As regards the Duke Energy annual report’s take on their rent-seeking, and my comments about how corporate climate alarmism can be assessed by polling each proponent’s support for a legislative response other than that which said proponent is pushing to profit from — in the name or responsibility, mind you — I also see in my “to do” pile the annual report of yet another climate rent-seeker in which I have a very minor stake, FPL Group.
FPL puts it relatively plainly:
“However, these legislative proposals have differing methods of implementation and the impact on FPL’s and FPL Energy’s [housing their massive windmill investment, which history shows require large subsidies to exist] generating units and/or the financial impact (either positive or negative) to FPL Group and FPL could be material, depending on eventual structure of any legislation enacted and specific implementation rules adopted.”
So, as close observers know, in addition to managing their fear over being stuck with responsibility for “BTU redux” by laboring to create clever programs to hide what they’re doing, Congress must also figure out whose ox to gore (sorry). With electric generation being such a diverse industry, though not with all operators being equally diversified in their portfolio, this makes it very difficult to avoid making someone the fall guy. Other than the ratepayer, that is. And people who rely on affordable reliable electricity for their jobs. And so on.