Seeking Alpha

Investors approved of the proposed settlement with the N.C. Utilities Commission that...

Investors approved of the proposed settlement with the N.C. Utilities Commission that effectively forces Jim Rogers out of any leadership role at Duke Energy (DUK +2.3%). The regulators clearly were out to get Rogers; adding insult to injury, the CEO search committee and DUK’s board are not permitted to appoint anyone who has served as DUK’s CEO, chairman or president - the titles Rogers holds.
Comments (9)
  • old crank
    , contributor
    Comments (20) | Send Message
     
    Can we get any information on this...why did the Commission force Rogers out?

     

    Is it the Commission's job to oversee personnel? Is this a new function or has it always been in place? Will it have to approve whoever Duke eventually finds to replace Rogers? Will this approval requirement continue into the indefinite future?

     

    Do shareholders have any right to information? Do the subscribers? Can I get any information as a citizen of North Carolina, for whom the utilities commission presumably works?
    30 Nov 2012, 04:53 PM Reply Like
  • TA455
    , contributor
    Comments (32) | Send Message
     
    i knew nothing about this, I'm an investor,in my IRA. Guess that's why I saw a note on SA saying Rogers was retiring, but as I recall it wasn't for several months.
    30 Nov 2012, 06:05 PM Reply Like
  • spinrbait
    , contributor
    Comments (341) | Send Message
     
    if duk's stock does not perform as well as expected, i expect shareholders can now hold n.c. utility commission libel for losses. if they want to dictate the head of the company over the choice of the board of directors, they then share in the responsibility of the performance of the company.
    30 Nov 2012, 07:25 PM Reply Like
  • Kingnukem
    , contributor
    Comments (11) | Send Message
     
    NC's approval of the merger between Progress and Duke was, in part, predicated on the merged organization presented to the Commission. The day after the merger was consummated the Board (with or without Rogers' machinations) fired the CEO. The appearance of collusion in keeping information from the Commission is problematic - would the Commission have approved the merger if they knew what the Board/Rogers were planning? I believe all parties got off easy.
    30 Nov 2012, 09:46 PM Reply Like
  • old crank
    , contributor
    Comments (20) | Send Message
     
    Why do they have to approve the personnel to be put in place after the merger? Is this an ongoing responsibility, one the Commission has always had?
    1 Dec 2012, 06:46 AM Reply Like
  • MexCom
    , contributor
    Comments (3050) | Send Message
     
    Rodgers had plans to retire before all this happened. The Utilities Commission and the opinions expressed are a ploy to placate the negative public opinion against the company after the ouster of Johnson. His initial interactions with the BOD were negative and a quick decision to rid him was not the fault of Rogers - Rogers was a hero to get the merger and the company back on track. All this publicity is only to have the Commission save face. The proof of the pudding will be the rate increase to soon be put in place. The increased stock price also tells the real story.
    1 Dec 2012, 07:27 AM Reply Like
  • tnuhr
    , contributor
    Comments (15) | Send Message
     
    It is my understanding that one of the NC commissioners is a big buddy of Johnson, the acquired firm's CEO. While the terms of the merger/acquisition appeared to indicate that Johnson was to be CEO of Duke I would think the board can do what it deems correct unless the terms specifically stated that Johnson had the right to the position. I do not know for sure but it does seem a very bad precedent for a utility commission to be dictating what a company should do in its business. Then again maybe Johnson would have had an inside track on getting increases in rates. OH this is getting to be a sticky wicket.
    2 Dec 2012, 03:41 AM Reply Like
  • wilkat
    , contributor
    Comments (7) | Send Message
     
    As a FL customer of Progress Energy as well as a stockholder in the (former?) company, I was happy to see Johnson go. Johnson and company had the FL PSC in its hip pocket. The PSC never, ever refused any request presented to it by Progress. We have been on the hook for two proposed nuclear generating plants in Levy County that will never be built but for which FL ratepayers have already shelled out over $1 billion. We're also paying through the nose for the broken nuclear generator at Crystal River.

     

    It appears that Johnson had an inside track with the NC PSC as well. When did it become the job of a PSC to decide how a company selects its CEO? I guess the NC PSC is using the Obama/General Motors precedent as its guide. God help us all!!
    3 Dec 2012, 07:28 AM Reply Like
  • freebra
    , contributor
    Comments (246) | Send Message
     
    It is very possible that you are correct about Bill Johnson (former CEO @ Progress) with the Fla. and NC PSC. Only has the PSC's had an input as to Duke's next CEO of the combined company, is due to the fiasco of the 'immediate' dismissal of Bill Johnson. Duke, James Rogers (CEO) and the Board of Directors (BOD) are all under investigation by the NC Attorney General's Office. The 'Commissions' will only 'oversee' the appointment of the next CEO to prevent another occurrence that happened after the Merger Approval. The Commission(s), FERC, SEC, NCAG, etc. were all 'blindsided' by Duke (Jim Rogers-CEO & BOD) actions, and are determined to see that Duke will appoint the most qualified and honorable CEO successor. If the NC PSC does 'appoint a CEO, it will only be an interim CEO, until Duke (BOD & stockholders) can appoint a person to best serve the company, customers and stockholders.

     

    Unfortunately, the CR#3 costs will continue to be partially on backs of the customers, even if it is abandoned or decommissioned. I don't expect Duke to attempt any repairs due to the extreme costs involved. The age of the plant vs. newer technology also make it cost(s) prohibitive.
    3 Dec 2012, 11:59 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|