We are asking Duke Energy to perform a Greenwashing Audit. Though existing coal plants are dramatically less expensive than any form of new electricity generation, Duke is planning to shutter its 14 coal plants — even as 1,600 others are being built around the world. China, alone, is adding coal capacity worth the entire US coal fleet. What benefit is Duke producing to anyone or anything by shuttering its coal plants? Is any claimed benefit real or is it greenwashing? Shareholders want to know!

Here’s the proposal:

Greenwashing Audit

Resolved:

Shareholders request that, beginning in 2019, Duke Energy annually publish a report of actually incurred company costs and associated actual/significant benefits accruing to shareholders, public health and the environment from Duke’s environment-related activities that are voluntary and exceed federal/state regulatory requirements. The report should be prepared at reasonable cost and omit proprietary information.

Supporting Statement:

Duke’s purpose is to generate profits from generating affordable and reliable electricity for ratepayers while obeying applicable laws and regulations. Maintaining coal plants is the least expensive option for generating power per the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Coal Council 2018 report, “Power Reset” (www.BurnMoreCoal.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/NCC-Power-Reset-2018.pdf). Yet Duke’s management intends to shutter its coal plants in hopes of somehow altering global climate change.

This resolution is intended to help shareholders monitor whether Duke’s voluntary activities and expenditures touted as protecting the public health and environment are actually producing meaningful benefits to shareholders, public health and the environment.

Corporate managements sometimes engage in “greenwashing” ⎯ i.e., spending shareholder money on schemes ostensibly environment-related, but really undertaken merely for the purpose of improving the public image of management. Such insincere “green” posturing and associated touting of alleged, but actually imaginary benefits to public health and the environment may harm shareholders by distracting management, wasting corporate assets, ripping off ratepayers and deceiving shareholders and the public.

For example, Duke states in its 2017 Climate Report to Shareholders: “We have reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 31% since 2005, and we have set our sights on greater progress.” No law or regulation required this reduction. Shareholders should have an honest accounting of this action’s cost and the action’s actual and current (vs. hypothetical or imagined) benefits. After all, Duke’s reduction in CO2 emissions is not an obvious benefit to anyone or anything.

Duke says its “goal” is to reduce CO2 emissions 40% from 2005 levels by 2030. No law or regulation requires this action. What will be the actual benefit to anyone or anything of it? Global CO2 emissions are higher now than ever and increasing. China is reportedly now adding coal plant capacity equal to the entire US coal fleet. Around the world, there are reportedly 1,100 coal plants under construction. In comparison, Duke operates a mere 14 coal plants. So what are the actual benefits to ratepayers, shareholders and the environment of meeting Duke’s goal? By how much, in what way, and when will any of these activities reduce or alter climate change, for example?

The information requested by this proposal is not already contained in any Duke report, including the aforementioned climate report, which contains none of the cost-benefit detail requested hereby. Duke’s climate report is so vague and vapid, it may itself be reasonably suspected as greenwashing.

Duke should report to shareholders what are the specific actual benefits produced by its voluntary, highly touted and costly environmental activities. Are the touted benefits real and worthwhile? Or are they just greenwashing? Shareholders want to know.