Greenwash+20 - Greenpeace
Greenwash+20 - Greenpeace
Greenwash+20 - Greenpeace
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Shady dealings<br />
The Edwardsport project has also stirred controversy<br />
regarding Duke’s relationship with the Indiana Utility<br />
Duke Energy is currently constructing the Edwardsport<br />
Regulatory Commission. Reports by The Indianapolis Star<br />
coal gasification plant in Knox Country, Indiana. The region<br />
revealed that in early 2010 Duke CEO Jim Rogers and Vice<br />
already has more than four times the amount of required<br />
President James Turner held private meetings with IURC<br />
power capacity, 114 with “one of the highest concentrations<br />
chair David Hardy 120 and Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels 121<br />
of coal-fired generators in the world”.<br />
to warn of some of the new costs associated with the<br />
In 2010, the project director for Edwardsport confidentially construction of Edwardsport.<br />
wrote to Duke complaining of “significant risks” 115 the utility<br />
While Duke Energy argued that the meetings were merely<br />
had taken on through the plant’s construction process. In<br />
a “courtesy heads-up”, other correspondence between<br />
another communication, Duke executive Richard Haviland<br />
Turner and Hardy and between Turner and Rogers<br />
wrote: “We need an exorcist on this job.” 116<br />
raised concerns that Duke may have violated the law by<br />
Originally budgeted for between $1.3bn and 1.6bn, the attempting to influence the course of IURC decisions on<br />
cost for Edwardsport has swelled to almost $3bn. Duke Edwardsport. During the course of email correspondence<br />
Energy was blasted in 2011 by the Indiana Office of Utility Turner offered to host Hardy and his wife on Turner’s<br />
Consumer Counselor as the company attempted to private boat, and even hinted that Hardy could find<br />
push $530m in Edwardsport costs onto customers. An employment at Duke should he rule favorably toward the<br />
OUCC director testified that “Duke has not demonstrated company. According to The Indianapolis Star, Turner also<br />
any budgetary constraints on this project” and that the communicated to Rogers that “he intended to give plenty<br />
“escalating costs have been borne solely by ratepayers, of attention to the Edwardsport plant and try to shift costs<br />
with the benefits going to the [Duke] shareholders”. 117 away from the utility”.<br />
The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) is in Turner resigned from Duke Energy in the wake of The<br />
the midst of deciding “whether Duke committed fraud, Indianapolis Star’s investigation. Governor Daniels fired<br />
concealment or gross mismanagement” regarding the Hardy – although for a matter that was different but also<br />
plant’s massive cost overruns 118 – nearly a billion more involving Duke.<br />
than what was originally approved. Jim Rogers himself<br />
testified before the IURC, saying “Yes, [the plant is] Dirty Coal, Dirty Money<br />
expensive. But it will be the cleanest plant in Indiana.” The Duke Energy political action committee (PAC) spent<br />
Meanwhile, Duke Energy paid a consultancy more than $1.4m during the 2010 federal election cycle alone, and<br />
$3m to testify on the issue. 119 as of November 2011 had already spent $400,000 on<br />
the 2012 election cycle. 122 In addition, Duke Energy has<br />
spent about $24m between 2005 and 2010 on federal<br />
lobbying. 123 If the merger with Progress is successful,<br />
the company will be inheriting even more influence. As of<br />
October 2011, Progress Energy spent $1.4m on lobbyists<br />
for that year – $11m between 2005 and 2010. 124 Like Duke,<br />
Progress hires the lobbying services of the Podesta Group,<br />
as well as lobbyists who are former EPA employees. The<br />
Progress Energy PAC spent more than $200,000 for the<br />
2012 election cycle as of December 2011, having spent<br />
more than half a million during the 2010 cycle. 125<br />
24 <strong>Greenwash+20</strong> How some powerful corporations are standing in the way of sustainable development