Duke Energy CEO On Transition To Low Carbon Economy
by John Laumer, Philadelphia 
on 04.21.08
The greatest successes in overcoming human-caused environmental problems have come slowly, with collaboration. For example: ozone depleters were not "banned" in a year, they were phased out over decades. Mandates are situational: use of DDT is constrained to nations where malaria is present, and toxicity to birds not in evidence.
In corollary, the climate crisis requires a collaborative decision as to how fast coal must be phased out, and what electricity sources or conservation steps will replace the phased out 'coal-tricity'. Hence it was a pleasure to read Duke Energy's CEO James Rodger's recent speech, in which he advocated energy policies to see the US through a transition period, leading to a low carbon economy.
Remarkable all the more, given that 90% of Dukes' energy output is coal-fired.
Rogers delivered a keynote speech at the MIT Energy Conference here on Saturday where he called for policies and technologies to bridge the fossil fuel-based energy industry of today with low-carbon alternatives.There is a difference between proposing compromise as delaying action and a practical transitional strategy. Rogers seems focused on the latter.
A few of his reported points are excerpted below.
Duke's capital budget to invest in technology and infrastructure is $5 billion this year.Meanwhile, the total amount of venture capital that went into clean tech start-ups last year was in the range of $3 billion to $4 billion.
Technology research should be funded now without waiting for carbon regulations, which he expects to come into force in 2009 and 2010 followed by a transition period.
...the U.S. federal government is funding research and development in energy at 50 percent of the level it was in the 1970s.
... policy makers need to create the same incentives for energy efficiency as they are for renewable energy, like wind and solar, he argued.
He called for "decarbonizing" the electricity power grid. Once plug-in hybrid vehicles come online, a cleaner power system will effectively address cleaning the transportation sector as well, he said.
[Speaking of carbon limits] "If you have a consumer revolt, one, it will never get passed and secondly, even it does, it gets repealed. So it's very important for us to get that right...
Via::CNet News, "Duke Energy CEO: Coal not going away" Image credit::Brush Cogen Plant, Rebel Ridge Associates
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Is School Food Harming Kids? Enlist a Labor Day Eat-In To Promote Fresh, Healthy Food
- Focus Earth: June 13, 2009: Everglades Nevermore and Snake Invaders
- How to Cure Green Apathy in Friends and Family
- Forget Going Green Because It's the Right Thing to Do—Go Green to Make Your Neighbors Jealous
- UFO Sighting in VA Makes Us Ask: Could We Just Move to Another Planet?
- 5 Ways Climate Change Will Affect Your Health, Plus How to Cope
Such speech is very predictable. They know very well, that one could preach about 'green apples' for years to come, even though he really thinks about dirty coal or oil. These are just very proficient rethoric skills of politics, in other words, the art of spin.
We should never allow any corporation to make legislation and have also huge impact to enforcement, as well.
They are business and their goal is profit and they are going to make profit, if the low allows dirty technologies or not.
Who is to blame? Politics, which supports current level of pollution by current positive legislation.
Why do politicians support old oil/coal/nuclear industry? They are owners, shareholders, board members...of such corporations and they just behave very predictable to protect their personal interests/investments.
Such speech is very predictable. They know very well, that one could preach about 'green apples' for years to come, even though he really thinks about dirty coal or oil. These are just very proficient rethoric skills of politics, in other words, the art of spin.
We should never allow any corporation to make legislation and have also huge impact to enforcement, as well.
They are business and their goal is profit and they are going to make profit, if the low allows dirty technologies or not.
Who is to blame? Politics, which supports current level of pollution by current positive legislation.
Why do politicians support old oil/coal/nuclear industry? They are owners, shareholders, board members...of such corporations and they just behave very predictable to protect their personal interests/investments.
Coal WON'T be going away any time soon; there's too much of it. HOWEVER, the concept of CLEAN COAL that I've been seeing hawked on television is not only an oxymoron, if not an outright lie, but it is cynical and typically shortsighted to boot -- sort of like CALIFORNIA's HAPPY COWS living hip to jowl in piles of their own feces.
I have both heard and seen JIm Rogers talks before. He is an eloquent speaker, and is charming in person. Duke's actions, however, are anything but.
Duker recently submitted applications on new coal plants in North Carolina. Luckily they were denied (for now).
Also, he says in this speech that "policy makers need to create the same incentives for efficiency". The way he actually makes this claim is outrageous and ludicrous. Although a comprehensive efficiency program like those in Vermont costs less than half as much to build as a coal plant, Mr. Rogers wants the "incentives" to pay him as if he built a coal plant! (search for Duke's Save-a-Watt proposal).
If he were willing to spend as much of his $5b on efficiency as he was on coal, Duke's service territory would lead the county in energy efficiency, and thus carbon reductions.
This is yet another example of energy CEO's saying one thing and doing something else. They still seem to maintain the idea that this isn't their problem. Rodgers may be saying all this but his company continues to invest in coal, and mountaintop removal because of their location.
Duke Energy is currently attempting to expand their coal fired power plant in Rutherford County, NC with an additional 800MW's of generating capacity.
One of Duke's minor competitors in the Carolina's, Progress Energy had their plans for the construction of an additional power plant ended when the community rejected the idea. Progress, instead of just going ahead, has formed a Citizen Energy Advisory Council to bring forth ideas on how to change behavior and reduce demand in their service area. If Duke Energy was serious about "decarbonizing the electricity power grid" Rodgers should put his company where his mouth is...
Make it economically attractive, and they will come in droves. We're talking commerce here people. Businesses have ZERO incentive to change unless either profits will go up (not likely), or govt subsidies kick in.
Don't expect any changes until those things happen...