Duke Energy is in hot water again over coal ash. Earlier this month,
local environmentalists noticed Duke was pumping down coal ash lagoons
at a retired power plant. That triggered an investigation that ended
yesterday, when the state Department of Environment and Natural
Resources announced that Duke had illegally pumped 61 million gallons of
coal ash-tainted wastewater into the Cape Fear River.

- - -

Duke Energy, I've read, is the largest power plant company in the
country, and it has created a large number of serious environmental
disasters, some through accident and carelessness and some, as this
newest one, deliberately.

The company should lose its licenses and the plants taken over by
companies who will have the public's interest in mind. Fining Duke
Energy isn't the answer...it just will pass those fines along to those
who have to buy power from it. It's too bad shareholder liability is so
limited in this country, even when a corporation knowingly does the
wrong thing, as in this latest dump of pollution. Sticking shareholders
with the bill for the cleanup might help, and so would jail time for the
corporate execs.


--
Rand Paul & Ted Cruz…your 2016 GOP nominees, because ‘Mericans deserve
crazy!

On 3/21/14, 11:57 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 21:24:16 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Duke Energy is in hot water again over coal ash. Earlier this month,
local environmentalists noticed Duke was pumping down coal ash lagoons
at a retired power plant. That triggered an investigation that ended
yesterday, when the state Department of Environment and Natural
Resources announced that Duke had illegally pumped 61 million gallons of
coal ash-tainted wastewater into the Cape Fear River.

- - -

Duke Energy, I've read, is the largest power plant company in the
country, and it has created a large number of serious environmental
disasters, some through accident and carelessness and some, as this
newest one, deliberately.

The company should lose its licenses and the plants taken over by
companies who will have the public's interest in mind. Fining Duke
Energy isn't the answer...it just will pass those fines along to those
who have to buy power from it. It's too bad shareholder liability is so
limited in this country, even when a corporation knowingly does the
wrong thing, as in this latest dump of pollution. Sticking shareholders
with the bill for the cleanup might help, and so would jail time for the
corporate execs.


I have no problem going after the actual people who thought it was a
good idea to break the law but that probably was not anyone in the
CEO's office or any stock holder and it certainly wasn't the
customer's fault.
Maybe some plant manager or engineer should do some time.

I am happy that you recognize that anything you do along the lines of
charging corporations more money is passed on to the customer or taken
away from the stock holder.
The corporation itself may actually end up making more money. You just
have to look at the tobacco companies to see that.


The problem with fines is that they do not punish the corporation
enough, and they're just another cost of doing business. Taking money
from the shareholders might help, as with Duke losing its licenses and
senior execs being prosecuted. Shareholders own the company. Perhaps it
is time to end their ability to distance themselves from the disasters
their investments cause.

--
Rand Paul & Ted Cruz…your 2016 GOP nominees, because ‘Mericans deserve
crazy!

On 3/22/14, 11:30 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 07:24:54 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/21/14, 11:57 PM, wrote:


I am happy that you recognize that anything you do along the lines of
charging corporations more money is passed on to the customer or taken
away from the stock holder.
The corporation itself may actually end up making more money. You just
have to look at the tobacco companies to see that.


The problem with fines is that they do not punish the corporation
enough, and they're just another cost of doing business. Taking money
from the shareholders might help, as with Duke losing its licenses and
senior execs being prosecuted. Shareholders own the company. Perhaps it
is time to end their ability to distance themselves from the disasters
their investments cause.

Punishing the stock holder ends up punishing the public too. Most
stocks are held by pension plans, mutual funds and other public
entities. The individuals have very little influence even in which
stocks they are invested in and certainly no leverage on the
corporations who are behind those stocks.

If they really wanted to make an impact, they would go after the
person who made the decision in the first place and I doubt that
happened anywhere above the plant manager level.
It may have just been a junior staffer taking a shortcut that violated
company policy.
Did we ever actually hear what the level of the contamination was?


Ahh, but if the shareholders were exposed to civil and criminal
liability for the misdeeds of the company they owned, they might take
their duties as business owners seriously, and exert pressure on the
company to behave.

It's amazing the twists and turns top management takes to shield itself
from "junior staffers," but the reality is, *they* are in charge.

I've read about the volume of pollutants in this case, but not the
impact yet.




--
Rand Paul & Ted Cruz…your 2016 GOP nominees, because ‘Mericans deserve
crazy!

On 3/22/2014 11:36 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 3/22/14, 11:30 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 07:24:54 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/21/14, 11:57 PM, wrote:


I am happy that you recognize that anything you do along the lines of
charging corporations more money is passed on to the customer or taken
away from the stock holder.
The corporation itself may actually end up making more money. You just
have to look at the tobacco companies to see that.


The problem with fines is that they do not punish the corporation
enough, and they're just another cost of doing business. Taking money
from the shareholders might help, as with Duke losing its licenses and
senior execs being prosecuted. Shareholders own the company. Perhaps it
is time to end their ability to distance themselves from the disasters
their investments cause.

Punishing the stock holder ends up punishing the public too. Most
stocks are held by pension plans, mutual funds and other public
entities. The individuals have very little influence even in which
stocks they are invested in and certainly no leverage on the
corporations who are behind those stocks.

If they really wanted to make an impact, they would go after the
person who made the decision in the first place and I doubt that
happened anywhere above the plant manager level.
It may have just been a junior staffer taking a shortcut that violated
company policy.
Did we ever actually hear what the level of the contamination was?


Ahh, but if the shareholders were exposed to civil and criminal
liability for the misdeeds of the company they owned, they might take
their duties as business owners seriously, and exert pressure on the
company to behave.

It's amazing the twists and turns top management takes to shield itself
from "junior staffers," but the reality is, *they* are in charge.

I've read about the volume of pollutants in this case, but not the
impact yet.




It's too bad that you didn't put pressure on the the owners of Krause
and company to run a legitimate company and pay their taxes. Eh Krausebag?

On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 11:36:35 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/22/14, 11:30 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 07:24:54 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/21/14, 11:57 PM, wrote:


I am happy that you recognize that anything you do along the lines of
charging corporations more money is passed on to the customer or taken
away from the stock holder.
The corporation itself may actually end up making more money. You just
have to look at the tobacco companies to see that.


The problem with fines is that they do not punish the corporation
enough, and they're just another cost of doing business. Taking money
from the shareholders might help, as with Duke losing its licenses and
senior execs being prosecuted. Shareholders own the company. Perhaps it
is time to end their ability to distance themselves from the disasters
their investments cause.

Punishing the stock holder ends up punishing the public too. Most
stocks are held by pension plans, mutual funds and other public
entities. The individuals have very little influence even in which
stocks they are invested in and certainly no leverage on the
corporations who are behind those stocks.

If they really wanted to make an impact, they would go after the
person who made the decision in the first place and I doubt that
happened anywhere above the plant manager level.
It may have just been a junior staffer taking a shortcut that violated
company policy.
Did we ever actually hear what the level of the contamination was?


Ahh, but if the shareholders were exposed to civil and criminal
liability for the misdeeds of the company they owned, they might take
their duties as business owners seriously, and exert pressure on the
company to behave.

It's amazing the twists and turns top management takes to shield itself
from "junior staffers," but the reality is, *they* are in charge.

I've read about the volume of pollutants in this case, but not the
impact yet.

The unions, which are huge shareholders of corporate stock, would rebel. That would put the kibosh
on your stupendous idea in a heartbeat.

On 3/22/14, 12:44 PM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 11:36:35 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/22/14, 11:30 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 07:24:54 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/21/14, 11:57 PM, wrote:


I am happy that you recognize that anything you do along the lines of
charging corporations more money is passed on to the customer or taken
away from the stock holder.
The corporation itself may actually end up making more money. You just
have to look at the tobacco companies to see that.


The problem with fines is that they do not punish the corporation
enough, and they're just another cost of doing business. Taking money
from the shareholders might help, as with Duke losing its licenses and
senior execs being prosecuted. Shareholders own the company. Perhaps it
is time to end their ability to distance themselves from the disasters
their investments cause.

Punishing the stock holder ends up punishing the public too. Most
stocks are held by pension plans, mutual funds and other public
entities. The individuals have very little influence even in which
stocks they are invested in and certainly no leverage on the
corporations who are behind those stocks.

If they really wanted to make an impact, they would go after the
person who made the decision in the first place and I doubt that
happened anywhere above the plant manager level.
It may have just been a junior staffer taking a shortcut that violated
company policy.
Did we ever actually hear what the level of the contamination was?


Ahh, but if the shareholders were exposed to civil and criminal
liability for the misdeeds of the company they owned, they might take
their duties as business owners seriously, and exert pressure on the
company to behave.

It's amazing the twists and turns top management takes to shield itself
from "junior staffers," but the reality is, *they* are in charge.

I've read about the volume of pollutants in this case, but not the
impact yet.

The unions, which are huge shareholders of corporate stock, would rebel. That would put the kibosh
on your stupendous idea in a heartbeat.



Au contraire. I suspect if the corporate shield were removed from
corporations, their chief execs and their boards, the companies would
act a lot more responsibly and the union trust fund shareholders would
applaud.

I read where Duke is planning to pass the cost of its fines onto its
customers, and not take it out of profits. That should be illegal, too.

But of course, this is the nation of Corporations Uber Alles.

--
Rand Paul & Ted Cruz…your 2016 GOP nominees, because ‘Mericans deserve
crazy!

On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 12:56:44 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/22/14, 12:44 PM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 11:36:35 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/22/14, 11:30 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 07:24:54 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/21/14, 11:57 PM, wrote:


I am happy that you recognize that anything you do along the lines of
charging corporations more money is passed on to the customer or taken
away from the stock holder.
The corporation itself may actually end up making more money. You just
have to look at the tobacco companies to see that.


The problem with fines is that they do not punish the corporation
enough, and they're just another cost of doing business. Taking money
from the shareholders might help, as with Duke losing its licenses and
senior execs being prosecuted. Shareholders own the company. Perhaps it
is time to end their ability to distance themselves from the disasters
their investments cause.

Punishing the stock holder ends up punishing the public too. Most
stocks are held by pension plans, mutual funds and other public
entities. The individuals have very little influence even in which
stocks they are invested in and certainly no leverage on the
corporations who are behind those stocks.

If they really wanted to make an impact, they would go after the
person who made the decision in the first place and I doubt that
happened anywhere above the plant manager level.
It may have just been a junior staffer taking a shortcut that violated
company policy.
Did we ever actually hear what the level of the contamination was?


Ahh, but if the shareholders were exposed to civil and criminal
liability for the misdeeds of the company they owned, they might take
their duties as business owners seriously, and exert pressure on the
company to behave.

It's amazing the twists and turns top management takes to shield itself
from "junior staffers," but the reality is, *they* are in charge.

I've read about the volume of pollutants in this case, but not the
impact yet.

The unions, which are huge shareholders of corporate stock, would rebel. That would put the kibosh
on your stupendous idea in a heartbeat.



Au contraire. I suspect if the corporate shield were removed from
corporations, their chief execs and their boards, the companies would
act a lot more responsibly and the union trust fund shareholders would
applaud.

I read where Duke is planning to pass the cost of its fines onto its
customers, and not take it out of profits. That should be illegal, too.

But of course, this is the nation of Corporations Uber Alles.

The union member shareholders would never allow themselves to be put in the position you suggest, to
wit: "...if the shareholders were exposed to civil and criminal liability..."

I expect their applause would die rapidly when they started paying fines or going to jail for the
misdeeds of mid-level managers or even high-level managers.

On 3/22/14, 1:03 PM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 12:56:44 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/22/14, 12:44 PM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 11:36:35 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/22/14, 11:30 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 07:24:54 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/21/14, 11:57 PM, wrote:


I am happy that you recognize that anything you do along the lines of
charging corporations more money is passed on to the customer or taken
away from the stock holder.
The corporation itself may actually end up making more money. You just
have to look at the tobacco companies to see that.


The problem with fines is that they do not punish the corporation
enough, and they're just another cost of doing business. Taking money
from the shareholders might help, as with Duke losing its licenses and
senior execs being prosecuted. Shareholders own the company. Perhaps it
is time to end their ability to distance themselves from the disasters
their investments cause.

Punishing the stock holder ends up punishing the public too. Most
stocks are held by pension plans, mutual funds and other public
entities. The individuals have very little influence even in which
stocks they are invested in and certainly no leverage on the
corporations who are behind those stocks.

If they really wanted to make an impact, they would go after the
person who made the decision in the first place and I doubt that
happened anywhere above the plant manager level.
It may have just been a junior staffer taking a shortcut that violated
company policy.
Did we ever actually hear what the level of the contamination was?


Ahh, but if the shareholders were exposed to civil and criminal
liability for the misdeeds of the company they owned, they might take
their duties as business owners seriously, and exert pressure on the
company to behave.

It's amazing the twists and turns top management takes to shield itself
from "junior staffers," but the reality is, *they* are in charge.

I've read about the volume of pollutants in this case, but not the
impact yet.

The unions, which are huge shareholders of corporate stock, would rebel. That would put the kibosh
on your stupendous idea in a heartbeat.



Au contraire. I suspect if the corporate shield were removed from
corporations, their chief execs and their boards, the companies would
act a lot more responsibly and the union trust fund shareholders would
applaud.

I read where Duke is planning to pass the cost of its fines onto its
customers, and not take it out of profits. That should be illegal, too.

But of course, this is the nation of Corporations Uber Alles.

The union member shareholders would never allow themselves to be put in the position you suggest, to
wit: "...if the shareholders were exposed to civil and criminal liability..."

I expect their applause would die rapidly when they started paying fines or going to jail for the
misdeeds of mid-level managers or even high-level managers.



What you are saying is in complete agreement with my point, which I have
stated only indirectly: there is no way to control these misbehaving
corporations in this country.

--
Rand Paul & Ted Cruz…your 2016 GOP nominees, because ‘Mericans deserve
crazy!

On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 12:58:23 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Eventually, we should move away from coal as we develop better ways to
make electricity, but it isn't going to happen within the lifetime of
any of our grandchildren.

===

I think you may be surprised. We have enough natural gas to get off
of coal right now if we had the distribution infrastructure to get the
gas where it is needed, and if we gave the plants some reasonable
amount of time to convert. I believe coal will be well on the way
out within 10 years or so.

On 3/22/14, 3:02 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 12:56:44 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/22/14, 12:44 PM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 11:36:35 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/22/14, 11:30 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 07:24:54 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/21/14, 11:57 PM, wrote:


I am happy that you recognize that anything you do along the lines of
charging corporations more money is passed on to the customer or taken
away from the stock holder.
The corporation itself may actually end up making more money. You just
have to look at the tobacco companies to see that.


The problem with fines is that they do not punish the corporation
enough, and they're just another cost of doing business. Taking money
from the shareholders might help, as with Duke losing its licenses and
senior execs being prosecuted. Shareholders own the company. Perhaps it
is time to end their ability to distance themselves from the disasters
their investments cause.

Punishing the stock holder ends up punishing the public too. Most
stocks are held by pension plans, mutual funds and other public
entities. The individuals have very little influence even in which
stocks they are invested in and certainly no leverage on the
corporations who are behind those stocks.

If they really wanted to make an impact, they would go after the
person who made the decision in the first place and I doubt that
happened anywhere above the plant manager level.
It may have just been a junior staffer taking a shortcut that violated
company policy.
Did we ever actually hear what the level of the contamination was?


Ahh, but if the shareholders were exposed to civil and criminal
liability for the misdeeds of the company they owned, they might take
their duties as business owners seriously, and exert pressure on the
company to behave.

It's amazing the twists and turns top management takes to shield itself
from "junior staffers," but the reality is, *they* are in charge.

I've read about the volume of pollutants in this case, but not the
impact yet.

The unions, which are huge shareholders of corporate stock, would rebel. That would put the kibosh
on your stupendous idea in a heartbeat.



Au contraire. I suspect if the corporate shield were removed from
corporations, their chief execs and their boards, the companies would
act a lot more responsibly and the union trust fund shareholders would
applaud.

I read where Duke is planning to pass the cost of its fines onto its
customers, and not take it out of profits. That should be illegal, too.

But of course, this is the nation of Corporations Uber Alles.

How would the corporation exist if it did not pass expenses along to
the customer. It is just like the government passing it's expenses
along to the tax payers.

Fines for criminal acts should be borne by the shareholders.


--
Rand Paul & Ted Cruz…your 2016 GOP nominees, because ‘Mericans deserve
crazy!