The Associated Press

Public hearings for Duke set

Published: Thursday, November 5, 2009 at 11:16 a.m.

The Public Service Commission of South Carolina on Wednesday released a schedule
for three public hearings for Duke Energy Carolinas' rate case.

Duke Energy, which has more than 128,000 customers in Spartanburg, Union and
Cherokee counties, is seeking approval for a 9.3 percent general rate hike to
help pay for new energy generation, distribution and pollution control
technology across its system. It is the company's first rate case in South
Carolina since 1991, when it raised the rate by 3 percent.

PSC will hear testimony from customers at the meetings at 6 p.m. Nov. 19 at
Lakeview Elementary School in Greenwood, Nov. 23 in Greenville County Council
Chambers and Nov. 24 in the Spartanburg County Council Chambers.

The Charlotte Observer

Cliffside air-quality permit up for renewal

Bruce Henderson

Wednesday, Oct. 21, 2009

The state air-quality permit for Duke Energy's Cliffside coal-fired power plant,
including its controversial new addition, is up for renewal.

Five boilers operate at the Rutherford County plant, and an 825-megawatt sixth
unit is scheduled to begin operating in 2012. Four older units will be retired
then.

The air permit regulates the plant's emissions of a wide range of pollutants,
such as those that form ozone and fine particles, and toxic substances. The
permit does not limit carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas, which federal law does
not now regulate.

A draft version of the permit is online at
daq.state.nc.us/cgi-bin/perm_draftrev.cgi. Comments on the permit renewal, and
requests for a public hearing, may be filed by Nov. 18. Write Michael Gordon,
N.C. Division of Air Quality, 1641 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C.
27699-1641, or mike.gordon@....

The Charlotte Observer

Lobbying pays off for Duke

With key climate legislation in play, utility is spending much more to shape
views in Washington.

By Bruce Henderson

Posted: Friday, Oct. 09, 2009

Duke Energy, the third-highest CO2 emitter among U.S. utilities, has much at
stake as Congress crafts legislation to control greenhouse-gas emissions. Duke
credits its lobbying for helping to effect changes in the House version of the
climate-change bill. An earlier version of the bill would have led to large
customer-rate hikes, the utility said. Above left: Duke's coal-fired Marshall
plant in Terrell.

Electric utilities rank third-highest, after the pharmaceuticals and insurance
industries, in lobbying expenses. Above: Duke's Riverbend Steam Station on
Mountain Island Lake.

Duke Energy has spent more than $10 million to lobby Congress since 2008 as
electric utilities ratchet up spending to help shape new laws on climate change
and other issues.

Duke spent $3.5 million in the first half of this year, federal reports show,
nearly tripling what it spent for all of 1999. The $6.6million it spent in 2008
roughly doubled its annual lobbying expenses of the three previous years.

Its chief target: legislation to cap emissions of carbon dioxide, the greenhouse
gas linked to global warming. Duke's fleet of coal-fired power plants makes it
the nation's third-highest CO2 emitter among U.S. utilities.

As introduced, the climate bill before the U.S. House would have forced
utilities like Duke to buy allowances - permission to release the gas - at
auction. Duke has said that would have driven up customer rates by as much as
27percent.

As passed by the House in June, the bill gave Duke most of the credits it will
need for 15 to 20 years for free. The Senate has not yet taken up the bill.

"That was a major achievement," said Duke spokesman Tom Williams. "I would say
that was a major example of our (lobbying) presence paying off for our
customers."

CEO Jim Rogers has been an outspoken advocate of mandatory carbon limits, and
Duke has broken with two industry groups that continue to fight them.

But Clean Air Watch, a Washington-based advocacy group, says the climate bill
shows the power of money in the capital.

Rogers has "played the political winds like a master yachtsman," said group
president Frank O'Donnell. He has accused Rogers of double-speak for touting
carbon controls while expanding a coal-fired plant west of Charlotte that will
add to its emissions.

"Duke is in favor of carbon controls as long as they are the carbon controls
that Duke is comfortable with," O'Donnell said. "No one is going to mistake Duke
for Greenpeace."

Duke was hardly alone in a lobbying frenzy stoked by the climate legislation.
About 1,150 companies and advocacy groups - from biofuel advocates to religious
associations - lobbied Congress in the weeks before the June vote in the House,
says the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit investigative journalism
group.

Electric utilities rank third-highest among industries, behind pharmaceuticals
and insurance, in lobbying expenses over the past decade, reports another
research group, the Center for Responsive Politics. Utilities spent $1.1 billion
in that time, it says.

Atlanta-based Southern Company, with 4.4 million electricity customers in
Georgia, Alabama, Florida and Mississippi, spent nearly $17mil lion on lobbying
in 2008. Raleigh-based Progress Energy, with 3.1 million customers in the
Carolinas and Florida, spent about $2.3 million.

Duke has 4 million customers in the Carolinas, Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio.

In addition to its lobbying in Washington, the utility reported paying three
staff and two outside lobbyists in Raleigh $72,142 so far this year, according
to reports filed with the N.C. Secretary of State. It paid $36,587 for four
lobbyists in 2008.

In Washington, congressional lobbying expenses reported under the federal
Lobbying Disclosure Act also include the costs of in-house lobbying staffs, as
well as contractors.

In 2008, when its expenses rose sharply, Duke added three new members,
increasing the staff that actively lobbies in Washington to six, Williams said.
It also began including office rents, employee benefits and other expenses in
its lobbying reports, he said.

Williams said Duke's Carolinas customers and its shareholders each pay half of
the lobbying expenses, under order of the state utilities commissions.

Its lobbyists work on dozens of issues, according to reporting forms. Grid
modernization, carbon-capture research and nuclear issues, including more
federal loan guarantees and waste disposal are major issues, Williams said.

But it was on the climate issue that a former adversary, the Environmental
Defense Fund, made peace with Duke. Both are part of the U.S. Climate Action
Partnership, a business-environmental coalition pressing for carbon limits.

Tony Kreindler, an Environmental Defense spokesman in Washington, said companies
like Duke support carbon legislation in part because they want firm rules before
committing billions of dollars on new plants.

He credited Rogers, who has appeared before Congress, at news conferences and on
Comedy Central's "Colbert Report" - his expenses don't count as lobbying - with
helping convince other utilities to support carbon caps.

"They want to have a seat at the table," Kreindler said, "rather than being run
over by it."

Smokey Mountain News, week of 9/16/09

Dam fight between Duke, Jackson goes to federal court

By Becky Johnson • Staff writer

Jackson County's lawsuit against Duke Energy to seize the Dillsboro Dam and
surrounding river shore through eminent domain has been kicked up to federal
court.

Jackson County filed the condemnation lawsuit in state court in August, but Duke
attorneys argued that federal law is in play and therefore the case belongs in
federal court. While state law allows for the condemnation of land by a county
to create parks and recreation facilities, Duke claims that the Federal Power
Law governing utilities preempts state statutes.

The case could ultimately come down to the interpretation of both state and
federal laws.

Meanwhile, the county was seeking a restraining order against Duke to keep the
utility from demolishing, altering or removing any part of the dam or nearby
powerhouse while waiting for the condemnation suit to be heard. Jackson County
wants to transform the dam and surrounding shoreline of the Tuckasegee into a
river park and promenade, replete with walking paths, benches, fishing areas and
river access. The dam and powerhouse are intended as focal points and therefore
must be protected through a preliminary injunction, Jackson pleaded.

But Duke says it does not plan to start demolishing the dam until January 2010.

For that reason, Jackson County's request for a restraining order to stave of
demolition is unnecessary for the time being, Judge Martin Reidinger ruled.

Jackson County can "refile such motions for a temporary restraining order as may
be necessary," Reidinger wrote in his ruling.

Duke Energy Cash Balance Plan Class Certification Order Filed 9/4/09

http://www.dukeemployees.com/cbsuit.html

Triangle Business Journal - by John Downey Charlotte Business Journal

Thursday, September 3, 2009, 9:40am EDT

Rate-hike opponents want Duke Energy's Cliffside plant halted

A coalition of health, social justice and environmental groups has called on
state regulators to reduce a proposed 12.6 percent electric rate increase for
North Carolina by halting construction at Duke Energy's Cliffside coal plant.

The groups, ranging from Appalachian Voices to Western Carolina Physicians for
Social Responsibility, contend that the $1.8 plant expansion is unnecessary.

"There is no doubt that building new power plants … will continue to increase
our rates much more than by using energy more efficiently, increasing
co-generation, and deploying renewable energy," the groups say in a letter
delivered Tuesday to the North Carolina Utilities Commission. "Duke Energy's own
data shows new plants can be avoided by modest increases in energy efficiency
and with renewable sources of energy at levels already required in North
Carolina."

The rate hike would impact many in the Triangle. Duke (NYSE: DUK) electricity to
much of the area, including Durham and Chapel Hill.

Duke spokeswoman Paige Sheehan defends the proposed expansion at Cliffside as
vital for Duke and its customers. She says the company needs to modernize its
fleet. And she says the increased capacity remains necessary for meeting future
increases in demand.

She also says Cliffside accounts for less than 20 percent of the proposed
increase. She points out that Duke will not begin recovering the construction
costs until after the plant starts operating in 2013.

What Duke seeks to collect for Cliffside now is up to $600 million in financing
costs. Energy legislation adopted by the N.C. General Assembly in 2007 allows
utilities to recover those financing costs as a plant is being built.

And it is not clear how much could be cut from the proposed rate hike, even if
Cliffside were abandoned. Under the 2007 legislation, Duke could still be
allowed to recover the financing costs it already incurred. Duke has spent about
$1 billion of the expected $1.8 billion total construction costs. So those
financing costs would still be considerable.

The groups raise several other objections to Cliffside. They worry about the
effects of mercury pollution and the impact carbon emissions have on global
warming.

But much of the argument centers on the financial impact on ratepayers and the
way the current recession has slowed demand. That slowing and the energy-savings
potential in Duke's Save-A-Watt initiative essentially eliminate the rationale
for building Cliffside, they contend.

Sheehan says the rate case is not the place to debate a need for Cliffside.
"That debate has already been held in one
of the most robust hearings (before the commission) ever in the state of North
Carolina," she says.

The commission found proceeding with the plant is prudent, given Duke's ongoing
requirement to provide energy to its customers.

The groups do not agree. The list includes many of the groups who have opposed
the Cliffside expansion from the outset, and have mounted public protests in the
past. They include the Carolinas Clean Air Coalition, the N.C. Waste Awareness
and Reduction Network and the Canary Coalition.

Richard Fireman, a spokesman for the coalition, says the groups will have
representatives testifying at six public hearings statewide that start next
week. And members of the coalition also will make formal presentations of
evidence at the commission's main hearing on the rate increase. That hearing is
set to begin Oct. 19 in Raleigh.

Charlotte Business Journal

Wednesday, August 26, 2009, 11:15am EDT

Duke Energy issues $1B in debt

Duke Energy Corp. has issued $1 billion in debt that will be used to retire
commercial paper and for general purposes, including financing its five-year
capital-spending plan.

The company has issued senior notes totaling $500 million due in 2014 with a
3.95 percent interest paid semiannually starting in March. And it issued an
additional $500 million in longer-term notes. Those notes carry a 5.05 percent
rate and mature in 2019.

The offering managers are BNY Mellon Capital Markets, Credit Suisse Securities
USA, J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. and RBS Securities.

Charlotte-based Duke (NYSE:DUK) is pursuing a five-year, $25 billion
capital-improvement plan. Projects include construction of two major coal plants
— a $1.8 billion expansion at its Cliffside Steam Plant on the border of
Cleveland and Rutherford counties and the $2.3 billion Edwardsport gasified-coal
plant in Indiana.

Duke Energy spent over $1.5M lobbying gov't in 2Q

Duke Energy spent over $1.5 million lobbying on energy efficiency, other issues
in 2nd quarter

Monday August 24, 2009

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Utility Duke Energy Corp., one of the nation's largest power
generators, spent more than $1.5 million in the second quarter to lobby Congress
on energy efficiency and plug-in electric vehicles, according to a recent
disclosure report.

The company also lobbied on the $787 billion stimulus package signed into law by
President Barack Obama in February, a program that helps poor people pay utility
costs and efforts to capture carbon dioxide from power plants and store it
underground, according to the amended disclosure report filed July 31 with the
House clerk's office.

Duke is one of the largest electric power companies in the U.S. with about 4
million customers in the Carolinas, Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana. It also has
about 500,000 gas customers in Ohio and Kentucky and generates electricity in
Latin America.

William Tyndall, who used to work at the Environmental Protection Agency and
elsewhere in Washington, was among those lobbying on the company's behalf in the
April-June period.

Duke wants fed regulators to ignore SC concerns
The Associated Press
Wednesday, Aug. 19, 2009

COLUMBIA, S.C. Duke Energy has asked federal regulators to ignore South Carolina
concerns that the company isn't doing enough to protect wildlife on the Catawba
and Wateree rivers.

The State reported Wednesday that Duke last week asked the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission to ignore the South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control decision on a water quality permit for five dams.

DHEC voted last month to deny the water quality permit for the dams on the two
streams, saying the Charlotte, N.C., utility plan for the next 30 to 50 years
doesn't do enough to protect endangered fish.

Duke said the DHEC board missed a one-year federal deadline to decide the
matter. DHEC wouldn't talk about the matter.

A spokeswoman for the federal agency didn't know when a decision would be made.

News Channel 7, South Carolina

Duke Energy Ends Fixed Rate Program

Published: August 12, 2009

Duke Energy will suspend its fixed rate program next month.

A spokesperson with Duke Energy says the suspension is necessary while they
figure out future rate costs.

Duke Energy asked Public Service Commission of South Carolina for a 12.1%
increase in residential rates. Hearings are scheduled for November.

Published on Thursday, July 30, 2009 by the Associated Press

Senate Passes Energy Bill That Kills Yucca Facility

The Senate on Wednesday passed a $34.3 billion energy spending bill that backs
up President Barack Obama's promise to close a nuclear waste facility in the
southwestern state of Nevada.
The bill, passed by a 85-9 vote, also covers hundreds of water projects being
undertaken by the Army Corps of Engineers.

The Yucca Mountain project 90 miles (145 kilometres) from Las Vegas was designed
to hold 77,000 tons of waste, but has been strongly opposed by the Nevada
delegation, which had been outgunned in its efforts to kill it.

The move fulfills a campaign promise by Obama to close Yucca Mountain, which was
25 years and $13.5 billion in the making. It would, however, leave the country
without a long-term solution for storing highly radioactive waste from nuclear
power plants.

The waste disposal problem has become worse since the federal government
scrapped plans to open Yucca Mountain. Instead, radioactive fuel rods are now
stored in large concrete and steel canisters on the grounds of nuclear plants
around the country...

Duke Energy wants SC rate increase

SC residents say they can't afford Duke Energy rate hike
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
By MARIA KOTULA / NewsChannel 36

YORK, S.C. -- Duke Energy wants to raise residential utility rates in South
Carolina at a time when unemployment is in the double-digits in many upstate
counties.

What could that mean for people already struggling to pay their utility bill?
and how much will the average utility bill go up?

They say there's a first time for everything, but Sharon Omolu never thought
she'd end up in the bind she's in now.
"I need assistance with my lights to get my utilities turned back on. They just
got turned off this morning," said Omolu. "Never had welfare, unemployed."

But her weekly paycheck isn't enough. She's asking the Carolinas Community
Action assistance program to pay her utility bill.

"And it's an emergency situation, because I have four small children at home,"
she says.

To make things worse, she just found out that Duke Energy wants to raise
residential rates in South Carolina by 9.3 percent.

Rock Hill's customer services manager, Lori Thomas, says she's been getting
about 15 to 20 calls a day from folks asking about assistance programs. If the
rate hike goes through, she worries she'll get even more calls. She can gauge it
by the numbers she sees on a new program that uses federal money to keep the air
conditioning on.

"The first week we had 25 people, the second week about 55, the third 90, and
last week we saw over a 100 people who needed assistance," says Thomas.

Duke Energy says the average household uses 1,000 kilowatt-hours a month, which
would make the average bill about $97 a month with the hike. That's about a $10
increase.

Omolu says, "You can barely afford what you're paying now, so $10 more would
definitely hurt a lot of families. That's a pack of chicken that you're not
going to be able to bring home."

Thomas adds, "It may make the definite difference between asking for help and
not asking for help."

The South Carolina Public Service Commission has to approve the rate increase,
and if approved, the rates would not likely go up until 2010.

"West Chester Twp. resident Jill Dunlap fought the utility company — and she
won."

www.journal-news.com

Trees saved from Duke Energy chainsaws

By Dave Greber, Staff Writer

Monday, July 20, 2009

West Chester Twp. resident Jill Dunlap fought the utility company — and she won.

The months-long battle with Duke Energy began in May for Dunlap, a longtime
resident and volunteer for the West Chester 42 Citizens Property Owners
Association, who owns property on Cincinnati-Columbus Road. And it could be
repeated with other residents and business owners along U.S. 42.

As a part of the multimillion dollar project to widen a 3.5-mile stretch of U.S.
42, Dunlap was approached by Duke Energy crews who said a group of trees was in
the public right-of-way and needed to be cut down.

Dunlap said she knew at the time the trees were on her property, and that
cutting them down wasn't necessary.

"I started making phone calls like mad," Dunlap said.

At first, the Ohio Department of Transportation, which is overseeing the road
widening, agreed with Duke crews, who also told Dunlap an agreement with her
land's prior owner existed giving the utility company the right to maintain her
trees.

The conversation then went silent for a few weeks before crews showed up once
again with chainsaws.

After a series of meetings with Duke and ODOT, Dunlap said the agencies
relented. She was eventually paid $2,500 to cut four trees and grind their
stumps.

"We're not the only ones facing this situation," Dunlap said of the dozens of
homes and businesses along the portion of U.S. 42. "We just learned we have to
research our own facts.

"Don't just take somebody's word for it when they come onto your property with a
bunch of facts," she added.
Officials from Duke Energy confirmed Dunlap's story, although they declined to
comment on whether an agreement with the land's prior owner actually existed…

"If you were going to make this the national policy, it is cost prohibitive"

Evansville Courier Press

Duke to boost rates as part of carbon study

Customers would see average increase of 1 percent

By Mark Wilson

July 9, 2009

Duke Energy is planning to finance at least part of the cost to study a proposed
carbon dioxide storage project by increasing its customers' electric rates.

Customers would see an average rate increase of 1 percent spread across the
three-year period of the study, beginning in 2010, according to the company.

The increase would be a rider added on customer bills and could fluctuate,
depending on the company's needs, said Angeline Protogere, a company
spokeswoman. It would not be an increase of the base rate.

Duke is planning to spend $121 million to study permanent underground storage of
carbon dioxide from its Edwardsport, Ind., coal-gasification power plant in Knox
County. It has filed plans for the project with the Indiana Utility Regulatory
Commission.

However, a Clean Coal Initiative grant from the U.S. Department of Energy could
offset up to 50 percent of the cost to implement the carbon capture technology
and some of it could go toward the study, Protogere said.
That would lessen the impact on customer rates, Protogere said.

Construction of the $2.35 billion coal gasification power plant already is under
way. Duke officials have said the project would result in an 18 percent rate
increase for customers to be phased in by 2013.

Although its pollution emissions will be lower than those of traditional
coal-burning power plants, it is estimated the Edwardsport plant will produce up
to 4 million tons a year of carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide is a "greenhouse gas" linked with global warming and climate
change. Without capturing it, that carbon dioxide would be released into the
atmosphere.

As part of its rate approval case with the Indiana Utility Regulatory
Commission, Duke agreed to study the feasibility of capturing up to 20 percent
of its carbon dioxide.

Protogere said the company will study whether it is possible to store 50 percent
to 60 percent of it carbon dioxide emissions. To do this, the company is
exploring pumping the gas into saltwater aquifers deep beneath the ground in the
region. The study would involve a detailed examination of the area's geology and
include drilling multiple wells in the area.

The carbon dioxide would be piped to storage sites nearby in Knox County, where
it would be injected into the ground.

The project also would include using the carbon dioxide to recover oil from
underground. That would be done by pumping the gas into the wells to force the
oil out.

Duke has filed initial plans and testimony for the project with the IURC.

"This will be one of the nation's first demonstrations of carbon capture and
storage at a power plant," said Jim Stanley, president of Duke Energy Indiana.

But Grant Smith, executive director of Citizens Action Coalition Indiana, said
he believes is too expensive. He said his organization, which joined other
groups in opposing Duke's requested rate increase to pay for the plant, would
also oppose the carbon capture and storage study.

"If you were going to make this the national policy, it is cost prohibitive," he
said.

Smith said he believes it would be better to encourage energy efficiency and
development of alternative energy sources.

The Charlotte Observer

10 Duke ash basins on hazard list

No imminent instability was found, but location of coal waste storage raises
risk to life if dams were to collapse.

By Bruce Henderson

Tuesday, Jun. 30, 2009

Ten Duke Energy coal ash basins, including four near Charlotte, are among 44
"high hazard potential" impoundments nationwide, federal enforcers said Monday.

The basins, where electric utilities dump power-plant residues, have come under
intense scrutiny since a Tennessee Valley Authority basin in Kingston, Tenn.,
failed in December. The collapse released 5.4 million cubic yards of
contaminated sludge.

The Environmental Protection Agency, responding to public pressure, identified
427 ash basins at power plants. Those rated "high hazard" aren't in danger of
failing but, because of their locations, could kill someone if they did
collapse.

Among them are Duke's Allen and Riverbend coal-fired power plants on the Catawba
River in Gaston County and Marshall plant on Lake Norman in Catawba County. Two
more are at Progress Energy's Asheville plant.

Duke's eight Carolinas coal-fired plants produce 2.2 million tons of ash a year,
piping two-thirds of it into landfills and ponds. The ash is laden with metals
that in high concentrations can cause cancer and other health problems.

EPA said it has conducted on-site inspections of some of the high-hazard basins
and will review others that have been inspected by state officials in the past
12 months. The agency said it will make inspection results public when they're
completed.

Duke spokesman Jason Walls said the utility has completed, or will soon
complete, all recommendations that N.C. dam-safety officials made after their
most recent inspections. EPA has not asked Duke to take any action, he said.
The N.C. Utilities Commission, which regulates Duke, requires safety inspections
of coal-ash basins every five years. Duke has said it voluntarily does annual
inspections.

The Observer's review of state records in December found no reports of imminent
instability at Duke's dams. But the records showed "potentially serious" seepage
in 2007 at its Dan River plant near the Virginia line. "Major distress" was
reported after a 2005 storm that overtopped a dike at the Cliffside plant 60
miles west of Charlotte.

EPA has not provided the Observer with information it sought this spring on
Duke's responses to the agency.

"This is critical information for the communities that live near these
facilities who now know there is a substantial threat nearby," attorney Lisa
Evans, of the Oakland, Calif., environmental law firm Earthjustice, said in a
statement.

"The next step is for EPA to regulate coal ash as hazardous waste and guarantee
protections for these local communities."

"Companies that reduced or eliminated retiree health benefits before the law
took effect would have to restore them"

Watson Wyatt Insider, June 2009

Emergency Retiree Health Benefits Protection Act Reintroduced

Representative John Tierney (D-Mass.) has reintroduced the Emergency Retiree
Health Benefits Protection Act (H.R. 1322), which would prevent employers from
reducing or eliminating health benefits for retirees or their dependents. The
bill has been around for years but has attracted more attention since it
appeared in a pension bill last year.

Under the act, employers could not make changes to their retiree health plans
that would eliminate, reduce or limit benefits, increase out-of-pocket costs or
make it more difficult to obtain medical care. The law would automatically void
any plan provisions reserving the right to reduce or eliminate retiree health
benefits. Companies that reduced or eliminated retiree health benefits before
the law took effect would have to restore them, unless doing so would create
substantial business hardship or work against the interests of plan participants
in the aggregate, or would not be administratively feasible...

The Cincinnati Enquirer

$525K bond for suspect in boss threat

By Sharon Coolidge

June 23, 2009

DOWNTOWN - Bond was set today at $525,000 for a man police say was en route to
kill his former boss at the Duke Energy Convention Center.

John Rosser, 28, of Mount Auburn, was arrested Monday and has been charged with
carrying a concealed weapon and attempted murder.

Hamilton County Municipal Judge Melissa Powers set bond for Rosser after
Cincinnati Police Detective Jeff Dunaway showed her a picture of several knives
and a loaded handgun that police seized from Rosser.

"That's a small arsenal," Powers commented during Rosser's bond hearing.

When Cincinnati police took him into custody Monday afternoon just a few blocks
from the convention center, Rosser possessed at least five knives, a 9 mm
handgun, gun clips, a pair of handcuffs, binoculars and other objects that could
be used as weapons, court records show.

Dunaway said Rosser was evicted yesterday, which prompted him to tell his
landlady he was going to kill his former boss at the convention center.

Then Rosser started walking downtown. He was caught about 100 yards away from
his former workplace.

As news of the man's alleged plan filtered through police scanners at around 1
p.m., police briefly locked down the convention center while they searched
downtown.

Enquirer staff writers Eileen Kelley and Jennifer Baker contributed to this
story

Duke Energy to build nuclear plant in Ohio

Thursday, June 18, 2009

Triangle Business Journal - by John Downey Senior Staff Writer

Duke Energy Corp. and French nuclear group Areva SA propose to build a
1,650-megawatt nuclear plant in southern Ohio.

The plant will be part of what officials are calling the Southern Ohio Clean
Energy Park. The 3,700-acre site is a former enrichment site for weapons-grade
material in Piketon, Ohio. The town is about 65 miles south of Columbus…

Crescent Resources files Chapter 11

Triangle Business Journal - by Susan Stabley Charlottte Business Journal

Real estate company Crescent Resources, a Duke Energy joint venture that
developed a couple of large Triangle communities, and 120 of its subsidiaries
have filed for voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, Crescent announced
Wednesday.

Crescent and its subsidiaries were saddled with more than $1 billion in
liabilities, according to bankruptcy filings.
The Charlotte-based development firm's chief executive, Arthur Fields, has
retired and will work with Crescent in an advisory capacity, the company says.

Andrew Hede, Crescent's chief restructuring officer, has been named CEO.

"We have been in active discussions with our lenders and other stakeholders as
we work towards an agreement that will bring our capital structure in line with
the current economic environment," Hede says.

Crescent has more than 5,000 creditors, according to its filing. Its assets are
estimated at more than $1 billion…

http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/2009/06/08/daily36.html

2 groups challenge Duke Energy SC river permits

Environmental groups seek to challenge Duke Energy permits for dams on rivers in
SC

Meg Kinnard, Associated Press Writer

Wednesday June 10, 2009

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) -- Two environmental groups are seeking to challenge permits
issued for dams on a river that flows in the Carolinas, saying Wednesday that
South Carolina's health and environmental agency is not doing enough to protect
the waterway from pollution.

American Rivers and the Coastal Conservation League are taking issue with a
water quality permit issued by the state Department of Health and Environmental
Control for five dams on the 225-mile-long Catawba-Wateree River. The river,
which is named Catawba in North Carolina and changes to Wateree when it hits the
South Carolina border, provides drinking water to more than 1 million people and
electricity to at least that many, according to Duke Energy Corp., a utility
based in Charlotte, N.C.

Duke operates a total of 11 hydroelectric dams on the river, five of which are
in South Carolina. As part of its federal application to relicense all 11
facilities for the next 50 years, company spokesman Andy Thompson says Duke
first needs to obtain water quality permits from regulators in both states.

The permitting process for the six dams in North Carolina has already been
finalized, Thompson said. In May, South Carolina regulators issued permits for
the five dams on the southern portion of the river, regulations the
environmental groups say don't go far enough to protect the waterway.

"DHEC hasn't provided the citizens of South Carolina with reasonable assurance
that Duke's dams will provide necessary water flows for fish and wildlife,"
Gerrit Jobsis, regional director for American Rivers, said Wednesday.

"South Carolina must be assured protection for the clean water and economic
benefits that a healthy river provides."

DHEC's board had been set to consider the groups' request that the permits be
reconsidered at a meeting Thursday in Columbia, but the agency announced late
Wednesday afternoon that meeting had been canceled and would be rescheduled. If
the board grants the request, it will hear arguments for and against the permit
at its August meeting, agency spokesman Thom Berry said. If they're turned down,
the opponents say they will appeal to the state's Administrative Law Court.

Duke spokesman Thompson said the company respects the permitting process but is
confident that it will be successful.

"These groups certainly can have the opportunity to share their views, but we
believe what we have here will result in making more water available for
recreational uses, more so even than we have in the past," Thompson said.

The groups also argue that the permit conflicts with an ongoing lawsuit
regarding equitable use of the river. In 2007, South Carolina Attorney General
Henry McMaster sued to stop North Carolina from draining the Catawba River
basin. Under the permit, South Carolina is guaranteed about 25 percent of the
water that flows from North Carolina.

A special master appointed to hear the case has allowed several interveners --
including Duke Energy and the city of Charlotte -- to enter the case, a decision
McMaster has contested. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that South Carolina may
present arguments why those parties should stay out of the dispute over the
watershed, but a date for those arguments has not been set.

Duke Energy Seeks 12.6% Electric Rate Hike In North Carolina

NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- Duke Energy Carolinas asked regulators on Tuesday for
permission to raise North Carolina customers' rates by about 12.6%.

The rate increase will cover investments in pollution control equipment,
transmission lines and new power plants over the past three years. If the North
Carolina Utilities Commission approves Duke's request, the average residential
customers bill will increase 13.53%, or $11 a month, while general service rates
for commercial customers would rise by about 9.78%. The rate increase would take
effect on Jan. 1.

Annual revenues from Duke's retail electric operations would increase by about
$496 million if the rate increase is approved…

New York Times

Duke ordered to close coal-fired units at Ind. plant
By ROBIN BRAVENDER, Greenwire
Published: June 1, 2009

A federal judge in Indianapolis has ordered Duke Energy Corp. to shut down
nearly 40 percent of an Indiana power plant's capacity as part of an enforcement
case that dates back to the Clinton administration.

Judge Larry McKinney of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana ordered (pdf) Duke last Friday to shut down three units at its Wabash
River Station in West Terre Haute no later than Sept. 30. The judge also ordered
Duke to run those units at a reduced rate until they are closed and to surrender
pollution allowances to account for the plant's sulfur dioxide emissions.

Shutting down the three units at Wabash River Station will remove a combined
capacity of 265 megawatts -- 39 percent of the plant's 677-megawatt capacity,
according to Duke. The company had proposed a remedy that would have retired the
three units by 2012.

Duke will also be required to pay a fine of nearly $690,000 and install emission
monitoring devices at its Beckjord plant near Cincinnati.

The order comes in response to last year's ruling that the plant's previous
owners had violated federal rules governing power-plant modifications. Justice
Department lawyers -- joined by plaintiff-intervenors from New York, New Jersey
and Connecticut and two environmental groups, had argued that Cinergy Corp. --
which merged with Duke in 2006 -- had made illegal modifications to the plants
in the 1980s and 1990s (E&ENews PM, May 22, 2008).

Ann Weeks, senior counsel for the Clean Air Task Force, an advocacy group that
represented the Ohio

Environmental Council and the Indiana-based Hoosier Environmental Council,
welcomed the judge's order. "We are very glad that those downwind from the
Wabash plant will begin to breathe a little easier, almost immediately, as a
result of this decision," she said.

Duke officials expressed disappointment with the court's order to shut down the
units at the accelerated pace but said that the decision would not significantly
affect its 2009 operations.

"[E]ven though disappointed, I will reiterate our satisfaction that after 10
years of litigation, the company's position regarding power plant projects was
vindicated in the vast majority of instances about which the government
originally complained," Duke's chief legal officer, Marc Manly, said in a
statement.

James Turner, president and chief operating officer of Duke's franchised
electric and gas segment, said the company had already begun to change its
operating plans following the jury's verdict last year. "However," he said, "we
will have to re-evaluate our plans for meeting peak demand the next two summers
and work with the Midwest Independent System Operator to ensure we have an
adequate plan for the reliable operation of the system."

The decision resolves one of the last remaining claims in an enforcement case
that began as part of the Clinton administration's aggressive legal campaign
against coal-fired utilities violating the Clean Air Act's New Source Review
provisions.

A jury in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana found
last month that Cinergy violated NSR provisions when it replaced coal
pulverizing equipment at two units at its Gallagher Station in Floyd County,
Ind. The court has not yet issued a remedy order for those violations
(Greenwire, May 21).

Charlotte Business Journal, Friday, March 27, 2009
Duke Energy seeking stimulus grants
by John Downey Senior staff writer

Duke Energy Corp. could see hundreds of millions of dollars from the
economic-stimulus plan, much of it for such high-profile initiatives as
SmartGrid, Save-A-Watt and the company's gasified coal plant.

Duke's pilot project to integrate smart-grid and renewable-energy technology for
5,000 customers in south Charlotte would likely qualify for tax credits,
according to Duke's analysis.

The $787 billion stimulus package includes an estimated $150 billion over the
next 10 years on energy projects from biofuels to hybrid vehicles to energy
efficiency.

Duke estimates about $40 billion of that will go to the power industry, says
spokesman Dave Scanzoni.
Duke does not yet have an estimate of how many jobs could be created by the
spending it envisions under the stimulus.

WISHtv.com
Clean Air Act violated by Duke Energy
Published Thursday, 21 May 2009

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) - A federal jury has found that Duke Energy Corp. violated the
Clean Air Act by making changes at a southern Indiana power plant that
significantly increased its air pollution.

The jury in Indianapolis decided that Duke failed to obtain needed permits for
changes it made to two units at its Gallagher station plant near New Albany,
Ind. Those changes raised the plant's sulfur dioxide emissions.

Jurors ruled in the Charlotte, N.C. based company's favor on four other plant
modification projects, finding in Tuesday's verdict that those did not violate
federal or state laws.
Those four included changes to one unit at the Gallagher station, changes to two
units at a plant in New Bedford, Ohio, and changes to one unit of a plant near
Princeton, Ind.

"State law gives the commission authority to rescind or alter its earlier
decisions"

The Charlotte Observer, Posted: Thursday, May. 14, 2009

Utilities panel wants Cliffside comments

Legal statements to be allowed on panel's decision to allow new coal-fired power
plant.

By Bruce Henderson

The N.C. Utilities Commission said Wednesday it will accept comments on a motion
to revoke its approval for Duke Energy's Cliffside power plant.

The commission granted Duke permission to build a new boiler at the plant, 60
miles west of Charlotte, in March 2007. The project is now 35 percent complete.

Cliffside is a target of environmentalists who say the coal-fired plant will add
to air pollution. Duke says it will be one of the nation's cleanest power
plants.

In papers filed last week, the N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, or
WARN, said Duke doesn't have enough new demand for electricity to justify the
plant's expense. It also cited rising construction costs, legal challenges to
Cliffside and a new state emphasis on developing renewable energy such as solar
power.

Duke said last week that recent fluctuations in electricity demand don't change
its long-term need for new power sources.

In Wednesday's order, the commission said it would let parties to the proceeding
comment on WARN's allegations and legal basis through June 12. State law gives
the commission authority to rescind or alter its earlier decisions.

Charlotte Business Journal, Wednesday, May 13, 2009

N.C. mulls motion to stop Cliffside construction

by John Downey Senior Staff Writer

State regulators have agreed to hear the N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction
Network's latest challenge to the proposed $2.4 billion expansion at Duke Energy
Carolinas' Cliffside coal plant.

The environmental group contends in a filing May 5 that the new, 825-megawatt
coal unit is unnecessary. It argues lagging growth in demand and a state mandate
for increased use of renewable energy sources eliminate the need for it.

N.C. WARN has asked the commission to revoke its March 2007 order approving
construction of the plant. The commission issued an order Wednesday calling for
interested parties to file a response by June 12.

Duke spokesman Jason Walls says the company remains committed to the Cliffside
expansion. "This is an important project in our long-term plan to meet customer
demand and modernize our fleet," he says.

Walls says the project also is important to Duke's efforts to reduce carbon
emissions in coming years. Duke says the plant will be cleaner and more
efficient than any coal plant in its fleet. And it will replace 1,000 megawatts
of capacity at less efficient, less environmentally sound plants, the company
says.

N.C. WARN has consistently opposed construction of the new unit at Duke's plant
on the border of Cleveland and Rutherford counties. It has also repeatedly
challenged Duke's projections for future demand and the need to build new plants
to meet it.

The commission has agreed to hear those challenges each time. N.C. WARN has not
succeeded with any of the challenges about demand to date.

Duke Energy Carolinas is a division of Charlotte-based Duke Energy Corp.
(NYSE:DUK).

U. S. News, May 04, 2009

Survey: Americans Want Pensions Back

Emily Brandon

Americans with shrunken nest eggs are feeling nostalgic for pensions. About half
of those without a pension (55 percent), say the old-fashioned retirement plan
would ease their money worries, according to a National Institute on Retirement
Security survey. However, not all workers with pensions are sleeping soundly.
Only about 65 percent of Americans with a pension are confident that the payout
will be there at retirement.

Since traditional pensions aren't likely to make a comeback in the near future,
the survey also asked what workers are looking for in a retirement plan. The
most desired features are portability (88 percent), followed by an employer
contribution (84 percent), continuation of payments for a spouse after death (79
percent), and a regular check that cannot be outlived (79 percent), the
telephone survey of 801 Americans age 25 or older by Mathew Greenwald &
Associates and the National Institute on Retirement Security found. Respondents
were less interested in managing investments (50 percent) and having an employer
foot the entire bill (48 percent).

The number of workers with traditional pensions has been declining steadily for
2 decades. About 28 percent of workers consider a pension that pays out benefits
for life to be a major source of retirement income, down from 46 percent in 1998
and 57 percent in 1988, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute.
More people are expected to rely on their 401(k) (42 percent) and Social
Security (32 percent)…

Duke Energy's development company has been selling land, working to restructure
its financial obligations.

Duke: Bankruptcy is possible for Crescent Resources

By Bruce Henderson

The Charlotte Observer, Wednesday, May. 06, 2009

Charlotte-based development company Crescent Resources could file for bankruptcy
protection as it struggles with the slumping real estate market, a Duke Energy
executive told the Observer on Tuesday.

Duke, which owns the company in a joint venture with Morgan Stanley Real Estate,
said as part of its first-quarter earnings Tuesday that it took $33 million in
charges for Crescent debt it has guaranteed. Duke created Crescent in 1969 to
manage its surplus land.

"We're working with the banks, and our preference is to restructure the debt,"
Duke chief financial officer David Hauser said in an interview.

Asked if Crescent could file for bankruptcy protection, he added that "it is
certainly a potential, but we expect to see that resolved within the next 90
days."

Asked for comment late Tuesday on Hauser's remarks, Crescent acknowledged it
owes a $50 million debt payment by the end of 2009.

"The company is fully aware of its upcoming maturity schedule and plans to
manage its financial obligations appropriately," chief financial officer Kevin
Lambert said in a statement.

Crescent has grown into one of the best-known Charlotte-area developers of
upscale homes, condos, townhomes and mixed-use developments. It is responsible
for several high-end developments, including The Peninsula at Lake Norman and
Springfield Village in Fort Mill. It has interests in 10 states in the Southeast
and Southwest, according to its Web site.

Lately, it has been selling property. Lambert said Crescent recently closed on a
773-acre tract in Oconee County, S.C., and has 588 acres under contract to
Catawba County. The company also recently sold 18 acres and a building under
construction in its Lakemont Business Park off Carowinds Boulevard.

"Like other companies in the real estate industry, we continually perform
analysis of our assets in order to optimize our portfolio. That process is
ongoing. In many cases we have sold and are selling land that is not appropriate
for the types of development that Crescent excels in, and thus not part of our
long-term strategy."

With real estate values falling, the economy in recession and tighter credit
markets, many companies are shouldering high debt loads but are having trouble
making payments or restructuring their debts.

Some locally based companies, such as car dealer Sonic Automotive, have had
success refinancing their obligations. Others, such as music provider Muzak
Holdings, have filed for bankruptcy protection.

Hauser, the Duke chief financial officer, said Duke's exposure beyond the $33
million in charges is insignificant. Duke does not break out Crescent's
finances.

Hauser told analysts Tuesday that Duke is a guarantor of surety bonds and
letters of credit related to Crescent projects underway when Duke sold Morgan
Stanley a 49 percent stake in 2006.

Crescent, he added, is "in discussions regarding a number of potential strategic
and financial alternatives" that could affect Duke.

Crescent's troubles have already eaten into Duke's profits.

Last November, Duke reported a third-quarter equity earnings loss of $124
million connected to its interest in Crescent, compared to $10 million in
positive earnings a year earlier.

In August, Duke took a $108 million hit as Crescent liquidated properties in
Arizona, Florida and Texas, three states hard hit by the nation's mortgage and
real estate meltdown, to restructure debt.

The Cincinnati Enquirer, May 1, 2009

Critic wants Duke Energy audited

By Mike Boyer

Duke Energy critic Albert Lane is taking his fight against the utility's $55
million annual electric rate hike to the Ohio legislature.

Lane, the only private citizen among the official parties to the rate hike now
before the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, has asked the Ohio House and
Senate utilities committee to examine whether consumers are being treated fairly
in the case.

Lane, a retired commercial real estate broker, refused to sign an agreement
between Duke and other parties to the case including the Ohio Consumers' Counsel
(OCC) and the PUCO staff, which reduced the rate request from $86 million to $55
million, or about $3.17 a month for the typical residential customer. The
agreement is advisory and isn't binding on the five-member commission, which is
expected to make a final decision by summer.

"The OCC has signed stipulations and said that the electric rate increase was
beneficial to consumers," Lane wrote in a letter to the commission and the House
and Senate utility committee chairmen. "Who is now representing the 680,000 Duke
Energy of Ohio customers?"

Lane wants an independent third party audit of Duke's accounting among other
things.

"Rogers earned $815,190 in 2008, not $524,589"

Correction: Duke Energy CEO compensation story

In a March 20 story about compensation received by Duke Energy's chief
executive, James E. Rogers, The Associated Press erroneously reported his total
pay for 2008.

Rogers earned $815,190 in 2008, not $524,589, as previously reported. The
updated figure includes $290,601 in above-market interest he earned from
deferred compensation.

A corrected version of the story appears below:

NEW YORK (AP) -- The chairman, president and chief executive of Duke Energy
Corp. received compensation valued at $815,190 in 2008, but the company said a
prorated portion of a three-year stock award he received in 2006 is worth $5.5
million, according to an Associated Press calculation of figures disclosed in a
regulatory filing Friday.

James E. Rogers did not receive a base salary or bonus from the Charlotte,
N.C.-based power generator in 2008.

He did receive $524,589 in other compensation, including $385,626 for personal
use of the company aircraft, $35,133 for security and $45,933 to reimburse
relocation costs.

He also earned $290,601 in above-market interest on deferred compensation.

Rogers, the 61-year-old former chief executive of Cinergy Corp., took over as
Duke Energy's top executive after the company acquired the Cincinnati-based
utility in April 2006. He added the chairman's duties in January 2007.

Rogers' primary compensation is the more than $27.1 million in stock and option
awards he received as part of a three-year employment agreement signed in 2006.
While Rogers is not allowed to sell any of that stock until April 2009, Duke
accounted for $5.5 million of the award's expense in 2008.

The Associated Press' calculations of total compensation include salary, bonus,
performance-related incentives, perks, any above-market returns on deferred
compensation and the estimated value of stock options and awards granted during
the year. They may vary from totals listed in the summary compensation table in
the company's proxy filed with the SEC.

Duke Energy's compensation committee has established a guideline for Rogers to
own shares having a value of at least 10 times the base salary of the
highest-paid executive reporting to him in order to align his interests with
those of shareholders.

For 2008, Duke earned $1.36 billion, or $1.07 per share, compared with $1.5
billion, or $1.18 per share, in 2007. Revenue rose to $13.2 billion in 2008 from
$12.7 billion…