Here’s the press release:
Groups to protest Duke Energys stockholder meeting Dukes risky investments in dirty energy will hurt environment and stockholdersWho: NC WARN, Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Friends of the Earth, and Greenpeace USA.
What: Street theater, rally, and press conference preceding Dukes Stockholder meeting
When: Thursday May 5th. Rally begins 9am, Press Conference at 9:20
Where: Duke Energy Headquarters, 526 S. Church Street, Charlotte, NC 28202
Why: Citing risky and unnecessary business ventures, NC WARN, Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Friends of the Earth, and Greenpeace USA will hold a press conference on Thursday, May 5th to urge Duke stockholders to hold their executives accountable. Duke has announced plans for new nuclear plants in Florida and the Carolinas and continues building coal plants in Indiana and North Carolina which have been met with significant protests over the past few years.
Grant Smith, executive director of Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, said, “Duke’s bid to build more coal and nuclear plants has little to do with clean energy, global warming, or modernizing the electric grid. Instead, the strategy is clearly to make more money with high cost options that are lucrative to the state-franchised monopoly but harbor the greatest financial risk for captive ratepayers and taxpayers.”
Of special note are the four aging Duke-owned coal-fired power plants that affect the quality of life in Charlotte and surrounding counties. These plants cause literally hundreds of deaths, hospitalizations, heart attacks and asthma a year. We can no longer afford the reckless and environmentally detrimental business plan Duke Energy is pursuing. They are putting the well-being of people, the state economies they operate in, their own company, and individual finances at extreme risk. Their CEO has ignored calls for change. Stockholders should now step in. said Monica Embrey, Greenpeace Charlotte Organizer.
“Duke’s Indiana scandal shows that they can’t build power plants without billion-dollar cost overruns. Trying to build nuclear plants could bankrupt Duke Energy, but working people shouldn’t be bankrupted too — through annual rate hikes to fund nuclear projects even Wall Street won’t gamble on,” said Cynthia Brown, a board member of NC WARN.
Duke has also recently announced a weak policy on Mountain Top Removal, saying that they would avoid Mountain Top removal coal only when it wasnt more expensive to do so.
Duke Energy needs to look at the “true” costs of coal. Mountain Top Removal is poisoning the people of Central Appalachia with the carcinogenic, heavy metals this method of coal extraction releases into our water supply. The true cost is the death to our Appalachian Mountains and its ecosystem. The true cost is the cancer death rates of our people. And if Duke Energy is using Mountain Top Removal coal they truly share in a murderous cost, the genocide of an entire culture, said Appalachian coal activist and movement leader Mickey McCoy.
Due to scheduling conflicts, and late notice from the protesters, we weren’t able to cover this protest. However, other media organizations did. Here’s a snippet from the Associated Press and RealClearPolitics.com:
Environment, tea party protests target Duke Energy:
Environmental groups and tea party activists protested Thursday outside Duke Energy Corp.’s annual shareholder meeting in Charlotte, with one side opposed to coal and nuclear power plants and the other upset that Duke’s CEO helped bring the 2012 Democratic National Convention to town.About 50 green activists said they were upset that the utility giant is continuing to build coal-fired plants and moving ahead with new nuclear plans.
Monica Embrey, Greenpeace organizer in Charlotte, said shareholders should step in and say no to the risky projects. The groups say the projects threaten public health and have put shareholders at risk.
Grant Smith, executive director of the Citizens Action Coalition, said the coal-fired plants are “exposing people to harmful emissions.”
The meeting also attracted about 50 tea party members, who say Duke chief executive officer Jim Rogers was wrong to give $10 million to help bring the Democratic National Convention to Charlotte.
Jane Bilelle of the Asheville, N.C., Tea Party said Rogers should be ashamed of himself for giving “shareholders’ money to the Democratic Party.”
“That’s theft of shareholder’s money,” she said.
Read on for the standard defense line from the company.
SECOND UPDATE:
This afternoon, Molly Dorozenski from Greenpeace got in touch with her protest update:
It was pretty interesting … a lively tea party counter-protest. They were, somehow, both protesting Duke Energy (for bringing Democratic convention to Charlotte) while also protesting the “green” protest with pro-coal messaging.Duke Energy didn’t respond to our rally or press conference, but Jim Rogers did take questions inside (and answered all of them.) He answered a question from Mickey McCoy, Mountaintop removal activist — I’m paraphrasing here because I wasn’t there — and said that if he were king of the world, he’d stop Mountaintop removal today. a bit disingenuous based on his recent (weak) MTR policy, which is that Duke won’t buy Mountaintop coal unless it’s cheaper to buy mountaintop coal.
This article appears in May 3-9, 2011.






Four original words. Is that a record? You must have video of Creative Loafing executives humping goats. You’re an absolute embarrassment to the real writers and journalists of this world.
Agreed.
Nice sign btw. I had no idea that wind came from the sun and solar from clouds. It would’ve been complete had he included a unicorn and “energy”.
If you guys are interested in reading one of Rhi’s longer pieces, I’d advise you to check out the latest issue of Charlotte magazine. Also, check here: http://charlotte.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/is_coal_ash_poisoning_charlotte_area_drinking_water_/Content?oid=1041443
Thank you for sticking up for me, Carlton.
You and I both know these two commenters have no idea what my work for your media organization entails, nor is it any of their business.
They choose to pick on me instead of discuss anything of substance. If that’s how they choose to use their First Amendment rights, then so be it.
All the same, thank you for sticking up for me against these two people who insist on bashing me personally while not actually knowing anything about me as a person or knowing anything about my work.
This constant display of bad behavior from them says way more about them than it does about me. And, you know what they say about assumptions …
Rhi
P.S. Here’s a link to the Charlotte magazine article you referenced: http://www.charlottemagazine.com/Charlotte-Magazine/May-2011/Bully-at-the-Pulpit/
What is bad behavior? When there is substance to discuss, both of the posters you mention reply in kind. There is no personal attack here, unless you’re the guy with the sign. Commenting on writing is a professional criticism, no?
BTW, with regard to personal attacks, have you read what you write? (when they’re your words)
I remember “Juan”/FOA once calling Rhiannon a “brain-dead imbecile” and he has insulted her on numerous other occasions as well. Not sure how those can’t be construed as “personal attacks.”
Nice response, Rhiannon.
BV admittedly tries to be civil in comments, perhaps less so than in the past, but that’s probably due to him (her?) being on the losing side so often. But “Juan” has always been mean-spirited and misogynistic in his posts toward Rhiannon, the sort of sad, lonely little man who probably gets off on yelling at frightened women entering abortion centers just to make himself feel powerful and important.
Well said, Christopher. These guys understand zilch about news aggregation, reporting and commentary, or even the differences among them. The personal insults toward Rhi are repugnant, which is to be expected — and this is the bottom line for me — from people without the courage to even sign their real names to their vile ranting. Who in the world takes people like that seriously?
Thank you, Christopher and John.
I’m definitely in favor of having verified accounts for commenters. I’ve noticed it’s cut down on the “vile ranting” on other sites.
And, I think you’ve nailed it John — there is a huge difference between aggregation, commentary and reporting, and I do all three of those things for Creative Loafing. I’ve tried to note op-ed type pieces in the past to help clue readers in, but got slammed for that, too.
C’est la vie.
Rhi
C’est peut-etre la vie, mais avec ces deux imbeciles la, c’est une vie particulierement absurde.
BV, I’d say that those journalism awards on the wall answer your question.
Would you grant respect to awards earned by a Republican party-hack lack Hannity or Kristol? I do not. If that’s what the goal is ok, but is credibility that may persuade readers not lost when there are clearly different standards depending on party affiliation? I would be the first to agree when your arguments are based on principle rather than party, as they are at times.