environmental record</h2>

In 1999 the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States" title="United States">United States</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency" title="United States Environmental Protection Agency">Environmental Protection Agency</a> commenced an enforcement action against Duke Energy for failure to comply with the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act" title="Clean Air Act">Clean Air Act</a>. Duke asserted that EPA regulations under the law were arbitrarily changed over the course of 25 years. Environmental groups assert that Duke is using loopholes in the law to increase emissions. Initially, Duke prevailed at the trial court level, but in 2006 the case was argued before the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States" title="Supreme Court of the United States">Supreme Court</a> (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Defense" class="mw-redirect" title="Environmental Defense">Environmental Defense</a> v. Duke Energy Corp. (05-848)). The Court unanimously ruled on April 2, 2007 against Duke Energy in favor of the environmental groups.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Energy#cite_note-8">[9]</a>

In 2002, researchers at the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Massachusetts_Amherst" title="University of Massachusetts Amherst">University of Massachusetts Amherst</a> identified Duke Energy as the 46th-largest corporate producer of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution" title="Air pollution">air pollution</a> in the United States, with roughly 36 million pounds of toxic chemicals released annually into the air.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Energy#cite_note-9">[10]</a> Major pollutants included <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfuric_acid" title="Sulfuric acid">sulfuric</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrochloric_acid" title="Hydrochloric acid">hydrochloric acid</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium" title="Chromium">chromium</a> compounds, and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fluoride" title="Hydrogen fluoride">hydrogen fluoride</a>.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Energy#cite_note-10">[11]</a> The Political Economy Research Institute ranks Duke Energy 13th among corporations emitting airborne pollutants in the United States. The ranking is based on the quantity (80 million pounds in 2005) and toxicity of the emissions.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Energy#cite_note-11">[12]</a> This change reflects the purchase of fossil fuel-heavy Cinergy which occurred in 2005.

</td><td class="mbox-text">This article needs additional <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Inline_citations" title="Wikipedia:Citing sources">citations</a> for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability" title="Wikipedia:Verifiability">verification</a>.

Please help <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Duke_Energy&action=edit" class="external text" rel="nofollow">improve this article</a> by adding <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources" title="Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources">reliable references</a>. Unsourced material may be <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Citation_needed" title="Template:Citation needed">challenged</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence" title="Wikipedia:Verifiability">removed</a>. (June 2008)</td></tr></tbody></table>

In early 2008, Duke Energy announced a plan to build the new, 800-megawatt Cliffside Unit 6 coal plant 55 miles (89 km) west of Charlotte, North Carolina. The plan has been strongly opposed by environmental groups such as Rising Tide North America, Rainforest Action Network, the community-based Canary Coalition as well as the Southern Environmental Law Center, which has threatened to sue Duke if it does not halt construction plans. On April 1, activists locked themselves to machinery at the Cliffside construction area as part of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_Fools_Day" title="Fossil Fools Day">Fossil Fools Day</a>.

Duke Energy has expressed support for a "cap-and-trade" system to combat global CO2 emissions,<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Energy#cite_note-thinkprog-12">[13]</a> and left the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_of_Manufacturers" title="National Association of Manufacturers">National Association of Manufacturers</a> in part over differences on climate policy.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Energy#cite_note-thinkprog-12">[13]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Energy#cite_note-13">[</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Energy#cite_note-13">14]</a>

In February, 2010 Duke Energy became embroiled in a battle with the Cherokee Indians over its attempts to build an electrical substation on the sacred Kituwah ceremonial mounds. The Cherokee Tribal Council passed a resolution stating, "“It is this Tribe’s solemn responsibility and moral duty to care for and protect all of Kituwah from further desecration and degradation by human agency in order to preserve the integrity of the most important site for the origination and continuation of Cherokee culture, heritage, history and identity.” <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Energy#cite_note-14">[15]</a> On March 9, 2010 Duke Energy agreed to a 90 day moratorium on construction of the substation.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Energy#cite_note-15">[16]</a>

In a joint venture with the French based global energy firm AREVA, under the nominal name of ADAGE, Duke Energy has planned a "Green" biomass burning facility in mason County Washington, and is negotiating with forestland owners to secure the 600,000 tons of wood debris it needs yearly to fuel its $250 million biomass plant. The joint venture between electric power company Duke Energy and global nuclear services giant Areva was created to build wood waste-to-energy power plants around the country.

ADAGE president Reed Wills announced the first Northwest outpost will be in the struggling timber town of Shelton, Washington.

The following pollutants are provided by DUKE-AVERA-ADAGE in their application for permit to the Department of Environmental Protection for a similar type of plant in Florida.

247 Tons Per Year – Particulate Matter 239 Tons Per Year – Particulate Matter 10 233 Tons Per Year – Particulate Matter 2.5 249 Tons Per Year – NOx (Nitrogen Oxide) 246 Tons Per Year – SO2 (Sulfur Dioxide) 248 Tons Per Year – CO (Carbon Monoxide) 40 Tons Per Year – H2SO4 – (Sulfuric Acid Mist) 63 Tons Per Year – VOC (Volatile Organic Compounds) 29 Tons Per Year – F (Fluorides)<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Energy#cite_note-16">[17]</a>

<h2>[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Duke_Energy&action=edit&section=5" title="Edit section: Generating facilities">edit</a>] Generating facilities</h2>

<h3>[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Duke_Energy&action=edit&section=6" title="Edit section: " green="green" biomass="" fired="fired">edit</a>] "Green" (Biomass fired)</h3>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shelton_Biomass_Facility_%28proposed%29&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Shelton Biomass Facility (proposed) (page does not exist)">Shelton Biomass Facility (proposed)</a></li>

</ul>

<h3>[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Duke_Energy&action=edit&section=7" title="Edit section: Nuclear">edit</a>] Nuclear</h3>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catawba_Nuclear_Station" title="Catawba Nuclear Station">Catawba Nuclear Station</a></li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGuire_Nuclear_Station" title="McGuire Nuclear Station">McGuire Nuclear Station</a></li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oconee_Nuclear_Station" title="Oconee Nuclear Station">Oconee Nuclear Station</a></li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marble_Hill_Nuclear_Power_Plant" title="Marble Hill Nuclear Power Plant">Marble Hill Nuclear Power Plant</a> - Cancelled</li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_Nuclear_Power_Plant" title="Cherokee Nuclear Power Plant">Cherokee Nuclear Power Plant</a> - Abandoned</li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_States_Lee_III_Nuclear_Generating_Station" title="William States Lee III Nuclear Generating Station">William States Lee III Nuclear Generating Station</a> - Future</li>

</ul>

<h3>[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Duke_Energy&action=edit&section=8" title="Edit section: Coal-fired">edit</a>] Coal-fired</h3>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Steam_Station" class="mw-redirect" title="Allen Steam Station">Allen Steam Station</a></li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belews_Creek_Steam_Station" class="mw-redirect" title="Belews Creek Steam Station">Belews Creek Steam Station</a></li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beckjord_Power_Station" title="Beckjord Power Station">Beckjord Power Station</a></li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_Steam_Station" title="Buck Steam Station">Buck Steam Station</a></li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cayuga_Station&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Cayuga Station (page does not exist)">Cayuga Station</a></li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cliffside_Steam_Station&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Cliffside Steam Station (page does not exist)">Cliffside Steam Station</a></li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_River_Steam_Station" title="Dan River Steam Station">Dan River Steam Station</a></li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=East_Bend_Station&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="East Bend Station (page does not exist)">East Bend Station</a></li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwardsport_IGCC" class="mw-redirect" title="Edwardsport IGCC">Edwardsport Station</a></li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gallagher_Station&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Gallagher Station (page does not exist)">Gallagher Station</a></li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibson_Generating_Station" title="Gibson Generating Station">Gibson Station</a></li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lee_Steam_Station&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Lee Steam Station (page does not exist)">Lee Steam Station</a></li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Steam_Station" title="Marshall Steam Station">Marshall Steam Station</a></li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_Fort_Power_Station" title="Miami Fort Power Station">Miami Fort Power Station</a></li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Riverbend_Steam_Station&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Riverbend Steam Station (page does not exist)">Riverbend Steam Station</a></li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wabash_River_Station&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Wabash River Station (page does not exist)">Wabash River Station</a></li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_H._Zimmer_Power_Station" title="William H. Zimmer Power Station">William H. Zimmer Power Station</a></li>

</ul>

<h3>[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Duke_Energy&action=edit&section=9" title="Edit section: Hydroelectric">edit</a>] Hydroelectric</h3>

<h4>[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Duke_Energy&action=edit&section=10" title="Edit section: Conventional hydro">edit</a>] Conventional hydro</h4>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bridgewater_Hydro_Station&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Bridgewater Hydro Station (page does not exist)">Bridgewater Hydro Station</a></li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowans_Ford_Hydroelectric_Station" title="Cowans Ford Hydroelectric Station">Cowans Ford Hydro Station</a></li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fishing_Creek_Hydro_Station&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Fishing Creek Hydro Station (page does not exist)">Fishing Creek Hydro Station</a></li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Falls_%26_Dearborn_Hydro_Stations&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Great Falls & Dearborn Hydro Stations (page does not exist)">Great Falls & Dearborn Hydro Stations</a></li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keowee_Hydro_Station&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Keowee Hydro Station (page does not exist)">Keowee Hydro Station</a></li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lake_Wylie_Hydro_Station&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Lake Wylie Hydro Station (page does not exist)">Lake Wylie Hydro Station</a></li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lookout_Shoals_Hydro_Station&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Lookout Shoals Hydro Station (page does not exist)">Lookout Shoals Hydro Station</a></li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Markland_Hydro_Station&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Markland Hydro Station (page does not exist)">Markland Hydro Station</a></li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mountain_Island_Hydro_Station&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Mountain Island Hydro Station (page does not exist)">Mountain Island Hydro Station</a></li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oxford_Hydro_Station&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Oxford Hydro Station (page does not exist)">Oxford Hydro Station</a></li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rhodhiss_Hydro_Station&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Rhodhiss Hydro Station (page does not exist)">Rhodhiss Hydro Station</a></li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rocky_Creek_%26_Cedar_Creek_Hydro_Stations&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Rocky Creek & Cedar Creek Hydro Stations (page does not exist)">Rocky Creek & Cedar Creek Hydro Stations</a></li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wateree_Hydro_Station&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Wateree Hydro Station (page does not exist)">Wateree Hydro Station</a></li>

</ul>

<h4>[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Duke_Energy&action=edit&section=11" title="Edit section: Pumped-storage hydro">edit</a>] Pumped-storage hydro</h4>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bad_Creek_Pumped-Storage_Generating_Station&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Bad Creek Pumped-Storage Generating Station (page does not exist)">Bad Creek Pumped-Storage Generating Station</a></li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jocassee_Pumped-Storage_Generating_Station&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Jocassee Pumped-Storage Generating Station (page does not exist)">Jocassee Pumped-Storage Generating Station</a></li>

</ul>

<h3>[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Duke_Energy&action=edit&section=12" title="Edit section: Oil and gas-fired">edit</a>] Oil and gas-fired</h3>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buzzard_Roost_Station&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Buzzard Roost Station (page does not exist)">Buzzard Roost Station</a></li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cayuga_Combustion_Turbine_Station&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Cayuga Combustion Turbine Station (page does not exist)">Cayuga Combustion Turbine Station</a></li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Connersville_Peaking_Station&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Connersville Peaking Station (page does not exist)">Connersville Peaking Station</a></li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_County_Peaking_Station&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Henry County Peaking Station (page does not exist)">Henry County Peaking Station</a></li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lincoln_Combustion_Turbine_Station&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Lincoln Combustion Turbine Station (page does not exist)">Lincoln Combustion Turbine Station</a></li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Madison_Peaking_Station&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Madison Peaking Station (page does not exist)">Madison Peaking Station</a></li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miami-Wabash_Peaking_Station&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Miami-Wabash Peaking Station (page does not exist)">Miami-Wabash Peaking Station</a></li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mill_Creek_Combustion_Turbine_Station&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Mill Creek Combustion Turbine Station (page does not exist)">Mill Creek Combustion Turbine Station</a></li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Noblesville_Station&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Noblesville Station (page does not exist)">Noblesville Station</a></li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rockingham_Station&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Rockingham Station (page does not exist)">Rockingham Station</a></li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wabash_River_Repowering_Station&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Wabash River Repowering Station (page does not exist)">Wabash River Repowering Station</a></li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wheatland_Peaking_Station&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Wheatland Peaking Station (page does not exist)">Wheatland Peaking Station</a></li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woodsdale_Station&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Woodsdale Station (page does not exist)">Woodsdale Station</a></li>

</ul>

<h3>[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Duke_Energy&action=edit&section=13" title="Edit section: Solar Farms">edit</a>] Solar Farms</h3>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davidson_County_Solar_Farm" title="Davidson County Solar Farm">Davidson County Solar Farm</a></li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Atlantic_Power_Outage" class="mw-redirect" title="2005 Atlantic Power Outage">2005 Atlantic Power Outage</a></li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlan_County_USA" class="mw-redirect" title="Harlan County USA">Harlan County USA</a> - 1976 Academy Award winning documentary film covering the efforts of 180 coal miners on strike against the Duke Power Company in Harlan County, Kentucky in 1973.</li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_bill" title="Fixed bill">fixed bill</a></li>

</ul>

=

grist

They like to do things big in Texas, so it's no surprise that the Lone Star state will launch the world's largest wind battery storage project.

Duke Energy is not a Texas company, but it owns the aptly named Notrees wind farm in the Texas panhandle. The North Carolina power giant is teaming up with an Austin area startup called <a href="http://www.xtremepower.com">Xtreme Power</a> to install a 36-megawatt battery at the 153-megawatt Notrees Windpower Project near Kermit, Texas.

That's one big battery. Such technology is likely to become crucial as wind farms become ever larger but erratic suppliers of electricity to the grid. In wind-blown West Texas, the region's massive turbine farms can generate more electricity than the grid can handle at some times while all but ceasing production at other times. That creates headaches for grid operators, and the ability to store wind energy and release it when needed would help smooth out the ebbs and flows of the electricity stream.

"This system will store excess wind energy and discharge it whenever demand for electricity is highest -- not just when wind turbine blades are turning. In addition to increasing the supply of renewable energy during periods of peak demand," Duke said in a statement.

Pacific Northwest grid operators will probably be watching the experiment closely. That region boasts abundant hydropower and huge wind farms, which has <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/11/30/30climatewire-integrating-wind-and-water-power-an-increasi-53545.html?scp=3&sq=Bonneville%20Power&st=cse">created situations</a> when there's a surplus of both wind and water power and insufficient capacity on transmission lines to offload the electricity. Batteries would help, though it probably would take huge banks of them to have a significant impact.

The federal government is obviously interested in the technology. The Department of Energy has thrown in $22 million for the project, with Duke matching the grant with another $22 million.

Duke and Xtreme plan to plug in the battery by late 2012.

===

12/10

<h1 class="article-title" style="margin: 3px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; font-size: 36px; line-height: 36px;">The Duke Energy Scandal</h1>

<div class="mainauthorstyle" style="margin: 9px 0px; padding: 0px; font-size: 12px; letter-spacing: 1px;">by JOHN BLAIR</div>

Duke Energy always rewards it creepy disgraced executives it seems. A couple of days ago James L. Turner resigned in disgrace after the Indianapolis Star revealed emails between him and his buddy, David Lott Hardy, who was the Chairman of the Indiana Utility Regulator Commission.

Those communications may have been illegal as ex parte communications but hey, it is Indiana, where the line between the regulators and the regulated has been ill defined for a long time but especially in the last six years as Mitch Daniels has strategically placed industry leaders in the position of regulating the industries they work for.

In Duke’s case, the practice of giving rewards to those who seemingly do some of the worst damage to their Indiana Customers is almost a tradition dating back at least to the massive compensation and retirement benefits offered to then Public Service Indiana Chair and CEO, Hugh Barker, who oversaw the company’s stock crashing in 1984 when construction of the Marble Hill nuclear plant was forced to stop by the exasperated administration of Governor Robert Orr.

The Marble Hill case closely mirrors what is happening today with the precarious Edwardsport new coal plant being build near Vincennes in Knox County. In both cases, the Company gathered great political and business support for construction low balling projected cost figures that later turned out to be grossly small compared to final costs.

When Marble Hill was first proposed in 1973, the construction costs was estimated at a mere $700 million. By the time we engaged hearing on the matter before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 1977, projected costs had risen to $1.4 billion.

When construction was halted permanently seven years later, PSI had expended more than $2.7 billion and the plant was estimated to be only 20% complete.

</div>

Duke Energy

Attachments