Duke Energy Corporation (DUK)

AGM 2012

← View all transcripts

May 3, 2012

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Bill Kearns, and I am Managing Director of Investor Relations for Duke Energy. Welcome to the 2012 Annual Meeting of Shareholders. We are broadcasting this annual meeting by teleconference and webcast, and I also welcome everyone online and on the phone. It is our custom to start the meeting with the Please exit through those doors, turn right and proceed down Stonewall Street. For those of you in the atrium area, you can exit out the front door, turn right to go out the building, then turn right again and proceed down Stonewall Street. If anyone needs assistance, security and safety personnel will be available to assist you. If we do have to evacuate, please reenter the building until you have been told that it's safe to do so. As you entered the auditorium this morning, you should have received a copy of the meeting program. If you did not, please raise your hand and we will bring one to you. In order to provide for an orderly, safe and informative meeting, I would ask that you please take a moment to read the conduct of the meeting procedures found inside the meeting program. Please be sure that all cell phones are turned off at this time. Now let me quickly review the items for this morning's will call the meeting to order. After taking care of certain procedural matters, Jim will introduce Duke Energy's Board of Directors. We will then move on to the business portion of the agenda, which includes the following items. The election of the Board of Directors for 1 year terms expiring in 20 13. The ratification of Deloitte and Touche LLP as the company's independent public accountant for 2012. The approval on an advisory basis of Duke Energy Corporation's named Executive Officer Compensation also referred to as say on pay. The approval of the amended and restated certificate of incorporation of Duke Energy Corporation to reduce the required affirmative vote needed for certain actions from 80% to 75%. And the consideration of 2 shareholder proposals that are described in your proxy statement. All of these matters will be voted on before moving to the question and answer section of the meeting. As we begin, let me inform you that today's discussion will include forward looking information and the use of non GAAP financial measures. You should refer to information contained in our SEC filings concerning factors that could cause those results to differ from this forward looking information. A reconciliation of non GAAP financial measures can be found on the Investor Relations section of our website at www.dukeenergy.com. Now it is my pleasure to introduce our CEO, Jim Rogers. Bill, thank you very much. Good morning to all of you. The meeting will please come to order. I'm Jim Rogers. I want to welcome all of you to this 2012 Annual Meeting of Shareholders. In accordance with Delaware General Corporate Law, I appoint Nancy Wright, Associate General Counsel here at Duke Energy and Sid Rodriq of Broadridge Investor Communications Solutions, our proxy tabulator, to act as inspectors of elections in this meeting. Nancy and Sid, would you all please stand? Our Group Executive Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary, Mark Manley, also acting as Secretary of the meeting, will now report the number of shares entitled to vote and the number of shares and votes represented in person or by proxy at this meeting. Thank you, Jim. As of the close of business on March 5, 2012, Duke Energy Corporation had outstanding and entitled to vote 1,000,000,000,003,001,000 335 shares of common stock, each of which is entitled to one vote. They are here at this meeting represented by proxy 1,129,000,000,133,007 and 26 shares of the corporation's common stock, which constitute 83 0.39% of the total shares entitled to vote. The final report of the inspectors of election will include votes, if any, of the shareholders present and voting in person at the meeting. Thank you, Mark. Legal notice of this meeting has been duly given. A quorum is present and the meeting is now lawfully convened for the transaction of business. First, I have the pleasure of introducing the members of your Board of Directors, all of whom are here with us today. As I introduce each of them, I'll ask them to stand and be recognized. Bill Barnett, Chairman, President and CEO of Barnett Development Corporation Alex Bernhardt, Chairman of Bernhardt Furniture Company Michael Browning, Chairman and President of Browning Investments Dan D'Amico, Chairman, President and CEO of Nucor Corporation John Forsgren, Retired Vice Chairman, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Northeast Utilities. Ann Gray, former President of ABC Inc. And our Lead Director Jim Hanns, Retired Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer for Bank of America Jim Wrench, Retired Senior Vice President and Partner of Bechtel Group Jim Rhodes, Retired Chairman, President and CEO of the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations and Phil Sharp, President of Resources for the Future. Also seated in the first few rows are the members of our management team. In the interest of time, I will not introduce them individually. I hope you had a chance to meet some of them on your way in. If not, I urge you to do so after this meeting. I want to express my personal appreciation to the directors and the management team for their support and commitment to the company and also to you, our investors. I would also like to introduce Tom Bowman from our Corporate Security Department, who serving as Sergeant of Arms. Finally, I would like you to meet Charlie Moha and Jason Enoch of Deloitte and Touche, company's independent public accountant. We will now proceed with the matters to be voted on. We have a declassified Board of Directors, which means all of the directors are up for election every year at the annual meeting. The Board of Directors has duly nominated directors Barnett, Bernhardt, Browning, D'Amico, Forsgren, Gray, Hans, Wrench, Rhodes, Sharp and myself. They have been nominated for election as directors for 1 year, terms expiring in 2013. These nominees, as set forth beginning on Page 5 of the proxy statement are hereby considered presented for the purpose of voting for their election as directors. The selection of Deloitte and Touche as the company's independent public accountant for 2012 as set forth on Page 18 of the proxy statement is also hereby presented for the purpose of ratification. A vote on an advisory basis of our named executive officer compensation as disclosed on Page 20 of the proxy statement is hereby presented for approval. The amendment of the amended and restated certificate of incorporation of the company as set forth on Page 21 of the proxy statement is hereby presented for approval. Also to be presented are 2 proposals we have received from our shareholders. The first relating to the preparation of a report on the financial risk of continued reliance on coal and the second regarding an amendment to our organizational documents to require majority voting for the election of directors. We take all proposals submitted by our shareholders very seriously. I would like to ask Mark Manley to introduce these proposals at this time. Mark? Thank you, Jim. As Jim mentioned, this year, we are not able to resolve 2 proposals. And for the reasons outlined in our proxy, the Board of Directors has recommended a vote against both of these shareholder proposals. In the interest of time, we will not discuss our reasons for our opposition, but they are spelled out in the proxy statement made available to all of our shareholders. I will now ask the proponents and give them an opportunity to present his or her proposal and a brief supporting statement. I'd like to remind those presenting that your remarks should be limited to the proposal. There will be time later in the meeting for Q and A if you're interested. The first shareholder proposal relates to the preparation of a report on the financial risks of continued reliance on coal as set forth beginning on Page 22 of the proxy statement. Here to present this proposal on behalf of the proponent is Andrew Behar. Mr. Behar, would you come forward to the mic to present your proposal? Thank you. Members of the Board, Mr. Rogers and assembled shareholders, good morning. My name is Andrew Behar and I'm the CEO of As You Sow, a shareholder advocacy organization. I'm here to move Resolution 5 on the proxy. AsuSO has filed this proposal on behalf of Lisa Renstrom. The proposal requests that Duke Energy Board of Directors report to shareholders on plans to reduce our company's exposure to coal related costs and risks, including progress toward achieving specific goals to minimize commodity risk, emissions other than greenhouse gases, cost of environmental compliance and construction risks. The proponent asks you to vote yes on proposal number 5. We believe that Duke's reliance on coal exposes our company to material financial risks and that Duke has not disclosed a long term plan to mitigate these risks. In the past several years, a combination of environmental compliance costs, commodity and construction risks have rendered older, unscrubbed coal units uneconomical and the prospects for the remaining coal plants are increasingly uncertain and risky. Coal is already a negative financial driver for our company. Duke has just announced that it will take a $420,000,000 charge $0.20 a share for cost overruns at the Edwardsport plant where costs have skyrocketed from $1,900,000,000 to $3,300,000,000 This proposal is subject to the approval of the Indiana Regulatory Commission, which is also examining charges of fraud, concealment and gross mismanagement by Duke executives related to the plant construction. Duke already recorded a pre tax charge of $265,000,000 related to the project. Construction costs at another new coal plant Cliffside Unit 6 have also risen to $2,400,000,000 from the $1,800,000,000 initial estimate. Despite its investments in new coal plants, our company is trying to defer or cancel from its existing plants. Duke expects to burn 40% less coal in Indiana than last year. Progress is also renegotiating coal contracts and selling coal to exporters sometimes at a loss. Reports point to record low natural gas prices and weaker demand as the main drivers behind these moves. We're concerned that Duke's new coal plants might never be economical to operate, like the new Spiritwood Coal Plant in North Dakota that was built with state of the art controls, but was mothballed before it generated any electricity. According to Fitch Ratings, fully 25 percent of Duke's total coal capacity is at risk of retirement due to lack of environmental controls. Once the merger with Progress is complete, the combined company will be the nation's largest utility and will depend on coal for 42% of its generating capacity. With 89 coal fired units, 56 units lack sulfur dioxide controls, none have mercury controls. While both Duke and Progress are retiring coal plants, pending regulations and more stringent enforcement of existing regulations make it highly likely that Duke will have to make additional large investments to bring the remaining coal plants into compliance with evolving rules. At a time when coal's share of the U. S. Electric market is shrinking and coal assets are losing value, investors must exercise enhanced diligence regarding investments in coal dependent utilities. Duke's mitigation plan should provide specific goals to reduce the commodity, regulatory compliance and construction risks from its reliance on coal, so that investors will be more fully informed about how our company is reducing these material risks to shareholder value. We therefore urge you to vote yes on proposal number 5 on the proxy. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Behar. The second shareholder proposal relates to an amendment to our organizational documents to require majority voting for the election of directors as set forth beginning on Page 25 of the proxy statement. Here to present this proposal on behalf of the proponent, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America is Randy Jenkins. Mr. Jenkins, would you come to the podium and present your proposal? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Randy Jenkins representing the United Brotherhood of Partners Pension Fund, which along with other partners funds holds approximately 610,000 shares of Duke Energy common stock. Our funds take a long term patient investment perspective and is that ownership perspective that motivates our advocacy from majority voting and directory elections. The majority vote standard proposal presents a simple proposition. In Board elections, when there is no opposition to the slate of candidates, each nominee should receive half the votes cast to be which means that in uncontested elections that the outcome is guaranteed. Every nominee will be elected. Shareholders have no meaningful voting rights in these elections. The Board's response to the majority vote proposal has been to establish a director resignation policy, but resignation policy, but keep plurality voting. Under the Board's resignation policy, a director who is duly elected, but who receives a majority of so called withhold votes is required to tender his or her resignation for Board consideration. Two questions for the Board. First, why is this resonation policy built upon withhold votes that are not even legal votes? And second, why should a director who is duly elected in accordance with state law and the company's governance documents be required to tender his or her resignation? A director resignation policy only makes sense when combined with a majority vote standard. A majority vote standard used in uncontested director elections establishes a meaningful vote threshold and provide shareholder real voting rights. A companion resignation policy then provides a post election process in which the Board can exercise its judgment and make decisions on the continued status of unelected directors. That is exactly what over 400 of the S and P 500 index companies and every major Duke Energy peer company has done in recent years. Once again, we urge the Duke Energy Board of Directors to establish a majority vote standard along with its director resignation policy and join the mainstream of American corporations on this important election reform. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Jenkins. That concludes our presentation of proposals before us at this meeting. If you, our shareholders in the audience, have not previously voted your shares or if you'd like to change your vote, a vote by ballot will now be taken for each of these items. And I turn it to Ms. Wright. Mr. Chairman, shareholders, the polls are now open. If you want to vote by ballot, please raise your hand. The polls will close in just a few minutes. So after you've received your ballot, please complete it and Does anyone else need a ballot? There's one down here and 2 over there. The polls are now closed. If you've not yet returned your ballot, please raise your hand so we can collect it now. I will now ask Mark Manley for the Inspectors of Election Report. Thank you, Jim. Based on the proxies we received prior to this meeting, first, each nominee for director has received the approval of more than 90% of the shares voted more than sufficient for his or her election. 2nd, the ratification of Deloitte Touche as the company's independent public accountant for 2012 has received the required affirmative vote of shareholders sufficient to ensure ratification. 3rd, the approval on advisory basis of our named executive officer compensation has received the required affirmative vote of shareholders sufficient for approval. 4th, the amendment of the amended and restated certificate of incorporation has failed to receive the votes necessary for approval and therefore is rejected. Finally, the 2 shareholder proposals have not achieved their required votes necessary for approval, so they have failed as well. As Nancy mentioned, any shares voted the meeting today will be tabulated and included in the final vote and filed with the minutes of this meeting. Thank you, Mark. The final reports of the inspectors of election are hereby ordered to be filed with the minutes of this meeting. This concludes our 2012 annual meeting. What I would like to do at this time, if I may, since all of us are gathered is to spend a few moments and make a few comments with respect to our company and where it is and then answer any questions that you all might have. If I look back to last year from a shareholders' perspective, we did a terrific job. 30% total shareholder return, we increased our dividend and we outperformed the indexes. We outperformed the indexes for not just last year, but for the last 3 years and for the last 5 years. At the heart of our value proposition, at the very heart is our dividend. And we are very committed to maintaining that dividend and growing that dividend going forward. Also, I would say that from a customer's perspective, we have gone to work to modernize our generation fleet. We have spent our spending over $7,000,000,000 will allow us to retire 3,700 megawatts of old high emitting coal plants. And as a consequence of that, we're building plants because at the end of the day, our customers care about affordable, reliable, clean electricity 20 fourseven. And so we're working as hard as we can to make sure that happens and we make this transition because when you invest $7,000,000,000 for modernization, by definition that translates into higher prices and we're very mindful of that. But we're trying to make the transition in a way that minimizes the cost impact. So at the end of the day, our consumers continue to get reliable electricity 20 fourseven and it is much cleaner than the electricity that they have received from us in the past. The other important thing that I would share with you is that while we've invested in our regulated business the United States, one here in North Carolina, the other one in Indiana. And the one in Indiana is using a scale up of an advanced technology. That both of these plants really allow us to retire more the inefficient plants, the high emitting plants. We're building 2 gas combined cycle plants, both here in Indiana, I mean in North Carolina. And those plants, one was brought online last year and as a consequence of bringing that online and with low gas prices, it's being dispatched after our nuclear and before our most efficient coal plants. The point is, is that we are really working to make this transition. We're also investing in our grid, our distribution grid. We're investing in productivity gains and the use of electricity and so that our customers will use energy even more wisely in the future than they have in the past. The other thing that we have done is we've made significant investments over the last 3 to 4 years in wind and solar. In fact, we're the 5th largest producer of electricity from wind in the United States. But we're building this generation in areas where the wind blows. We're building it in areas where there is a huge demand for wind. And we have a video that I would like to share with you that is a talks about our investments in wind and the progress that we've made in developing the wind. So if we could roll this quick video, it will give you a sense of our investments and wind. Since 2007, Duke Energy Renewable has invested more than 2 and a half $1,000,000,000 to build wind farms and communities across the country. Duke Energy Renewables is part of Duke Energy, one of the largest electric utilities in the US. Headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, Duke Energy serves approximately 4,000,000 customers. In addition to operating fossil fuels, nuclear, and hydroelectric power plants in North and South America, Duke Energy owns and operates large scale wind and solar farms across the United States. Investing in wind power is just one way Duke Energy can create long lasting quality generation assets that help us serve our customers with clean, affordable and reliable power. And we're proud because in doing so, we extend the long rich history of Duke Energy in benefiting our communities and the environment. The turbine directly behind me is Charlie, and he's about 1200 feet from our house. The only time we hear him is when we step out the door if the wind is just right. Charlie does. He doesn't bother us any at all. He don't bother the cattle, the wildlife around underneath them. They get used to it just like they get used to anything else. The wind turbines haven't changed our life one bit. They've actually made bet. They've actually made happier because I'm home. We get the biggest kick out of watching them. You know, it's fun to watch them. By investing in emission free wind power, Duke Energy is reducing its environmental footprint and helping meet demand for clean, affordable, and reliable electricity. A key to Duke Energy's success is its commitment to work collaboratively with leaders in the communities that host its wind power project. They were interested in hearing what the community had to say and how they can integrate a other communities will see the same results if they approach it with an open mind and have a good open dialogue with Duke. I'll tell you that Duke came on and they were the single largest individual donor ever for the Wyoming Senior Olympics in their 25 year history. They aren't just here for the short haul to get their money and get out there and and going to be a community partner for a long time, and we're excited about that. Duke Energy has earned a reputation as a premier renewable power project developer and operator. Virtually all of the 0 emission electricity generated at Duke Energy Wind Farms is sold through long term agreements to regional utilities, municipalities, and electric cooperatives throughout the U. S. These clean energy projects make good financial sense for the company and its customers. Like most entities, we're going to do a request for a proposal for a wind project, and we're going to consider price, obviously that's important to us, but there are many other factors that we consider as well. We consider what is the experience of the developers that respond to our request, what's their track record with other projects. Financial stability is important. We want a strong counterparty to deal with. Duke is obviously a strong financial partner and they were building a project in our area that we could take advantage of and we're happy we did. Duke Energy's wind power projects provide supplemental income to participating landowners as well as valuable tax revenue that communities can count on year after year. What I am really excited about is my husband and I are both retired. And we have 2 daughters and 4 grandchildren. And you look out here and you're not only in the future leaving them this farmland, but you're leaving them a legacy of wind towers. And what could be better than that? I mean, that'll be extra income for them, for their children's children. Hopefully, they're here forever. We take pride in conducting business in a forthright and responsible manner, focusing on safety and environment and building long lasting relationships with our partners in the community who make these wind power projects possible. At the end of the day, we're only going to be successful if everyone stands for benefit. If they can look back in 5, 10, and even 20 years and say, yeah, I definitely choose to work with these energy units, and we'll have accomplished our goal. We've invested in wind, which is so critical and an important component to the mix of generation in the United States in the future. I would now turn to carbon free nuclear energy, which also remains a key component of our long term modernization strategy. Nuclear energy is vital to our nation's and our world's energy future. It is the only technology that is available today that can reliably generate carbon free baseload electricity 20 fourseven. We're firmly committed to retaining our option to build new nuclear generation. The operating licenses for our existing nuclear will begin to expire in the early 2030 timeframe. Therefore, now is the time to begin the process of determining how to best replace that generation or develop plans to extend the lives of those units. We expect to receive the operating license for our proposed lead nuclear station in South Carolina next year. This 2 reactor station could go online as early as 2021, but only if we get appropriate construction cost recovery assurances from regulators in North Carolina, our demand increases and we see rising prices in electric rising prices in gas. Additionally, we continue to perform due diligence on a potential purchase of a 5% to 10% interest in the VC Summer Nuclear Station in South Carolina. As you are most likely aware, this project received its COL earlier this year. We believe that regional nuclear generation makes a lot of sense as it smooths out the customer rate impact and adds less immediate stress to the balance sheet, providing greater flexibility for our projects. Of course, the cleanest generator is the one we don't have to build. That's why we continue our efforts to help folks use energy more efficiently through a variety of financial incentives. Our programs accompanied by new digital smart meters and transmission upgrades have not only reduced electric usage, they have helped us to improve our systems reliability. This corporate commitment was recognized in 2011 when Duke Energy was named to the Dow Jones Sustainability World Index for the 2nd year in a row. We were one of only 13 utilities worldwide selected out of 102 candidates in our industry sector. It's important as I conclude to say that every person in this company is committed to providing affordable, reliable, clean electricity, but doing it in the safest way possible because safety is our highest priority of all the things that we do. And so with that, let me stop and open it up to any questions that you all might have. Yes, sir. Thank you so much for the opportunity to make a comment. As a matter of perspective, my first job was working at the Bowater plant down in Fort Mill, South Carolina, working 10 hours a day, breaking concrete forms with a sledgehammer or digging ditches. The job at the time paid $6.10 an hour and at almost 3 times the minimum wage, I thought it was all the money in the world. I worked all summer and bought my first two stocks at age 18, Duke Power and Republic Bank. I was told then that Duke Power was a regulated monopoly in a growth market, the kind of stock that was appropriately safe for widows and orphans. In my 27 years working for and owning a small family business in Charlotte, I've seen some changes. My grandfather remembered when trade and trine were dirt roads. He was forced to quit school at 12 and go to work for AT and T as a messenger boy. And then he worked through the divisive labor strikes. And he told his family that the scab lists he was on were honor rolls. My dad, John K. Moore, was very much influenced by his father-in-law, having grown up on a family farm and he worked from can't to can't or can't see in the morning for lack of daylight to see in the evening for the same time. What I've seen lately are family fortunes built over generations dashed by the unavoidable fact that Wachovia and Bank of America were financially insolvent. I saw Glass Steagall, the financial law of the land since 1933 scrapped by the banking lobby. The corporate leaders at the time and their politicians ensured us, the Charlotte residents and the world that we needed less regulation for growth and job creation. Wachovia shares now are worth a dime on the dollar And Bank of America lips along like a welfare queen by the grace of the American taxpayer. Do you have a question for me, sir? No, sir. I have some brief comments and then I'll be out of your hair. If the merger goes through with Progress Energy, Duke will now become the largest lobby in the country replacing Bank of America. Such an unholy marriage of big government and big business will not end well. Yourself and the politicians are going to push for new nuclear facilities that Wall Street, Main Street and no private market on the planet will touch for two reasons: danger and cost. Since 1940, all the world's technology has produced no solution for uranium or plutonium waste. A carcinogen so toxic, a dose the size of a pinhead is fatal for humans if ingested. If a merger goes through, the scrubberless coal plant and unlined coal ash ponds that share an aquifer with Charlotte's sole source of drinking water will remain. If the plan resumes, Charlotte, the City of Trees will continue to have the worst air quality east of the Mississippi. Now are we ready for the good news? Duke has the political might and the financial wherewithal to reverse course. Since Fukushima nuclear disaster, Germany has shuttered its nuclear program and closed 8 plants. Viewed as an honorable stance, but risky financially, these plants closing have led to less emissions and 23% renewables. Germany now boasts at its power generation. And also since it has shuttered its nuclear program, it has become a net exporter of energy. And that's something that nobody saw. And not only that, let's see here, also created tens of thousands creeping up on 100,000 of new energy related jobs in an economy that may just save the European continent. I've owned stocks all my life and I've only sold 2. I sold Duke Power at a loss after 20 years when it became clear that nuclear and coal were the plan for its future. I look forward to buying the stock again when the announcement is made to eliminate nuclear and go full on into wind, conservation and smart grid technology. Thank you very much. Thank you for that eloquent statement. Thank you for the opportunity. And when you move to Germany, you'll find that your rates are about 4 times greater than they are here in North Carolina. Okay. What I'd like for each of you all to do and you've been here many times, I'd like for you to state your name and ask me a question and try to do it if you would within 2 minutes. Sure. My name is Scott Grubell from Fort Mill, South Carolina. And I'm on the direct reinvestment plan, which I have enjoyed since October of 2,008. I got in at the right time. I would like if you would look at this and add 2 elements to the statement, one regarding the cost basis and the other cost basis per share. That would save me a lot of time because every month I have to figure it out. Okay. I'll be delighted to have someone do that. Thank you. I don't know if you can trust me to do that. This is Sarah Behnke. And I've lived in the Mountain Island Lake community for 12 years. This guy is screaming about Duke, like you got to get off nuclear, you got to move to wind. I was 37 years old. My daughter is standing behind me and you'll hear from in a minute, was in kindergarten and my son was still in preschool. As you can imagine, the words you have cancer are not ones the mother of young children wants or expects to hear. A few months earlier, when my daughter, Anna, had started kindergarten, I cried my eyes out, mourning her growing up too fast. Now I wondered if I would see her grow up. I wondered if I'd even see her finish kindergarten. Life at that point became a seemingly endless series of doctor's appointments, CT scans, PET scans, biopsies and surgeries. Even after I finally began chemotherapy, I underwent additional pulmonary function tests and scans of my heart. In cancer treatment, there is a fine line between the medicine that's strong enough to kill the cancer, not so strong it kills you. Thankfully, I'm here 5 years later alive and well. And now I wonder more and more how did this all happen? What caused me to get sick? The doctors can't tell me for sure, but environmental issues are always suspect. From my living room window, I can see the smokestacks of Riverbend Steam Station. My house is 1.5 mile from the pile of coal and the 2 massive unlined coal ash ponds. The school my children attend has purchased land less than half a mile from these 2 coal ash ponds. Since I've learned of these plans, I've asked my oncologist and my children's pediatrician their opinions on the school location. I wanted to see if either of them could make me feel better about it. My oncologist said he finds it disheartening how schools often seem to be put in worse places because of cheap plan. Strike 1 for feeling better. A cloud of worry came over my pediatrician's face when I asked her, That's where they're putting the schools, she said. I bet we're going to see a lot of respiratory issues, a lot of respiratory issues. Strike 2. I recently had the opportunity to meet the renowned biologist, Doctor. Sandra Steingraver. I asked her if she would let her kids go to a school that close to a coal fired plant and coal ash ponds. I wouldn't do it, she said. I wouldn't do it. Strike 3. One recently showed me an aerial photo of the coal ash ponds and the ring of dry ash around the edges. I'm sure that I don't have to remind any of you what is in coal ash arsenic, lead, mercury, cadmium, chromium and selenium. These and other toxicants in coal ash can cause cancer and neurological damage in humans if inhaled or ingested. Children are at particular risk because of their growing and developing bodies and because pound for pound they eat and breathe more than we adults do. A school doesn't get built overnight. My children will be going to school on a construction site for years. How do I know coal ash will not be getting stirred up during construction or blowing through the breeze from the coal ash ponds next door? Can you tell me what 3 doctors couldn't? Can you tell me with 100% certainty that my children will be safe going to school near Riverbend Steam Station? Can you tell me with 100% certainty that Riverbend steam station did not will not make my children sick? Can you tell me that living near it won't make me sick or hasn't already made me sick? And if not, why is it still there? First, we thought the plant was going to close in 2015 and now we're hearing it maybe as late as 2020. Can you please tell me exactly when it is going to close? Thank you. Thank you. That's a very that's a wonderful story. No, it's wonderful because you're here today. It's no, I understand. Been there, understand that. But let me assure you, I can't guarantee you 100% certainty. But I do know the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States has reviewed this and they found no problem and that our plants are in compliance with all regulatory requirements, which means that they're not creating any harm downwind. And if they were, I'm sure the EPA would regulate them in a way as they have in the past. That's correct because they found there is no need to regulate COASH, but it is now under consideration more to come on that. Let me hear from your daughter, if I may. Can you get that? Let's get this where you can do it. There you go. Hello. My name is Anna Binky. I live on Mountain Island Lake, and I'm a 5th grader at Mountain Island Charter School. At my school, we are in mobile units, but we will soon be permanently located next to the River Bend coal fired plant. That's a big problem. You rarely use the plant, but you still put out hazardous fumes and let water from the coal ash ponds into our lake. I I like to swim in what I thought was clean lake water. Guess not. Now now I know that I've been swimming in a cold dump. Not only is Mountain Island Lake for family fun and boat rides, it's also a source for Charlotte's drinking water. I don't want to drink ashes from coal. That's gross. It's a lot easier to shut down the plant than to contaminate our drinking water and have the risk of health issues. I go to bed every night scared that I could get cancer from that plant. My mom is a cancer survivor and I saw what she had to go through. I don't want to go through that also. First, we thought that the plant was going to close down in 2015. Now we're hearing 2020. Can you please tell me when we are going when you are going to close down the plant and clean up the coal ash? Thank you. Thank you very much for your question. And I'm glad you're here today. But I will assure you that when we operate our coal plants, we operate them in the cleanest way possible. And I believe that lake is safe, and I believe the air is safe. And I think you'll be fine. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As a point of reference, I believe you serve as Chairman and CEO. And in the interest of hearing from an independent director, I would like to direct my questions to the lead director. Would she be able to answer my questions? She would be able to, but in the interest of we have a long line of people here that want to talk. So if you would please, I will answer questions on behalf of the Board. So if you could quickly ask your questions so I can answer it. Okay. You're on record for affordable, reliable and clean. And at the same time, you find it necessary to file for a rate this past year of 16.9%. Is that correct? That's correct. But we settled for 7.5%. Yes. Wanting 10 percent 11.9 percent return on equity. Is that correct? We negotiated a 10.5% return on equity. Okay. Now you only have one more question left. Why is that? Because we have a limited amount of time. We have a lot of people here. And I'm just asking you to be respectful of others and ask just one more question. Okay. I would ask you at a time when we are in one of the worst recessions in our history and our rate payers are being asked to increase their payout at a time when Duke Power wants 11.9% return and the attorney general has filed a lawsuit. Are you acquainted with Mr. Warren Buffett? I can't say he's a personal friend. Yes. I'd like to be able to say that. Okay. Well, I would like to I actually like to be his son. Okay. Well, I would like to remind you that he spends hours answering questions. And this is the only time that interest of the seriousness of this period in our history, which I think we can all agree, we have seen something that we have never seen before. But what I want to talk to you about and I want to direct this to the directors and I want to direct it to the independent directors. Your corporate governance has a lot of similarities to Bank of America and Markovia. And I spoke at those meetings a number of times. And it's in this respect, high risk, taking undue risk without accountability and disclosure. And you also have a corporate governance that allows the Chairman to be the CEO. This is bad policy. It is not the best interest of we, the shareholders. And the other thing is you have continued to rise extreme compensation, $7,000,000 last year, dollars 10,000,000 this year or $11,000,000 $15,000,000 next year. And the other thing, you do it in a way that your CEO receives stock. So he pays less taxes on his income than the average person sitting here. I'm paying the maximum on earned income, but on dividends, they're tacked at 15%. And I want to tell you today. What's your question, sir? My question is that Duke Power and you the leadership are not paying your fair share of taxes and you are operating in a business in my judgment, now this is my opinion. Your question. That you the question is that you are destabilizing our society and our community and you are headed in the direction of Wachovia and Bank of America. And how at a time in our history can you take out 1,000,000 and 1,000,000 of dollars and many people cannot afford to pay their light bill? Thank you for your comment. I never heard a question. So thank you for being here. My question is, how can you take out 1,000,000 of dollars while the many homeowners are having difficulty paying their light bill? I will answer that and please take your seat so someone else could come up here. But the answer to your question is simply this. I get paid in stock. I get no cash. And on the stock that I get paid, I pay the ordinary income tax rate. I do not pay the 15%. It's only when I get dividends that I pay it. That's point 1. 0.2, we had a 7.5% rate increase. And you hear these people talk about cleaning up the environment, reducing the emissions from our plant, using more efficient plants. That's what that investment was about. But there's a cost. There is cost to cleaner energy. This country has had the good fortune of having low cost energy and we provided universal access and we now are cleaning that up and it is not for free. And when the man talked about Germany a moment ago, they pay 4 times more than what you pay. And they have a policy that will prove to be a failure because they will import their nuclear from France to the Czech Republic. So thank you very much. Isn't that good? Because let me make one more point. Okay. Matt, please do that. May I make one more point? If they have to pay 4 times as much, but if this young woman can grow up and lead a healthy life, and I agree with you, it costs money to clean up our environment. But why are you complaining about the rates? Because you're taking out 1,000,000 of dollars and you've lost the proportionality between the frontline Thank you for being here. Well, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I would hope that you would move forward to the last risky place. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Okay. State your name. Sure. Okay. State your question quickly. Okay. Jim, I'm Debbie Arnason. I live in Wadesboro, Anson County. As the cold winds blow, I have grandchildren and they are affected by it and this is why I'm here today. I have one thing, I want to bring some information to you and to the new the board members. And then I have a very, very, very urgent and very special request at the end and I want to know if you can help me. All right. I'm serious. I felt like crying over there before. I have very different messages here after speaking with other shareholders. I did speak to some on the phone, by email and they have some of them have very different ideologies and different politics, different everything, but we completely agree. Duke should not be squandering shareholder money on politics, lobbyists and media to sell the public more Fukushima style nuclear or dirty coal and gas factories that cause our grandchildren asthma. Since Wall Street thinks nukes are too risky to finance, coal has never come clean, spending shareholder funds without our approval to buy political support to force taxpayers and ratepayers to fund the consequences is risky business. Duke should be investing aggressively in distributed renewable energy like solar, wind and geothermal, while it works out a Google type smart grid, an energy storage model that is profitable, sustainable and clean no matter how fickle politics, fuel prices and public policies go. You can't pay those guys, they won't come around anyway. I was glad to learn Duke is doing a little better. Charlotte went from 10th worst ozone to 18th worst. Unfortunately, these half majors have not saved my second grandson from developing asthma living east of Charlotte as the coal winds blow. I am furious at the thought of ratepayers like myself and the parents of my sick grandchildren being forced to pay in advance to build more fossil fuels and nuclear factories. I am furious that residents and small businesses will pay 2 thirds more to subsidize huge commercial businesses like Google, Yahoo! And Apple. I am furious that the air my grandchildren and the rest of us are forced to breathe will be polluted to produce dirty energy to sell cheaply out of state. I feel like we are on the Titanic and the captain, Jim Rogers and crew, board members and other executives are so far unwilling to look just ahead at the climate and environmental disasters we are racing towards. With others, I have tried and you know I have Jim, I've been here every year since 2007, but I've only gotten greenwashing in half measures, which are going to avail us nothing once we hit the iceberg. Energy corporations and municipally owned utilities in Europe and cities in the United States like Gainesville and you well know it, and Canada, Ontario have demonstrated their grids have democratized their grids with distributed rooftop solar, Duke Energy could make more money in a 3rd industrial revolution based on smart grid energy storage and connection, not sales of ever more finite resources that harm customers and depend on huge cash flows to politicians, lobby groups and the media. Sounds like risky business to me and here's my request. Jim, I love you. I do love you, but please stop collecting visionary awards and just look ahead. Board members, please help him turn this earthship around before it is too late. And I have individual copies of this for each board member and I have looked up your backgrounds and I have addressed that and I would like to hand these to here's your copy, Jim. Thank you. I'd like to have those handed to the board members, please. I'll do that. Thank you so much. Next, and then I'll go over there. Hi, I'm Nancy Ellet Allison. I pastor Holy Covenant United Church of Christ here in Charlotte. And I want to thank you publicly 1st and foremost for taking the justice stand on Amendment 1 saying that it is an inappropriate amendment for business. And I also want to call you to a greater justice and that is the justice of being a steward of all creation. Our world's difficulties since 2,008 demonstrate the ways our self serving greed, all of ours in this room has caused us to lose our moral center. Duke's amazing profitability in these last 5 years reminds me of the scripture passage that says, to whom much has been given, of them much is expected. Every system, Duke Energy, the church, my church, every system is inherently evil. It serves itself alone. But within every system are individuals who can act as moral agents to redeem the work of that system. So what I would like you to call you to today and to ask you is can you expand your understanding of your role as a steward of God's creation truly focused on renewable energy rather than as someone who simply serves the coal consuming system? Can you serve not just the shareholders in this room and the 1,000,000,000 shareholders beyond or even your consumers, but can you serve the common good of a world in the throes of climate change caused by our ongoing fossil fuel consumption? Can you be that moral agent to make a difference? Thank you very much. I'm doing my best. I think the film demonstrates the commitment that we have made to wind. I think that here in North Carolina, where a lot of our power comes from hydro, which is clean, 50% of our power comes from nuclear that has 0 greenhouse emissions. But it has terrible consequences otherwise. Yes. I understand. But we're managing that in a safe way. The most important point that I can leave with you and I thank you for being here. The most important is electricity is key to prosperity of our economy. And every way you generate electricity has pluses and minuses. There's good parts of coal and there's a lot of bad parts. Same with nuclear, same with hydro. There are a lot of people that don't want to see dams built. Same is true of wind and solar. The opposition to wind and solar is great. And so my job is to serve the customers, to serve the investors and to serve all these stakeholders in a fair way. And so thank you for your call to action. I'll take it as a mission. Thank you. And remember, your first duty is to the earth. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Hello, Mr. Rogers, Board of Directors, shareholders. My name is Natalie Simmons, Jorge. I have been a Charlotte resident for almost 10 years. I studied mathematics and economics at the University of Virginia and received my MBA from Chapel Hill. I'm an entrepreneur and the mother of 2 children ages 10 8. Sometimes before I go to bed at night, I write reminders to myself and leave them by my bathroom sink. For as long as I can remember, my early to arrive physician husband has humored himself by sneakily adding his own agenda items to my to do list. One that makes a recurring appearance is for me to make $100,000,000 To my husband's dismay, I have not yet checked that accomplishment off. Duke Energy I get that request also. Duke Energy on the other hand generates $100,000,000 in revenue every few days. Not only do customers and shareholders depend upon Duke Energy for reliable power and positive rates of return, but our entire region also views Duke Energy as the engine for future economic growth. The stakes are high, multibillion of dollars high, which leads to my question about nuclear power. I tried to Google how much it cost build a nuclear power plant and I couldn't come up with a straight answer, dollars 10,000,000,000 $20,000,000,000 $30,000,000,000 The numbers are huge, many variables affect the ultimate cost projections and small variations in future fuel and operating costs can have an exponential impact. The lengthy 10 year plus construction timeline adds additional risk. 10 years and possibly more to build a nuclear power plant seems like a risky debt when we think about how much technology can evolve in that same timeframe. A little over 10 years ago, in October of 2,001, while we were still reeling from September 11 and I was learning how to care for a newborn, a new device was introduced, the iPod. A little over 10 years ago, the first iPod weighed 6.4 ounces, was 4 inches high by 2.4 inches wide, had a black and white display and cost $400 for 5 gigabytes of storage capacity. 10 years later, the iPad Nano weighs less than an ounce, is 1.5 square inches, has a multi touch color display, provides 8 gigabytes of storage capacity and costs $129 10 years later, we also have the Itouch, the iPhone and the iPad. So my questions are these. If Duke Energy ties up the majority of our investment capital for the next 10 years, building huge nuclear power plants, while the rest of the world continues to develop sleeker, smaller and more mobile energy solutions to manage the production, distribution and utilization of energy, What is the opportunity cost? Where will our community be in 10 years if nuclear power turns out to be more like a cassette player than an iPod? And wouldn't it be great if a premier North Carolina company like Duke Energy instead became a world leader in alternative energy development and efficiency measures? Thank you. That's a very good question. And I would just quickly answer that by saying you sold the film and the investment in wind and we're investing in solar. We're investing in technologies that help customers reduce their use and I think that's the great frontier. We're investing in a digital grid that allow us to reduce line loss, which makes our system more efficient. And we're looking at small modular reactors instead of large. We're looking at different distributed generation sources, which all could be the iPods of the future for our industry. So at the same time, we are making sure the light when you throw the switch at home, your lights come on. We're looking at ways of transitioning the system to a cleaner system. But in the recognition that in that transition, it obviously will cost more. And so we're trying to get the balance right between affordable, reliable and clean. That's our mission. Thank you very much. And if you would please, we're kind of running out of time, just ask state your name please. I'm not going to have a story. Hi. Thank you for letting me speak. My name is Lydia Drummond Ryan Decker. And I just have a few questions here. Just because you believe the rivers and water is safe doesn't make it so. I'm sorry, I cannot take your word for it. And with the statements you've made here today, you lost a lot of credibility in my eyes. I want to know whose pockets you are in and the EPA, because obviously there's a problem that you and the EPA are turning a blind eye to, and I want to know why. What steps are you taking to properly dispose of coal ash instead of in our drinking waters? I don't mind paying more electricity as long as it's clean and safe and it's safe for everyone, for us and for our future generations. Also, I want to know if you're going to be passing out free potassium iodine for all of us here, your precious customers and shareholders. I have hypothyroidism and so does my dog. It's kind of a coincidence. We both drink the same water. What also what are you doing to prevent Fukushima from happening to us building another nuclear power plant? Does it sound like you're taking it seriously? Thank you. We are taking the operation of our nuclear plants very seriously. And they've operated over 40 years with no fatalities. We've operated them in a really safe way. We've also operated all our units consistent with the laws. And I can't speak to what the drinking water is. I'm not in that business. But I will tell you that with respect to the emissions from our plants, we are our emissions are consistent with EPA regulations. Yes, ma'am. Hi, Mr. Rogers. I'm Gail Touch and I've been here a couple of times before. I'm a long time shareholder starting with my family having shares in Cincinnati Gas and Electric. And I'm also a lawyer. I've got a master's in environmental science from the 80s. And I'm now the Board Chair of the Atkin Riverkeeper up in Forsett County with the Atkin River. I'm not here on their behalf. I'm here as a shareholder And I really care about my investment and I'm also a ratepayer. I care about how much I have to pay for electricity. Several years ago when I was here, I made a lot of points about coal. And quite frankly, I know that you're moving, we are moving towards trying to get rid of the coal power plants. That just like it's slower than what you had told me it would be about 5 years ago on the timescale, same with the nuclear power plant. So here we're building or have light want to get a license and construction permit and construct the Lee Nuclear Power Station. How much longer is that going to take? Because it always takes more time than what we anticipate. It always costs more than we anticipate. And those statements that have been made before me are accurate. The overruns are extraordinary. There are the Fukushima accent did happen. Three Mile Island happened. Chernobyl happened. Nobody expected that to happen. Fukushima was extraordinary. That can happen here. The weather patterns that are taking place now, today is supposed to be 90 degrees and it's May 3. When I was studying environmental science back in the 80s, global warming was 50 years, it's 25 and it's where they probably thought it would be back then now. I mean, so I've got more comments than I really need to make. How about a question? My question is, can I sit down with you and any of the Board members and discuss these issues? Can we schedule a time to do that? Because the environmental issues and I just need to make a couple of comments because you said that it's greenhouse gases, there's no greenhouse gases from running nuclear power. The processing of uranium has very intense greenhouse gases. Then the pollution, I mean, we're forgetting or you're leaving out that all that pollution and where the waste is going. Since I was here last time, two things have happened that are different that I'll state. 1 is Fukushima, which I already mentioned. The other is the closing or the termination of the Yucca Mountain high level radioactive waste repository. So now we've got a whole another issue of where those wastes are going to go. And last time I was here, you were very upset that the federal government took our money to be able to use it towards the construction of the high level radioactive waste repository. But now we're stuck with the waste and we don't have that money. So my question really is, although there's a whole lot of other things I want to say, I'd really like to be able to schedule a time to sit down with you and any of the Board of Directors that would like to join us. And if I can do that? I'd be delighted to find the time to sit down with you Yes, sir. Good morning, Mr. Rogers. Good morning. Yes, sir. Good morning, Mr. Rogers. Good morning. And your name? My name is Gus Breschley. I live in Clemens. I also have a property in Mooresville. So I'm a shareholder and a rate payer. A few years ago, I had the opportunity to visit Europe and I saw something astonishing there. I saw wind turbines much like yours except off the coast in a number of countries. Being an engineer, I thought I'd do a little bit of studying and I want to tell you what I found and then I want to ask you what is in the future for Duke Energy with offshore wind. This is really an astonishing story and I'll be brief. First of all, offshore wind turbines have been generating power in Europe for 30 years, proven technology. Prices have plummeted. At the end of 2011, there were 13.71 turbines at 53 farms in 10 countries generating 3.8 gigawatts of power. And there's 10 times that much in planning, under construction or on the drawing boards. China already has 2 33 megawatts of offshore wind installed and plans almost 5,000 Megawatts by 2020. Jobs, of course, many jobs, but I know that's not a shareholder, it's not our major concern. And by comparison, I did a lot of research, I found your sheet indicating you have 1776 Megawatts. That's an interesting number, isn't it? The birth of our nation. And that's a great start, but it's all onshore and it's all out west. Let's bring it home. North Carolina, the research says and the universities have been studying this has the best underlying, the best, most reliable, strongest wind on the East Coast of the United States. And it's a great power source, can meet most of our energy needs over the next decades. New Jersey, Massachusetts, Virginia, Maryland are all marching ahead. North Carolina, as far as I can see, has no firm plans. We heard about coal, we heard about nuclear. Offshore wind should be in our portfolio, I believe. The U. S. Is generating 10% of its power from renewables, North Carolina less than 2%. My question, what is so unique about North Carolina and Duke Energy that we have no serious plans to mine this clean, reliable and ever more affordable form of energy. Isn't our company in danger of failing to meet power demand as our nuclear plants are delayed, failing to deal with climate change and health issues failing to invest efficiently in alternative energy in order to meet our power demands and for industry and jobs. And just like other forms of technology, it is more expensive now. I know that. It's dramatically more expensive. But based on your latest rate applications, cost of all of our forms of energy now continues to go up. And all the charts show that the cost of offshore wind continues to come down and those charts have gone across in my lifetime and yours and probably within the next 5 to 10 years. And it doesn't you don't get there overnight. So I ask you, what are your plans? What are Duke Energy's plans? To not, I won't say slow this project down, but you did initiate and then canceled a pilot program a few years ago. What are you going to do aggressively, as aggressively and more aggressively than nuclear to go after this clean, reliable and more affordable in the long run form of energy? That's a good set of questions and I'm going to walk over here as I answer it. So I can start down the other line. Here's the way to think about it. We operate on all the above. We're reluctant to pick any one source and go with it. Not all wind, not all solar, not all nuclear, not all coal, not all gas. It's the balance because we don't know what the technological developments are going to be with any of those. That's an important point. But with respect to the wind, there when you look at wind maps, there is no wind as you some of you all have heard me say before in North Carolina. Now you can get it on the ridgelines, but I don't think an environmental group will allow us to do that. We could build it around the statehouse. There's a lot of wind there, okay? Or we could build it offshore. But if we build it offshore and we look at a project like that, the costs were prohibitive and the Army Corps of Engineers made it impossible for us to build a transmission line to the offshore wind. So more work to do on that. We have not given up. And this film today should give you a sense. We wouldn't have shown it if it didn't demonstrate our commitment to win. So thank you very much. Yes, sir. Yes. My name is Jim Center. And first, I'd like to thank you and the Board for being here and taking the time to listen to us. I know there's some hard comments to listen to. I'm President of Potluck Power Company, which is a small solar generating company. We sell our electricity through Piedmont EMC. And so I'm part of the distributed renewable generation system that was mentioned before. And we've heard about risk, the risk of coal, the environmental risk, the health risk. But I'd like to talk about another risk and that is the risk of terrorism. It was said after 9.11 changed everything, but that's not true. One of the things that hasn't changed is our dependence on large centralized power plants that are extremely vulnerable to people who would wish to do us harm. 1 transmission tower goes down into a cascade of failures and entire region blackout. I'm sure you're aware of this. And there are alternatives. John Blackburn, former Chair of the Duke Economics Department, former Chancellor of the University has demonstrated how combination of wind and solar, we could meet our needs. We don't have to build these big power centralized power plants with BAT targets painted on their sides. So I would and while I'm glad to see that Duke Power is doing is developing these means, I would encourage you to do more and be as aggressive with the lobbying to get on the core of engineers, but to see it happen. And so that's my comment and I have two questions. I mean, are you as CEO of an operator of a nuclear power plant, are you really not aware that the enrichment of uranium is one of if not the most energy intensive industrial processes known to humankind. I think only smelting aluminum uses as much power. And so this claim that nuclear energy is carbon free is inaccurate is well, it is inaccurate and I would hope that you would be aware of that. And my one question is, if coal ash is so safe, when are your grandkids going to be going to school at a school next to a coal ash pond? Well, I mean, first thank you for your questions and two answers. One, neither my children or my grandchildren unfortunately live in North Carolina. And the second is, I would be comfortable with them living in that same situation mainly because based on the studies I've seen, I'm not concerned. And I know the EPA is looking at it and I have confidence in our government to do the right thing on environmental issues. And with respect to uranium enrichment, you're right, but the actual production of 0. But here's another important point. Even those solar panels that you saw, I mean, the wind turbines, the actual manufacturer of those wind turbines generate a lot of CO2. So all I'm saying is, there is no perfect answer in the generation of electricity. I wish there was. I wish I could snap my fingers and tomorrow morning produce electricity in every home without any environmental footprint. But that is not for today, maybe not tomorrow. It's going to take many years before that happens. So thank you very much for being in the solar business. I actually think solar will trump wind in the long term because of its distributed nature. So you're on the right mission. Yes, sir. Good morning, Mr. Rogers. Good morning, shareholders and Board. My name is Todd Zimmer. Begin by asking everybody just take a deep breath, get calm down. I grew up in Charlotte, North Carolina, a lifelong Charlotean. And I want to give a little bit of background about myself because I'm not unique and then ask my question, it will be within 2 minutes. Okay. So, yes, I grew up here. And I can tell you that 1 in 4 children in my generation and 1 in 4 children today, 24 years later, are going to grow up to have respiratory disease and asthma, because our air quality is so poor in Charlotte. These are ailments that they're going to live with their entire life. They're going to pay for these ailments every single day for the rest of their life. I remember when I was on the playground in 1st grade being jealous of other children who had asthma inhalers on the playground because it was so common that I thought it's a toy or something like that. My playmates across the street had to hook themselves up to electric nebulizers twice a day, so they could breathe. My younger sister developed asthma while living in Charlotte. I remember taking a walk around our block one summer and having her collapse to the ground and struggle to breathe and even face death because she didn't have her inhaler. My mother is a pediatrician in Charlotte. Maybe she's cared for some of your children who may have asthma as well. She's developed asthma from living here. So my story is not unique. There are many, many children in our community and communities across the country who have similar experiences because of pollution from coal plants. Additionally, this generation is looking at a future where we may see a 9 degree increase in global average temperature. There's a whole generation growing up right now who are having their health and their future mortgage by our continued reliance on dirty energy. So I know this is a risky business model for us, for your customers and for every person in this room who's breathing air. We know it's risky because there's a full month out of every year where we risk permanent lung damage by walking the dog. If you look at the Mecklenburg County Air Quality website, there's a heading that says afternoons are unhealthy and that's truly extreme. And so what I want to ask you is about making a commitment to change. In your business plan for North Carolina, it shows a 3% energy generation from renewable energy over the next 18 years. That's business as usual. That is a whole another lifetime from birth to adulthood, where we're going to be subjecting children to air pollution to the risks of nuclear energy, which are severe and we can look to current events to know this. The business plan we have for this state right now is risky for Duke because the days of denial and confusion about who's responsible for these pollutions are over. The children who are growing up now are not going to sit idly by. We know Mr. Rogers that Duke Energy spends money to prevent necessary and reasonable environmental protections for coal ash, which is making the woman who spoke earlier sick and many, many others. You're spending money at the state house level and at the federal level to prevent protection from the pollution that we're paying for. And this generation is going to make sure that Duke is held responsible for those malpractices. So I think I could ask a lot of things from you for change. What I'm asking right now is shareholders please don't let Duke Energy sink massive amounts of capital into new coal plants and nuclear plants over the next 20 years. It will not pay off. It will be a huge liability and you'll have to shell your Duke shares at a loss, massive loss. Please don't do that for the sake of people and for your own self interest. Mr. Rogers, you know that there is more offshore wind potential in North Carolina than any other state on the East Coast. Will you please make a commitment to increase the amount of energy generation in North Carolina that comes from renewable energy and walk us back from the edge of climate change and the edge of nuclear waste that will persist not just for our grandchildren, but for our grandchildren's grandchildren and our grandchildren's grandchildren, you're making decisions that are going to impact the entire human race's future and the children of every living species on planet Earth. Can you make a stronger commitment to developing renewable energy and walk us back from dirty energy, please? Thank you very much. We are doing our best to develop renewables. There's evidence of it today. We have gone from no investment to the 5th largest in the United States. But this is a long cycle business. And again, you can't snap your fingers and do it overnight. I wish you could. If I could, I mean one way to do this is to ask everybody to turn off their lights, turn off their TVs, turn off your computers, don't use electricity, but that's not going to happen. That would ruin our economy. We've got to make the transition. I am with you on this. We will make the transition, But we've got to do it in a thoughtful, reasonable way and not in a way that drives cost up. And trust me here in Charlotte, the afternoon problem that's tied to the use of cars. Maybe you ought to be riding a bike. I do. And not driving a car. And so it's not just our power plants, it's really the cars that create the smog and the pollution. And the only other point I'd make because I have asthma, but it's allergy induced asthma. And in this time of the year, it's always worse than any other time of the year. So thank you very much. Now we only have 10 minutes left. And so I'm going to ask everybody to just give me your name, ask me your question and I'll do my best to answer it. My name is Tommy George. I'm an entrepreneur in Charlotte, grew up in Charlotte, 20 years in business here. My concern is this is a headline from the Charlotte Observer on December 15. I'm not sure if you remember the article. It goes as such, just the first The developer of the largest wind farm ever proposed in North Carolina says the project has stalled because no utility wants to buy the power of the project we produce. That's just that's a concern because it speaks to maybe because it wasn't Duke's project that didn't want to buy the power. But my concern is the companies like Facebook, Google, the big Apple, the big centers that come here, they're offered this power nearly nothing. I'm a small business person. I'm paying I couldn't tell you the rate, but of a much higher rate than they're paying. I just think it's unfair. My business with the 20 employees I have, I know those data centers generated jobs to begin, construction jobs. Once the projects are finished, there's not as many jobs as I have as a small businessman. I just think it's unfair that I pay more and our rate the homeowners ratepayers pay more than these people pay. You're having to put more projects online because of these data centers come. They use so much power. The water not just to mention the water that they use. And I'm just concerned that people like myself, small businesses like myself need to be incentivized to be able to have cheaper power. I'm willing to pay more for my power. I'm paying a lot for my power and I'm happy to pay more if it comes from renewables. And one other question is the $4 to the North Carolina green on the bill that I pay every month, where does that money go and how is that being spent? I've been paying that for years. I would just want to know where that goes. Thank you. Thank you. I understand your point on the economic development and bringing the server farms, but in that part of our state that creates jobs and space to allow us to fund the schools. And there's always issues about how you allocate calls between different customer classes, including special rates to attract business to our state. I get that point. The other thing is, is I don't really know where that $4 go, but if you take it off, I think it probably goes to the where we say it does. But I'll check into that. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Hey, there. Thank you very much. My name is Jacqueline McClure. I'm a member of Charlotte Green Peace and I'm here on behalf of thousands of North Carolinians who are concerned with Duke Energy's current business model. I'm a shareholder and I'm a rate payer. We all know that coal is risky business. Think back to 2,009 when you were interviewed with 60 Minutes, You took a helicopter ride. You were remembering when you were 41 years old the first time that you flew over a coal fired power plant and you said, Oh, gosh, I'm responsible for this. Well, I'm here to remind you that you are responsible for that. You and Duke Energy are responsible for destroying the mountains of Appalachia. You and Duke Energy are responsible for polluting our air. You and Duke Energy are responsible for poisoning our water. So I'm here today to present you with over 8,000 petitions that people across the state of North Carolina have signed, here with people who face the ravages of mountaintop removal. I'm here with people living near Riverbend Coal Plant who are concerned about the coal ash ponds on Mountain Island Lake. And I'm here with a group of children who are standing outside who have asthma because of the coal plants. We're all here and we all know what Duke Energy is doing. I'm here to tell you Mr. Rogers that we're not going to stand by and allow you to continue to make profits at our expense. We're asking you to take full responsibility for the impacts of your risky business model. We will not pay for dirty energy. I'm sure you remember last October when thousands of people from across the state of North Carolina came together to protest the rate increase that you requested 20%, it was lowered to 7%. But that's not enough. We will not stop. We will continue to stand together. We will continue to attend public hearings. We will continue to contact our legislators and we will continue to rally in the streets to protest the rate increase that we know you're going to ask for by the end of this year. We're not going away. We want clean renewable energy for our community and for our country. We want drastic energy efficiency. We want you to stop destroying the mountains that we love, stop polluting the air that we breathe, stop poisoning our drinking water and stop raising our rates to pay for electricity that hurts us. Last week, Cincinnati, Ohio dropped Duke's dirty energy and replaced it with FirstEnergy Solutions that will provide 100 percent renewable energy for the people of Cincinnati. That cost our company about $100,000,000 So I'm asking you, are you going to wait around for Charlotte to drop you? Or are you going to stand together with me and with the people of this community and invest in clean renewable energy that's sourced from the state of North Carolina? Is that your question? I'm asking you and the people of North Carolina are asking you, will you commit to not renew a single contract for mountaintop removal coal? Can't do that. What we have done is put in place a policy to try reduce our use of mountaintop mining. We've reviewed it with the state regulators because they're concerned not just with mountaintop mining, they're concerned about the price increase on consumers. But more work to do there and we're committed to doing it. And so thank you. I look forward to your opposition to everything we do. And it's your right and I value it, but we're doing our very best to live up to our commitment of providing affordable, reliable and clean electricity. Thank you for being with us. Few more questions. Will you commit to provide us with at least 1 third of our energy from renewable sources by 2020? I can't make that kind of commitment. You're the CEO, you're in charge, you can make that commitment? I can, but I also have I'm regulated and I have certain requirements there. And I also very fundamentally and this is that will be your last question is this. I have to balance affordability and clean and reliability. And so it's not so simple to do. If I could do what you asked me to do, I would do it. But I can't. I can't do it that fast. And our country can't do it that fast. And I think that we ought to go study what's going on in Ontario Hydro and what they have done are in Germany, are in California. And getting the balance right is really critical. And I'm sure with your advocacy, you will help us get it right. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir. Good morning, Mr. Rogers. My name is Harry Phillips. I live in Chapel Hill. And I will ask a question at the beginning and the end of my brief comments. And I'm very disappointed that we're having to rush through now and you're sort of controlling the process. And it's very, very disrespectful to me and the other folks who want to speak and folks who've studied and done the research and prepared statements. So this is the one opportunity a year that we have to speak to you. So I'll be very briefer. Maybe the right answer because everybody has got speeches. Everybody has got a strong opinion, which I respect. Maybe the right answer is for me to schedule a public meeting and have all of you come and tell me exactly what you think and I'll do my best to answer. No, no. And I'll record it and I'll give a summary to the Board, so they'll understand the issues that are on your mind. We'll look forward to your gesture and I appreciate it. It's okay. I mean, again, I don't mean to rush you. I apologize for that. But we have to get back to our Board meeting. We have issues to deal with. So if you just ask me a question and I will set up, I will guarantee it, I will post it and everybody that's here that's talked, I'm trying to look and see who can Go to the end of the line. It's okay. Yes. No, no. But we'll make a list. We'll hold a meeting. And Bill Curran, so the first guy I see, okay. So you're the one. But everybody give your name to Bill. Well, there are only 8 of us left, so we can just finish off the last But commit to me, you'll ask me one question after telling me your name, please. Yes. And not comments. I'll do comments later. Harry Phillips, Chapel Hill, long time Duke Energy customer. My question to you, sir, is what is Duke Energy's strategic plan for conserving water at its nuclear and fossil plants? And I will read just 2 or 3 sentences from my prepared statement in the interest of time. Some brief context, the Dan River Basin and the Catawba River Basin are among the nation's most stressed waterways because of Duke's massive withdrawals. As a concerned citizen, convenience and profit seem to trump safety in terms of Duke's water use. The science says that drought and higher than normal summer temperatures make water conservation essential. Energy plants like Duke's draw nearly 70% of all water used in our region and exacerbate the problem. A recent study conducted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration concludes that if DEW continues to withdraw at its current rate from the Cantabra Basin, in a few decades, the river will no longer be able to meet demand. From what I can tell, Duke Energy is environmentally unconscious. Duke needs to reconcile energy and water, profit and sustainability, good citizenship and a 1% mentality. So I ask you again, what is Duke's strategic plan for conserving water? Well, 1st, 98% of the water we take from the rivers, we put back into the rivers cleaner than we took it out. The other 2% is evaporated and eventually returns. So our use of water is regulated at the state level, at the federal level, and we're returning all the water we use back into the rivers. Giant said that we will face a crisis that we will you will not be able to meet water demand if you continue withdrawing it at the current rate. Important point, 98% is returned, 2% is evaporated. And the reality is water, you're correct, is going to be the oil of the 21st century in terms of being a major issue. We're sensitive to that and are working on those issues. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Hi, Mr. Rogers. I'm J. D. Dolliner and I'm here representing my mother, Doctor. Doris Breggenridge. She's a physician in New Jersey. I actually want to start by congratulating you on helping to prove the commercial viability of renewables. I think that Duke has done a lot for that and now there's something to build from. And what I would like to see happen is for Duke to now take what is a small portion of its portfolio in renewables, use that great success and diversify. And I know that you have that the government could do a lot more for you if that R and D budget that they have for energy was a lot bigger on renewables and perhaps a little bit smaller in other places. So I wanted to ask you, if you would be willing and I had an eloquent speech to convince you to say yes to my question, but I'm trying to respect the time. You know what, if you just ask me the question, I might actually say yes. Would you be it's another meeting request. I would love to sit down with you and understand what you're doing to lobby the government for more funding of renewables to bring cost parity and to enable implementation to happen at a much faster level. I would love to help make that happen. No, no, that's great. And I will be delighted to sit down with you. And the important point is the government is actually cutting off the funding of wind. It's very impolite. Starting in 2013. And we'll see the inability to economically build wind because we need the subsidy. But I will be delighted, give Bill current and we'll get a sheet of paper, let everybody put their name down. I am delighted to meet with you all and have a long conversation. And each of you has got statements, which I respect and we'll have to do it in that context. But thank you. And the answer is yes, I'll sit down with you. Thank you. I'd love to help. So in the interest of time, I will shorten what else I'm going to say. Okay. My name is Hector Vaca. I'm a community organizer with Action NC, which is a community group made up of people from our community, working class people who cannot afford another rate hike. The people came together a few months ago and we stopped the incredibly high rate hike. This happened through public hearings and we would like for this to continue. But as it has come to my attention recently, Duke Energy is lobbying pass legislation that would not allow us to have any more public hearings in order for us, the people to actually have a voice in this. Everyday people in our community, as I said, I'm a community organizer, I actually talk to the people in our community, unlike a lot of the executives. And people in the community are telling me every single day, they cannot afford any more rate hikes. They can barely afford the 7 point something rate hikes that happened a few months ago. Many North Carolinas are out of work. Many are the gas prices are going up, the price of food is going up, many have to choose between paying the light bill or feeding their children. In 2010, Duke had a 23% increase in profits. You, Mr. Rogers, had a 25% raise, bringing your salary up to $6,900,000 As I said, poor people cannot afford higher bills. Better options would be to freeze the pay of the execs. Starting with you, Mr. Rogers. So my question is this, in order to make it more affordable for the people of North Carolina who cannot afford to pay these high bills, would you be willing to take a freeze in your pay or cut your pay in order to subsidize all these plants that you want to build? Will the execs do the same thing? Because I know we can't afford it, you're making 6 digits a year or more, while the rest of us are barely scraping by with just 2 digits, the low to the low zone 7 digits. So will you make a commitment to actually freeze your pay as opposed to making us pay more? Well, the simple answer is I get paid only when I perform. I don't get an automatic payment is not automatic. It's only when I deliver value to the customers as well as the investors. And last year, the investors had a 30% total shareholder return. They had the value of this company increase $7,000,000,000 So what I get paid in that context is rather small. Thank you though. And I used to be a consumer advocate just like you fighting rate increases in utilities. I get it. Next question please. Thanks. Hi, Jim. My name is Jenny Marino. I live here in Charlotte and I'm here wearing a couple of hats, but I'll keep this short. So I'm here because I'm a shareholder, but I'm also here because I'm a young person on this planet. And so a lot of the things that I wanted to say, I think have already been stated. But as a shareholder, I'm very concerned about looking at our North Carolina IRP, which states that we'll be relying heavily on nuclear and natural gas and coal over the next 18 years. So I work for a group called 350.org that focuses on climate change as the biggest problem that we face as a planet. These three pieces are false solutions to climate change. We're often told that if we want to go away from coal that we're going to have to rely either on natural gas or nuclear. Neither of those are a safe solution for our planet and for our people. And so I'm asking you to invest heavily in renewable energy. We need to be invested heavily in renewable energy yesterday if we're going to stop the worst effects of climate change. And so I guess my question is, and I'll give you a little background on this. And this may be of interest to all the others in the room, but at this very moment, there are activists with Greenpeace and with Mountain Justice who have blocked a train on its way to the Matthew steam station. They're preventing coal from reaching that steam station at this very moment. So my question is, how can you ensure that coal and natural gas and nuclear are not risky investments for your organization and for everyone who's involved with it, when there will be active protests and active resistance to the energy that's killing our planet? I think the only thing I would say is that if you block the generation of electricity from our coal plants, if you block the generation of electricity from our nuclear plants, You're going to block the flow of electricity to our schools and to our hospitals and to people across our state that rely on it. There's a more recent way to go about this. If that is your way of expressing your opinion, I value it. I respect it, but it is in the long term interest of our community. And again, I hope you join with these others and meet with me later, so we can have a full vetting of all of this. Thank you. And I do just want to point out that my generation is forced to take these actions to protect our future. If our energy did come from safe renewable energy, we wouldn't be forced to do these sort of things. And you can expect more of it in the coming generation. I'm ready. Yes, ma'am. Good to see you again. Thank you. I'm surprised you're not out there. I'm everywhere I can be. I know. Everywhere I go, you're there. Yes. And I will keep coming, Mr. Rogers, only because I care so much about my children and grandchildren. Please just ask me. Yes. Well, you keep talking about affordable, but I'm sure you've seen the same studies I have that say nuclear energy, the so renaissance is not happening, not because it's dangerous, but because it's not affordable. And I know you also know that the rate structure is being challenged because your biggest customers aren't going to be on the hook for the extravagant process of nuclear plants. And small businesses like Mr. George and other people are coming together to try to make sure if you do build nuclear plants, they'll be paid for in a fair way and not just by residential and small businesses, the way the rate structure works now. My question is, you said at the beginning that you would need construction cost recovery assurance from the legislature to be able to build nuclear plants. I would like to know, because lots of folks are trying to find out, does Duke Energy intend to pursue in the short session of the legislature that's about to begin that sort of cost recovery assurance legislation. Well, I'm sure I can assure you in the short session, they're going to be focused on a range of issues they need to be focused on like education, getting the balanced budget. In all likelihood, they will not be focused on this issue in this session. So is that a no, you're not going to try to get it in the short session? If they offered it to me, I'd take it, but I'm not going to go get it. Okay. Thank you for answering that. Thank you. Hi, Ms. Russell. My name is Greg Tanner. I'm representing AARP and our 100 and some million members in the state. Let me first of all say that we recently have met with some of your staff here and it was a very fruitful and engaging conversation and it was very positive in many ways. At the same time though, I returned here on this past Monday and on the poverty tool, one of the things that came up was so many individuals like you just heard not being able to afford to pay utility bills. And one of the things that they often was faced with was either paying for medicine or transportation or the issues when it came to those high rise and utility costs. My question to you and I'll be brief is that what why then is Duke Energy proposing automatic annual rate hikes? And how then does that benefit the customer? And I heard you say that you're customer driven. Could you explain it to us? Well, a couple of important points. Context, the real price of electricity today compared to 1960 is lower today than it was in 1960. So it's been flat to declining overall both years. Today, the price of electricity in North Carolina is 20% to 30% below the national average. And I know nobody likes a rate increase, but we're investing 1,000,000,000 of dollars in North Carolina to modernize our grid, to build modern generation fleets, so we can retire high emitting coal plants. And the consequence of these investments require us consistent with our business model and the regulations in this state, to get recovery of these 1,000,000,000 of dollars of investment. So we don't like rate increases. But the reality is to modernize our grid, to clean it up for all the people here that are concerned about clean energy, it's going to cost more. But the good news is and maybe not comforting news, it is still cheaper here than the majority of America. So thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir. My name is Greg Jocoy and I live in Simpsonville, South Carolina. I'm a Duke rate payer and representing a shareholder. And to get to my questions right away, do you realize that it makes me feel that you don't value shareholder input when you make us watch a film that could have been placed on and all of us told about in advance and then told that we don't have enough time to have you hear our questions and then answer them. Do you know how that makes me feel? I know how it makes you feel and that's why Thank you, sir. Do you know how it makes me feel when you tell us that the Board of Directors is going to have to go because you have important stuff to do? I know how that makes you feel. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Hello, Mr. Rogers. My name is Gautam Desai and I'll extract some questions from here. But I'm here to also respect Mr. Richard Foreman. He's a retired physician, who was here to read his statement, but he had to go back all the way to Asheville because of an accident in the family. He is fine. But so I'll just be very quick and just Maybe you give me the statement and ask me the question. Sure. So from based on this and from based on what I hear, I have questions about 3 things. One is the rate of change. It doesn't look like that you and the activists defer in the long term goals, but the rate of change that you are making feasible or you claim that it is feasible is definitely a lot slower glacial pace than what they think is possible right now in this world and it is cost effective. So who is to determine? That's one thing. Second thing is about the political power and the cloud. You are the co host of the DNC. You are one of the largest corporations with the legislature and a lot of other politics in North Carolina. And there is a lot more power within you if you can do the rate hikes, you can also do some of the other things from renewables to energy efficiency to a number of things. And we feel that you are not doing enough on that account. And finally, you are constantly talking about the affordability, but it looks like that the greater investment and riskier difficult investments like protests coming up against Bank of America for financing coal and they will start rethinking this. And this money is being reinvested to go invite corporations like Apple, Google and Facebook that you yourself sort of admitted that could be of dubious taxpayers' incentives. So these are not used to fund the electricity requirements of the hospitals and schools and poor households. They are funded to do the electricity production and then invite subsidized corporations from outside. So the whole model is flawed. The questions are about the rate of change, about the actual affordability and cost effectiveness as a tool to continue to be dependent on coal and nuclear. And third thing is using the political power even more judiciously more proactively for change rather than trying to soothe the current model of Duke Power? Thank you. Thank you. And please make sure I get a copy of that. The only thing I would say is that we are working hard to make the transition as fast as it makes sense. And so what we're balancing is as we build new plants that are cleaner and we retire old plants that are fully depreciated, that's going to translate into higher rates. So I'd rather do it in a smooth way. And you are right, it's not a question of where we're going, it's a question of how fast we get there. And we are on that road and we can debate about how fast, but we're trying to do it in a way that smooths out the cost impact on our consumers. Yes, sir. My name is David Pasek. I'm a shareholder and I live in Charlotte here. I'm a ratepayer. Mr. Rogers, whatever the Board is paying you, it is not enough from what I've heard here today. Thank you. Thank you. I've heard a lot of nonsense here today. I'm a retired medical doctor. I treated asthma for 26 years. And let me tell you, the particulate matter put out by Duke Energy is trivial compared to the asthma causing effects of cigarette smoke and emissions from tailpipes. There's also a theory of course that the epidemic of asthma is caused because of the urbanization of America because so many 1,000,000 Americans now no longer have exposure to farm animals like they did 100 years ago. And of course asthma is an immunologic problem. But my question is, I'd like to hear your comments and bring us all up to date about the proposed merger with Progress Energy, why FERC is giving you a hard time about it, what's your approach is to this and what the future might hold for us? Thank you very much. Thank you, sir, for those comments. I think the important point is that our plans are to close this merger by July 1. And this is the 3rd time we've asked for an okay to do this. The bottom line is they've really struggled with defining the issue of market power and we're 2 companies that are contiguous, but were regulated. And for it's difficult for me to see what their issue is and they haven't been clear in terms of how to address their issue, but we're doing our best to close this transaction. Duke Power. Yes, sir. Mr. Rogers, my name is Fred E. Kounsell. Yes, sir. I'm the shareholder. I'm the shareholder. And again, I suggest the name Duke Power. Fellow shareowners, if you would consider keep the name the same or a change to Duke Power, please would you convey to Mr. Manley, our Corporate Secretary, on a matter I think would beneficial, our business, our primary business, Power, Americas, North, South, Electric Power, Power. Thank you. You asked me every year and I will tell you as I travel around the country, the number of people that still refer to us as Duke Power is amazing. So I mean, obviously, that's a name that works. Vlad, how are you doing? I'm doing thank you, Jim. I was actually not going to speak, but feel compelled to say a few things. My name is Vladimir Pereyat. I'm a CEO of United Hydrogen. We are environmental firm. We exist to establish infrastructure of fueling stations to enable automotive hydrogen fueled vehicles to exist and lessen our dependence on foreign oil. So we're essentially environmental firm. However, I'm extremely surprised at so many negative comments regarding Duke Energy. I think Duke Energy is doing tremendous job in this transition process Jim is describing. I heard Europe quoted several times, I'm a European. I can tell you that the European policies are right now bankrupting Europe. I don't think you would want to hear. One thing about renewable energy, everybody forgets. I didn't hear it say it once. It's intermittent. It's not an energy you can rely on. It has to have a backup power. Every megawatt somebody installs has to have a backup power. Now if the people who have this attitude want electricity only when there's a sunshine, Duke Energy can provide it tomorrow. But you want electricity all the time. And that's where Duke Energy comes to with a complex program of balancing the need for energy all the time, so that we industries can grow and yet be responsible to the environment. But I felt I had to say that because what I've heard here was so negative totally surprised. Thank you very much. Thank you. Yes, sir. My name is Walter Batista. I'm Cuban by birth, American by the grace of God. And the statements that I hear coming out of the White House occupant right now remind me too deeply much of what I heard in Q of 52, 53. And I do not appreciate you being the co chair if you will. But if you want to put your own personal fortune at the Board of Directors, please feel free. Okay. But I don't appreciate you granting our $10,000,000 or is it because what your employee Mr. Forrest in Greensboro said that the only reason you gave the $10,000,000 was because you wanted to be named, how can I say, the Chairman of the Energy Commission for the administration? Thank you, sir. Thank you for trying to get me promoted into the government, but that isn't the purpose. Now I know that. But the important point is just to kind of complete and thank everybody that stayed with us today is that we made that investment for the city of Charlotte because the spotlight will be on our city and it will give us great recognition around the world. I want to thank everybody for being here today. I want to thank everybody for the questions. I'm looking forward to the people that want to meet with me independently, put their names down, put their e mail address down, and I will host that meeting with you and listen to your concerns and address them. So again, thank you all very much.