Use these links to rapidly review the document
TABLE OF CONTENTS
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
SCHEDULE 14A
Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Amendment No. )
Filed by the Registrant ý | ||
Filed by a Party other than the Registrant o |
||
Check the appropriate box: |
||
Check the appropriate box: |
||
ý | Preliminary Proxy Statement | |
o | Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2)) | |
o | Definitive Proxy Statement | |
o | Definitive Additional Materials | |
o | Soliciting Material under §240.14a-12 |
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION |
||||
(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter) |
||||
(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant) |
||||
Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box): |
||||
ý | No fee required. | |||
o | Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(1) and 0-11. | |||
(1) | Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies: | |||
| | | | |
(2) | Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies: | |||
| | | | |
(3) | Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined): | |||
| | | | |
(4) | Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction: | |||
| | | | |
(5) | Total fee paid: | |||
| | | | |
o | Fee paid previously with preliminary materials. | |||
o | Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act Rule 0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid previously. Identify the previous filing by registration statement number, or the Form or Schedule and the date of its filing. | |||
(1) | Amount Previously Paid: | |||
| | | | |
(2) | Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.: | |||
| | | | |
(3) | Filing Party: | |||
| | | | |
(4) | Date Filed: | |||
| | | | |
Welcome to the Duke Energy
Annual Meeting
of Shareholders
March [ · ], 2017
Dear Fellow Shareholders:
I am pleased to invite you to our Annual Meeting of Shareholders ("Annual Meeting") to be held on Thursday, May 4, 2017, at 12:30 p.m. Eastern Time. We look forward to updating you on the progress we have made and our plans for the future of Duke Energy.
This year we are excited to hold the Annual Meeting exclusively online for the first time via live webcast. This format enables us to use technology to open our Annual Meeting to shareholders from all over the world and improve our communications with them. We want to make sure that all of our shareholders have the opportunity to participate in the governance of the Corporation, and the live webcast will help accomplish this. An audio broadcast of the Annual Meeting will also be available by telephone toll-free at 1.888.256.9124, conference number 4228233. Details regarding how to participate in the Annual Meeting via webcast and the business to be conducted at the Annual Meeting are more fully described in the accompanying Notice of Annual Meeting on page 10 and Frequently Asked Questions and Answers About the Annual Meeting on page 75 of this proxy statement.
The online format will also allow us to communicate with you in advance of the Annual Meeting via a pre-meeting forum that you can enter by visiting www.proxyvote.com. Through the use of our pre-meeting forum, you can submit questions in writing in advance of the Annual Meeting. As a result, we will be able to answer more questions than we were able to answer at previous meetings by posting written answers online to any questions that we do not have time to answer during the Annual Meeting.
This proxy statement contains details about Duke Energy's strong corporate governance practices. The Corporation has made numerous positive changes to our corporate governance practices in recent years. These steps are in addition to the many strategic business developments that occurred in 2016, which are detailed in the 2016 Annual Report that accompanies this proxy statement.
Your participation as a shareholder is important to us. Please review this proxy statement prior to exercising your vote as it contains important information relating to the business of the Annual Meeting. Page 3 contains instructions on how you can vote your shares online, by telephone or by mail. At Duke Energy's 2016 Annual Meeting, approximately 84% of the Corporation's outstanding shares were represented in person or by proxy. It is important that all Duke Energy shareholders, regardless of the number of shares owned, participate in the affairs of the Corporation.
Thank you for your continued investment in Duke Energy.
Sincerely,
Lynn J. Good
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Letter from the Independent Lead Director
Dear Fellow Shareholders:
Duke Energy Corporation's Board of Directors (the "Board") is committed to sound corporate governance policies and practices to ensure the Corporation operates responsibly, efficiently, and in the best interests of its shareholders. This proxy statement highlights the governance practices of the Corporation and our Board, as well as the governance developments at Duke Energy in 2016.
In January 2016, the Board appointed me as the Corporation's Independent Lead Director. As Independent Lead Director, I work with our Chief Executive Officer on the issues to be discussed with the Board at each Board and Committee meeting. In addition, I take the lead on the implementation of the Board and Committee assessment process, as well as Chief Executive Officer and Board succession review. I also lead the executive sessions held by our independent directors.
As Independent Lead Director, I also have the privilege to work with the Corporation's other engaged and experienced directors. The diversity of experience, background and skills among our directors allows for active oversight by the Board of the many issues facing the Corporation and utility industry at this time, as well as thoughtful advice as the Corporation navigates its strategic initiatives. As this proxy statement details, the Board continues to recruit new directors to bring fresh perspectives and new ideas to our Board. Since the 2016 Annual Meeting, we have added three new directors: William E. Webster, Jr., retired Executive Vice President at the Institute for Nuclear Power Operations, Thomas E. Skains, retired Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer at Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc., and Theodore F. Craver, Jr., retired Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Edison International.
The Board continues to value the feedback from its shareholders and welcomes our ongoing dialogue with shareholders. In recent years, our engagement with you has resulted in a number of enhancements to our corporate governance practices, including the adoption of majority voting for the election of directors, proxy access, and the ability for shareholders to call special shareholder meetings and act by written consent. On behalf of the entire Board, thank you for your continued support.
Sincerely,
Michael G. Browning
Independent Lead Director
From left to right: Ann Maynard Gray (Retiring), James B. Hyler, Jr., John H. Forsgren, Daniel R. DiMicco, Carlos A. Saladrigas, Thomas E. Skains, Lynn J. Good, John T. Herron, E. Marie McKee, William E. Kennard, Michael G. Browning, William E. Webster, Jr., Michael J. Angelakis and Charles W. Moorman IV. Not pictured, Theodore F. Craver, Jr.
DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement
DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement
Forward-Looking Information
This document includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Forward-looking statements are based on management's beliefs and assumptions and can often be identified by terms and phrases that include "anticipate," "believe," "intend," "estimate," "expect," "continue," "should," "could," "may," "plan," "project," "predict," "will," "potential," "forecast," "target," "guidance," "outlook" or other similar terminology. Various factors may cause actual results to be materially different than the suggested outcomes within forward-looking statements. Accordingly, there is no assurance that such results will be realized. For details on the uncertainties that may cause our actual future results to be materially different than those expressed in our forward-looking statements, see our Annual Report on Form 10-K and Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") and available at the SEC's website at www.sec.gov. In light of these risks, uncertainties and assumptions, the events described in the forward-looking statements might not occur or might occur to a different extent or at a different time than described. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made. Duke Energy expressly disclaims an obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.
DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement
PARTICIPATE IN THE FUTURE OF DUKE ENERGY; CAST YOUR VOTE NOW
It is very important that you vote to participate in the future of Duke Energy Corporation ("Duke Energy" or the "Corporation"). New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") rules state that if your shares are held through a broker, bank or other nominee, they cannot vote without your instruction on nondiscretionary matters.
Eligibility to Vote
You can vote if you were a shareholder of record at the close of business on March 6, 2017.
Vote Now
Even if you plan to participate in this year's Annual Meeting, it is a good idea to vote your shares before the Annual Meeting in the event your plans change. Whether you vote online, by telephone or by mail, please have your proxy card or voting instruction form in hand and follow the instructions.
By internet |
By telephone |
By mailing your proxy card |
||
Visit 24/7 www.proxyvote.com |
Call toll-free 24/7 1.800.690.6903 or by calling the number provided by your broker, bank or other nominee if your shares are not registered in your name |
Cast your vote, sign your proxy card and send free of postage |
||
Participate in the Annual Meeting
This year's Annual Meeting will be held exclusively online via a live webcast, enabling shareholders from around the world to participate, submit questions in writing and vote. Shareholders of record as of the close of business on March 6, 2017, are entitled to participate in and vote at the Annual Meeting by visiting duke-energy.onlineshareholdermeeting.com. To participate in the online Annual Meeting, you will need the 16-digit control number included on your Notice of Internet Availability of the Proxy Materials (the "Notice"), on your proxy card and on the instructions that accompanied your Notice, proxy statement and 2016 Annual Report (the "proxy materials"). The Annual Meeting will begin promptly at 12:30 p.m. Eastern Time. Online check-in will begin at 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Please allow ample time for the online check-in procedures. An audio broadcast of the Annual Meeting will be available by telephone toll-free at 1.888.256.9124, conference number 4228233.
DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement 3
This summary highlights information contained elsewhere in this proxy statement. This summary does not contain all of the information that you should consider. You should read the entire proxy statement carefully before voting. Page references ("XX") are supplied to help you find further information in this proxy statement.
Voting Matters (page 10)
|
|
More information |
Board recommendation |
Broker non-votes |
Abstentions |
Votes required for approval |
||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
PROPOSAL 1 | Election of directors | Page 11 | FOR each nominee | Do not count | Do not count | Majority of votes cast, with a resignation policy | ||||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
PROPOSAL 2 | Ratification of Deloitte & Touche LLP as Duke Energy Corporation's independent registered public accounting firm for 2017 | Page 36 | FOR | Vote for | Vote against | Majority of shares represented | ||||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
PROPOSAL 3 | Advisory vote to approve Duke Energy Corporation's named executive officer compensation | Page 38 | FOR | Do not count | Vote against | Majority of shares represented | ||||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
PROPOSAL 4 | Advisory vote on the frequency of the vote on executive compensation | Page 67 | FOR AN ADVISORY VOTE EVERY YEAR |
Do not count | Do not count | The frequency receiving the greatest number of votes will be approved | ||||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
PROPOSAL 5 | Amendment to the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of Duke Energy Corporation to eliminate supermajority requirements | Page 68 | FOR | Vote against | Vote against | 80% of the outstanding shares | ||||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
PROPOSAL 6 | Shareholder proposal regarding providing an annual report on Duke Energy's lobbying expenses | Page 69 | AGAINST | Do not count | Vote against | Majority of shares represented | ||||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
PROPOSAL 7 | Shareholder proposal regarding preparing an assessment of the impacts on Duke Energy's portfolio of climate change consistent with a two degree scenario | Page 71 | AGAINST | Do not count | Vote against | Majority of shares represented | ||||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
PROPOSAL 8 | Shareholder proposal regarding providing a report on the public health risks of Duke Energy's coal use | Page 73 | AGAINST | Do not count | Vote against | Majority of shares represented | ||||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
4 DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement
2016 Business Highlights
2016 was a pivotal year for Duke Energy. We completed a multiyear transformation of our business portfolio, maintained strong earnings growth in our core businesses and continued to increase our dividend for the benefit of our shareholders. With our transition complete, our strategy for the next decade is clear. We see great opportunities ahead and remain focused on investing in infrastructure our customers value and delivering sustainable growth for our investors. We will do this while building on our foundation of customer satisfaction and stakeholder engagement, all while remaining focused on safety, operational excellence and the environment.
Board Representation
DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement 5
Board Nominees (page 11)
|
|
|
|
Independent (Yes/No) | |
|
||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Director since |
|
|
Other Public Company Boards |
|||||||||
Name |
Age |
Occupation |
Yes |
No |
Committee Memberships |
|||||||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael J. Angelakis |
52 | 2015 | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Atairos Management, L.P. | ü | | Audit Finance and Risk Management |
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Groupon, Inc. |
|||||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael G. Browning |
70 | 2006 | Chairman, Browning Consolidated, LLC | ü | Compensation Corporate Governance Finance and Risk Management |
None |
||||||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Theodore F. Craver, Jr. |
65 | 2017 | Retired Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Edison International | ü | | Finance and Risk Management Regulatory Policy and Operations |
None |
|||||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Daniel R. DiMicco |
66 | 2007 | Chairman Emeritus, Retired President and Chief Executive Officer, Nucor Corporation | ü | Corporate Governance Nuclear Oversight |
None |
||||||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
John H. Forsgren |
70 | 2009 | Retired Vice Chairman, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Northeast Utilities | ü | | Audit Finance and Risk Management |
None |
|||||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Lynn J. Good |
57 | 2013 | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Duke Energy Corporation | None |
The Boeing Company |
|||||||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
John T. Herron |
63 | 2013 | Retired President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Nuclear Officer, Entergy Nuclear | ü | | Nuclear Oversight Regulatory Policy and Operations |
None |
|||||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
James B. Hyler, Jr. |
69 | 2012 | Retired Vice Chairman and Chief Operating Officer First Citizens BancShares, Inc. | ü | Audit Regulatory Policy and Operations |
None |
||||||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
William E. Kennard |
60 | 2014 | Non-Executive Chairman, Velocitas Partners, LLC | ü | | Corporate Governance Finance and Risk Management Regulatory Policy and Operations |
AT&T Inc. Ford Motor Company MetLife, Inc. |
|||||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
E. Marie McKee |
66 | 2012 | Retired Senior Vice President, Corning Incorporated | ü | Audit Compensation |
None |
||||||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Charles W. Moorman IV |
65 | 2016 | President and Chief Executive Officer, Amtrak | ü | | Compensation Nuclear Oversight |
Chevron Corporation |
|||||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Carlos A. Saladrigas |
68 | 2012 | Chairman, Regis HR Group | ü | Audit Compensation |
None |
||||||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Thomas E. Skains |
60 | 2016 | Retired Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc. | ü | | Nuclear Oversight Regulatory Policy and Operations |
BB&T Corporation National Fuel Gas Company |
|||||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
William E. Webster, Jr. |
63 | 2016 | Retired Executive Vice President, Industry Strategy for the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations | ü | Nuclear Oversight Regulatory Policy and Operations |
None |
||||||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
6 DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement
Corporate Governance Highlights (page 29)
| | |
ü | Ability for shareholders to nominate directors through proxy access | |
| | |
ü | Independent Lead Director with clearly defined role and responsibilities | |
| | |
ü | Majority voting for directors with mandatory resignation policy and plurality carve-out for contested elections | |
| | |
ü | Robust shareholder engagement program | |
| | |
ü | Annual Board, committee and director assessments | |
| | |
ü | Ability for shareholders to take action by less than unanimous written consent | |
| | |
ü | Ability for shareholders to call a special shareholder meeting | |
| | |
ü | Annual election of directors | |
| | |
ü | Independent Board committees | |
| | |
ü | No hedging or pledging of Duke Energy securities | |
| | |
Shareholder Engagement (page 23)
As part of Duke Energy's commitment to corporate governance, we have instituted an engagement program to discuss and obtain feedback from our shareholders on our corporate governance and executive compensation practices. During the fall of 2016, the Corporation reached out to holders of approximately 33% of our outstanding shares and met with the holders of approximately 20% of our outstanding shares to discuss a variety of topics including executive compensation, sustainability, social and governance issues such as coal ash management, Board structure, Board succession planning and director onboarding. We also discussed the shareholder proposals that were voted on at the 2016 Annual Meeting, including a majority supported shareholder proposal to eliminate supermajority requirements in our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation. As a result of the Corporation's engagement on this shareholder proposal, the Board is recommending to shareholders at this Annual Meeting that they approve an amendment to the Corporation's Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation to eliminate supermajority requirements. A more complete discussion of our corporate governance engagement program is included on page 23.
DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement 7
Executive Compensation Highlights (page 39)
Principles and Objectives
Our executive compensation program is designed to:
We meet these objectives through the appropriate mix of compensation, including:
8 DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement
Key Executive Compensation Features (page 44)
| | |
ü | Significant stock ownership requirements (6x base salary for the Chief Executive Officer) | |
| | |
ü |
Stock holding policy |
|
| | |
ü |
Incentive compensation tied to a clawback policy |
|
| | |
ü |
Consistent level of severance protection |
|
| | |
ü |
Shareholder approval policy for severance agreements |
|
| | |
ü |
Equity award granting policy |
|
| | |
ü |
Independent compensation consultant |
|
| | |
ü |
Annual tally sheets for executive officers |
|
| | |
ü |
Review and consideration of prior year's "say-on-pay" vote |
|
| | |
ü |
No tax gross-ups |
|
| | |
ü |
No "single trigger" severance upon a change in control |
|
| | |
ü |
No employment agreements except for our Chief Executive Officer |
|
| | |
ü |
Do not encourage excessive or inappropriate risk-taking |
|
| | |
ü |
No excessive perquisites |
|
| | |
DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement 9
Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareholders |
May 4, 2017
12:30 p.m. Eastern Time
Online at duke-energy.onlineshareholdermeeting.com
We will convene the Annual Meeting of Shareholders of Duke Energy Corporation ("Annual Meeting") on Thursday, May 4, 2017, at 12:30 p.m. Eastern Time online via live webcast at duke-energy.onlineshareholdermeeting.com.
The purpose of the Annual Meeting is to consider and take action on the following:
Shareholders of record as of the close of business on March 6, 2017, are entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting by visiting duke-energy.onlineshareholdermeeting.com. To participate in the online Annual Meeting, you will need the 16-digit control number included on your Notice, on your proxy card or on the instructions that accompany your proxy materials. The Annual Meeting will begin promptly at 12:30 p.m. Eastern Time. Online check-in will begin at 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Please allow ample time for the online check-in procedures. An audio broadcast of the Annual Meeting will be available by telephone toll-free at 1.888.256.9124, conference number 4228233.
The online format for the Annual Meeting also allows us to communicate more effectively with more of our shareholders via a pre-meeting forum that you can enter by visiting www.proxyvote.com. On our pre-meeting forum, you can submit questions in writing in advance of the Annual Meeting, vote and also access copies of proxy materials.
This year we are again providing our proxy materials to our shareholders via the internet. By doing so, most of our shareholders will only receive the Notice containing instructions on how to access the proxy materials via the internet and vote online, by telephone or by mail. If you would like to request paper copies of the proxy materials, you may follow the instructions on the Notice. If you receive paper copies of the proxy materials, we ask you to consider signing up to receive these materials via the internet in the future by following the instructions contained in this proxy statement. By delivering proxy materials via the internet, we can reduce the consumption of natural resources and the cost of printing and mailing our proxy materials.
Please take time to vote now. If you choose to vote by mail, you may do so by marking, dating and signing the proxy card and returning it to us. Please follow the voting instructions that are included on your proxy card. Regardless of the manner in which you vote, we urge and greatly appreciate your prompt response.
Dated: March [·], 2017 | By order of the Board of Directors, Julia S. Janson Executive Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary |
10 DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement
PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
The Board of Directors |
The Board of Directors of Duke Energy has nominated the following 14 candidates to serve on the Board. We have a declassified Board of Directors, which means all of the directors are voted on every year at the Annual Meeting.
If any director is unable to stand for election, the Board of Directors may reduce the number of directors or designate a substitute. In that case, shares represented by proxies may be voted for a substitute director. We do not expect that any nominee will be unavailable or unable to serve. The Corporate Governance Committee, comprised of only independent directors, has recommended the following current directors as nominees for director and the Board of Directors has approved their nomination for election. One of our directors, Ms. Gray, will be retiring at our Annual Meeting in accordance with our Principles for Corporate Governance. Therefore, she is not nominated for re-election.
DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement 11
PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
Board Biographical Information, Skills and Qualifications
12 DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement
PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
Michael J. Angelakis | ||||||
| | | | | | |
Independent Director Nominee | ||||||
Age: 52 Director of Duke Energy since 2015 Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Atairos Management, L.P. |
Skills and Qualifications: Mr. Angelakis' qualifications for election include his management and financial expertise as well as his risk management experience obtained as a senior executive at a large company. |
Committees: Audit Committee Finance and Risk Management Committee Other current public directorships: Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. Groupon, Inc. |
||||
Mr. Angelakis serves as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Atairos Management, L.P., a private investment firm. Prior to that he served as Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer at Comcast Corporation from March 28, 2007, until July 31, 2015. |
||||||
Michael G. Browning |
||||||
| | | | | | |
Independent Director Nominee Independent Lead Director |
||||||
Age: 70 Director of Duke Energy since 2006 Chairman, Browning Consolidated, LLC |
Skills and Qualifications: Mr. Browning's qualifications for election include his management experience and his knowledge and understanding of Duke Energy's Midwest service territory. Mr. Browning's financial and investment expertise adds a valuable perspective to the Board and its committees. |
Committees: Compensation Committee Corporate Governance Committee Finance and Risk Management Committee Other current public directorships: None |
||||
Mr. Browning has been Chairman of Browning Consolidated, LLC (and its predecessor), a real estate development firm, since 1981 and served as President from 1981 until 2013. He also serves as owner, general partner or managing member of various real estate entities. Mr. Browning is a former director of Standard Management Corporation, Conseco, Inc. and Indiana Financial Corporation. Mr. Browning has served as Independent Lead Director since January 1, 2016. |
DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement 13
PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
Theodore F. Craver, Jr. | ||||||
| | | | | | |
Independent Director Nominee | ||||||
Age: 65 Director of Duke Energy since 2017 Retired Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Edison International |
Skills and Qualifications: Mr. Craver's qualifications for election include his experience as Chief Executive Officer of Edison International which gives him in-depth knowledge of the utility industry and its regulations, including environmental regulations, as well as his financial experience as a senior finance executive prior to becoming Chief Executive Officer. In addition, Mr. Craver's experience with grid cybersecurity as a member of the Steering Committee of the Electric Subsector Coordinator Council ("ESCC") gives him insight into this crucial area for the Corporation. |
Committees: Finance and Risk Management Committee Regulatory Policy and Operations Committee Other current public directorships: None |
||||
Mr. Craver was Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Edison International, the parent company of a large California utility and various competitive electric businesses, from 2008 until his retirement in 2016. From 2005 to 2007, Mr. Craver served as Chief Executive Officer of Edison Mission Energy, a subsidiary of Edison International. Prior to his appointment as Chief Executive Officer of Edison Mission Energy, Mr. Craver served as Chief Financial Officer of Edison International from 2000 to 2004. He started at Edison International in 1996 after leaving First Interstate Bancorp where he was Executive Vice President and Corporate Treasurer. Mr. Craver is a former member of the ESCC, the organization which is the principal liaison between the federal government and the electric power sector responsible for coordinating efforts to prepare for, and respond to, national-level disasters or threats to critical infrastructure. Mr. Craver currently serves as a member of the Economic Advisory Council of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. |
||||||
Daniel R. DiMicco |
||||||
| | | | | | |
Independent Director Nominee | ||||||
Age: 66 Director of Duke Energy since 2007 Chairman Emeritus, Retired President and Chief Executive Officer, Nucor Corporation |
Skills and Qualifications: Mr. DiMicco's qualifications for election include his management experience, including his experience as Chief Executive Officer of a Fortune 500 company and successfully operating a company serving many constituencies. In addition, Mr. DiMicco's experience as Chief Executive Officer of a large industrial corporation provides a valuable perspective on Duke Energy's industrial customer class as well as extensive knowledge of the environmental regulations in Duke Energy's Carolinas and Midwest territories. |
Committees: Corporate Governance Committee Nuclear Oversight Committee Other current public directorships: None |
||||
Mr. DiMicco has served as Chairman Emeritus of Nucor Corporation, a steel company, since December 2013. Mr. DiMicco served as Executive Chairman of Nucor Corporation from January 2013 until December 2013, and as Chairman from May 2006 until December 2012. He served as Chief Executive Officer from September 2000 until December 2012 and President from September 2000 until December 2010. Mr. DiMicco was a member of the Nucor board of directors from 2000 until 2013. Mr. DiMicco is a former chair of the American Iron and Steel Institute. |
14 DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement
PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
John H. Forsgren |
||||||
| | | | | | |
Independent Director Nominee | ||||||
Age: 70 Director of Duke Energy since 2009 Retired Vice Chairman, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Northeast Utilities |
Skills and Qualifications: As a Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer of a large utility company prior to his retirement, Mr. Forsgren's qualifications for election include financial and risk management expertise as well as extensive knowledge of the energy industry, the regulatory environment within the industry and insight on renewable energy. |
Committees: Audit Committee Finance and Risk Management Committee Other current public directorships: None |
||||
Mr. Forsgren was Vice Chairman, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Northeast Utilities from 1996 until his retirement in 2004. He is a former director of The Phoenix Companies, Inc., CuraGen Corporation and Neon Communications Group, Inc. |
||||||
Lynn J. Good |
||||||
| | | | | | |
Non-Independent Director Nominee Chairman |
||||||
Age: 57 Director of Duke Energy since 2013 Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Duke Energy Corporation |
Skills and Qualifications: Ms. Good is our Chief Executive Officer and was previously our Chief Financial Officer. Her knowledge of the affairs of Duke Energy and its business and her experience in the energy industry provide valuable resources for the Board. |
Committees: None Other current public directorships: The Boeing Company |
||||
Ms. Good has served as Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Duke Energy since January 1, 2016, and was Vice Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Duke Energy from July 2013 through December 2015. She served as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Duke Energy from July 2009 until June 2013. She is a former director of Hubbell Incorporated. |
DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement 15
PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
John T. Herron | ||||||
| | | | | | |
Independent Director Nominee | ||||||
Age: 63 Director of Duke Energy since 2013 Retired President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Nuclear Officer, Entergy Nuclear |
Skills and Qualifications: Mr. Herron's qualifications for election include his knowledge and extensive insight gained as a senior executive in the utility industry, including his three decades of experience in nuclear energy. During Mr. Herron's career, he has gained significant regulatory and risk management expertise, which is an asset to the Board and its committees. |
Committees: Nuclear Oversight Committee Regulatory Policy and Operations Committee Other current public directorships: None |
||||
Mr. Herron was President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Nuclear Officer of Entergy Nuclear from 2009 until his retirement in 2013. Mr. Herron joined Entergy Nuclear in 2001 and held a variety of positions. He began his career in nuclear operations in 1979 and has held positions at a number of nuclear stations across the country. Mr. Herron is a director of Ontario Power Generation and also has served on the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations' board of directors. |
||||||
James B. Hyler, Jr. |
||||||
| | | | | | |
Independent Director Nominee | ||||||
Age: 69 Director of Duke Energy since 2012 Retired Vice Chairman and Chief Operating Officer, First Citizens BancShares, Inc. |
Skills and Qualifications: Mr. Hyler's qualifications for election include his understanding of Duke Energy's North Carolina service territory and his knowledge and expertise in financial services, corporate finance and risk management. |
Committees: Audit Committee Regulatory Policy and Operations Committee Other current public directorships: None |
||||
Mr. Hyler was Vice Chairman and Chief Operating Officer of First Citizens BancShares, a company involved in commercial banking, from 1994 until 2008, President from 1988 until 1994, and Chief Financial Officer from 1980 until 1988. Prior to joining First Citizens BancShares, Mr. Hyler was an auditor with Ernst & Young for 10 years. Mr. Hyler served as a director of First Citizens BancShares from 1988 until 2008, and as Managing Director of Morehead Capital Management, LLC from December 2011 until December 2015. |
16 DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement
PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
William E. Kennard | ||||||
| | | | | | |
Independent Director Nominee | ||||||
Age: 60 Director of Duke Energy since 2014 Non-Executive Chairman, Velocitas Partners, LLC |
Skills and Qualifications: Mr. Kennard's qualifications for election include his considerable experience and knowledge of the regulatory arena, as well as his financial knowledge, legal knowledge and international perspective. As former Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Mr. Kennard also has a great deal of expertise in technology, which is extremely valuable to the Board and its committees. |
Committees: Corporate Governance Committee Finance and Risk Management Committee Regulatory Policy and Operations Committee Other current public directorships: AT&T Inc. Ford Motor Company MetLife, Inc. |
||||
Mr. Kennard is Non-Executive Chairman of Velocitas Partners, LLC, an asset management and advisory firm, since November 2014, as well as a member of the Operating Executive Committee of Staple Street Capital, a private equity firm. Prior to joining Velocitas Partners, LLC, Mr. Kennard served as Senior Advisor at Grain Management from October 2013 until November 2014; U.S. Ambassador to the European Union from 2009 until August 2013; Managing Director of The Carlyle Group from 2001 until 2009; and Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission from 1997 until 2001. |
||||||
E. Marie McKee |
||||||
| | | | | | |
Independent Director Nominee | ||||||
Age: 66 Director of Duke Energy since 2012 Retired Senior Vice President, Corning Incorporated |
Skills and Qualifications: Ms. McKee's qualifications for election include her experience in human resources, which provides her with a thorough knowledge of employment and compensation practices. Her prior experience as a senior executive of Corning Incorporated has also given her excellent operating skills and an understanding of financial matters. |
Committees: Audit Committee Compensation Committee Other current public directorships: None |
||||
Ms. McKee is a retired Senior Vice President of Corning Incorporated, a manufacturer of components for high-technology systems for consumer electronics, mobile emissions controls, telecommunications and life sciences. Ms. McKee has over 35 years of experience obtained at Corning, where she held a variety of management positions with increasing levels of responsibility, including Senior Vice President of Human Resources from 1996 until 2010; President of Steuben Glass from 1998 until 2008; and President of The Corning Museum of Glass and The Corning Foundation from 1998 until 2014. |
DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement 17
PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
Charles W. Moorman IV | ||||||
| | | | | | |
Independent Director Nominee | ||||||
Age: 65 Director of Duke Energy since 2016 President and Chief Executive Officer, Amtrak |
Skills and Qualifications: Mr. Moorman's qualifications for election include experience in business, finance, technology, strategy, risk management and safety and environmental issues as a result of his career at a large public company in the freight and transportation industry. |
Committees: Compensation Committee Nuclear Oversight Committee Other current public directorships: Chevron Corporation |
||||
Mr. Moorman is the President and Chief Executive Officer of Amtrak, the nation's passenger railroad. He has served in this position since August 19, 2016. Previously, Mr. Moorman served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Norfolk Southern Corporation and was Special Advisor to the Chief Executive Officer of Norfolk Southern from October 1, 2015, until December 31, 2015. Prior to his retirement, he served as Chairman of the Board at Norfolk Southern from 2006 until 2015 and as Chief Executive Officer from 2005 until 2015. |
||||||
Carlos A. Saladrigas |
||||||
| | | | | | |
Independent Director Nominee | ||||||
Age: 68 Director of Duke Energy since 2012 Chairman, Regis HR Group |
Skills and Qualifications: Mr. Saladrigas' qualifications for election include his extensive expertise in health care, human resources, financial services and accounting arenas, as well as his understanding of Duke Energy's Florida service territory. |
Committees: Audit Committee Compensation Committee Other current public directorships: None |
||||
Mr. Saladrigas is Chairman of Regis HR Group, which offers a full suite of outsourced human resources services to small and mid-sized businesses. He has served in this position since July 2008. Mr. Saladrigas served as Chairman of Concordia Healthcare Holdings, LLC, which specializes in managed behavioral health, from 2011 until 2017. Prior to joining Regis HR Group and Concordia Healthcare Holdings, LLC, he served as Vice Chairman, from 2007 until 2008, and Chairman, from 2002 until 2007, of Premier American Bank. Mr. Saladrigas served as Chief Officer of ADP Total Source (previously the Vincam Group, Inc.) from 1984 until 2002. |
18 DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement
PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
Thomas E. Skains | ||||||
| | | | | | |
Independent Director Nominee | ||||||
Age: 60 Director of Duke Energy since 2016 Retired Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc. |
Skills and Qualifications: Mr. Skains' qualifications for election include his extensive knowledge of the natural gas industry and public company governance and strategy, and his experience as a corporate energy attorney allows insight on legal and regulatory compliance matters. |
Committees: Nuclear Oversight Committee Regulatory Policy and Operations Committee Other current public directorships: BB&T Corporation National Fuel Gas Company |
||||
Mr. Skains was Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc. ("Piedmont Natural Gas"), a national natural gas distributor, until his retirement in 2016. He served as Chairman of Piedmont Natural Gas from December 2003 until October 2016, Chief Executive Officer from February 2003 until October 2016, and as President from February 2002 until October 2016. Previously, he served as Chief Operating Officer of Piedmont Natural Gas from February 2002 until February 2003. From 1995 until 2002, he served as Senior Vice President, Marketing and Supply Services and directed Piedmont Natural Gas' commercial natural gas activities. |
||||||
William E. Webster, Jr. |
||||||
| | | | | | |
Age: 63 Director of Duke Energy since 2016 Retired Executive Vice President, Institute of Nuclear Power Operations |
Skills and Qualifications: Mr. Webster's qualifications for election include his extensive knowledge gained during his 34 years in the nuclear industry which has given him regulatory expertise as well as unique insight into best practices in engineering and risk management which is an asset to the Board and its committees. |
Committees: Nuclear Oversight Committee Regulatory Policy and Operations Committee Other current public directorships: None |
||||
Mr. Webster was Executive Vice President of Industry Strategy for the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations ("INPO"), a nonprofit organization that promotes the highest levels of safety and reliability in the operation of commercial nuclear power plants, until his retirement in June 2016. Mr. Webster has 34 years of experience obtained at INPO where he held a variety of management positions in the Industry Evaluations, Plant Support, Engineering Support and Plant Analysis and Emergency Preparedness divisions prior to his retirement. |
||||||
| | | | | | |
Majority Voting for the Election of Directors
Under the Corporation's By-Laws, in an uncontested election at which a quorum is present, a director-nominee will be elected if the number of votes cast "FOR" the nominee's election exceeds the number of votes cast as "WITHHOLD" from that nominee's election. Abstentions and broker non-votes do not count. In addition, the Corporation has a resignation policy in its Principles for Corporate Governance which requires an incumbent Director who has more votes cast as "WITHHOLD" from that nominee's re-election than votes cast "FOR" his or her re-election to tender his or her letter of resignation for consideration by the Corporate Governance Committee of the Corporation's Board of Directors.
In contested elections, Directors will be elected by plurality vote. For purposes of the By-Laws, a "contested election" is an election in which the number of nominees for director is greater than the number of directors to be elected.
The Board of Directors Recommends a Vote "FOR" Each Nominee.
DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement 19
INFORMATION ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Our Board Leadership Structure
Lynn J. Good serves as the Corporation's Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer. Our Board of Directors believes that combining the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer roles fosters clear accountability, effective decision-making and execution of corporate strategy.
The Board regularly evaluates the leadership structure of the Corporation and may consider alternative approaches, as appropriate, over time. Though the Board is currently structured with a combined Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, the Board believes that the Corporation and its shareholders are best served by the Board retaining discretion to determine the appropriate leadership structure based on what it believes is best for the Corporation at a particular point in time, including whether the same individual should serve as both Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, or whether the roles should be separate.
Michael G. Browning serves as the Corporation's Independent Lead Director and has served in that role since January 2016. Mr. Browning's responsibilities, which meet the latest corporate governance standards set by the National Association of Corporate Directors, include, among other things:
A complete list of the responsibilities of our Independent Lead Director is included in our Principles for Corporate Governance, a copy of which is posted on our website at www.duke-energy.com/our-company/investors/corporate-governance/principles-corp-governance.
The Board of Directors has determined that none of the directors, other than Ms. Good, has a material relationship with Duke Energy or its subsidiaries, and all are, therefore, independent under the listing standards of the NYSE and the rules and regulations of the SEC.
In making the determination regarding each director's independence, the Board of Directors considered all transactions and the materiality of any relationship with Duke Energy and its subsidiaries in light of all facts and circumstances.
The Board of Directors may determine a director to be independent if the Board of Directors has affirmatively determined that the director has no material relationship with Duke Energy or its subsidiaries (references in this proxy statement to Duke Energy's subsidiaries shall mean its consolidated subsidiaries), either directly or as a shareholder, director, officer or employee of an organization that has a relationship with Duke Energy or its subsidiaries. Independence determinations are generally made on an annual basis at the time the Board of Directors approves director nominees for inclusion in the proxy statement and, if a director joins the Board of Directors in the interim, at such time.
The Board of Directors also considers its Standards for Assessing Director Independence, which set forth certain relationships between Duke Energy and directors and their immediate family members, or affiliated entities, that the Board of Directors, in its judgment, has deemed to be immaterial for purposes of assessing a director's independence. Duke Energy's Standards for Assessing Director Independence are linked on our website at www.duke-energy.com/our-company/investors/corporate-governance/board. In the event a director has a relationship with Duke Energy that is not addressed in the Standards for Assessing Director Independence, the Corporate Governance Committee, which is composed entirely of independent members of the Board, reviews the relationship and makes a recommendation to the independent members of the Board who determine whether such relationship is material.
For Mr. Webster, the Board considered a relationship between the Corporation and PriceWaterhouseCoopers ("PwC"), a firm that provides professional tax and other services from time to time to the Corporation and at which Mr. Webster's brother-in-law is a partner. See Related Person Transactions on page 78 for further information. The Board determined this relationship does not impair Mr. Webster's independence.
20 DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement
INFORMATION ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
The Board of Directors of Duke Energy met seven times during 2016 and has met once so far in 2017. The overall attendance percentage for our directors was approximately 98% in 2016, and no director attended less than 86% of the total of the Board of Directors' meetings and the meetings of the committees upon which he or she served in 2016. Directors are encouraged to attend the Annual Meeting. Fifteen of the 16 directors who were directors at the time of last year's Annual Meeting on May 5, 2016, attended the 2016 Annual Meeting.
Board and Committee Assessments
Each year the Board, with the assistance of the Corporate Governance Committee, conducts an assessment of the Board of Directors, each of its committees and the directors. The assessment process is facilitated by an independent advisor, which allows directors to provide anonymous feedback and promotes candidness among the directors. The results of the feedback are presented to the Board and committees and discussed. This annual review and discussion provides continuous improvement in the overall effectiveness of the directors, committees and Board.
Board Role in Management Succession
The independent directors of the Board are actively involved in the Corporation's management succession planning process. Among the Corporate Governance Committee's responsibilities described in its Charter is to oversee continuity and succession planning. At least annually, the Corporate Governance Committee reviews the Chief Executive Officer succession plan and makes recommendations to the Board for the successor to the Chief Executive Officer. The Corporate Governance Committee also reports to the Board any concerns or issues that might indicate that organizational strengths are not equal to the requirements of long-range goals, and oversees the evaluation of the Chief Executive Officer.
DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement 21
INFORMATION ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
The Corporation faces a myriad of risks, including operational, financial, strategic and reputational risks that affect every segment of its business. The Board of Directors is actively involved in the oversight of these risks in several ways. This oversight is conducted primarily through the Finance and Risk Management Committee of the Board but also through the other committees of the Board, as appropriate. The Finance and Risk Management Committee reviews the Corporation's enterprise risk program with management, including the Chief Risk Officer. The enterprise risk program includes the identification of a broad range of risks that affect the Corporation, their probabilities and severity and incorporates a review of the Corporation's approach to managing and prioritizing those risks, based on input from the officers responsible for the management of those risks.
Each committee of the Board is responsible for the oversight of certain areas of risk that pertain to that committee's area of focus. Throughout the year, each committee chair reports to the full Board regarding the committee's considerations and actions relating to the risks within its area of focus.
22 DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement
INFORMATION ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
We conduct extensive governance reviews and investor outreach so that management and the Board understand and consider the issues that matter most to our shareholders and address them effectively. In 2016, we reached out to holders of approximately 33% of Duke Energy's outstanding shares and met with holders of approximately 20% of Duke Energy's outstanding shares. We engaged with every shareholder who accepted our offer to meet.
The Corporation engaged with shareholders on numerous topics during the year, including executive compensation matters, sustainability, and social and governance issues such as the execution of the Corporation's coal ash management plans and the Board's oversight of coal ash management and other environmental concerns. We also discussed the combination of our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer roles, the strong role our Lead Independent Director plays in our Board structure and Board succession planning and director onboarding.
At the Corporation's 2016 Annual Meeting, a shareholder proposal was voted on that requested the elimination of supermajority requirements in the Corporation's Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation. The supermajority voting proposal received the vote of a majority of the shares represented at the 2016 Annual Meeting. We discussed the outcome of this proposal with our shareholders during the fall engagement program. After considering the feedback it received from shareholders on the supermajority proposal, the Board of Directors decided to recommend to shareholders at the 2017 Annual Meeting that they approve an amendment to the Corporation's Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation that would eliminate the supermajority requirements contained in it.
In addition to our discussions with shareholders about supermajority requirements in our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation during the 2016 corporate governance engagement program, the Corporation also discussed with shareholders the possibility of holding our Annual Meeting online via live webcast to get their feedback on best practices and their interest in participating via webcast. As a result of the positive feedback we received, the Board of Directors decided to hold the 2017 Annual Meeting exclusively online via live webcast so that more of its shareholders could participate in the Annual Meeting.
DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement 23
INFORMATION ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
The Board of Directors has the six standing, permanent committees described below:
Audit Committee
Nine meetings held in 2016
Committee Members | ||||
Michael J. Angelakis, Chairperson, Financial Expert John H. Forsgren James B. Hyler, Jr. E. Marie McKee Carlos A. Saladrigas, Financial Expert |
Michael J. Angelakis
24 DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement
INFORMATION ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Compensation Committee
Seven meetings held in 2016
Committee Members | ||||
E. Marie McKee, Chairperson Michael G. Browning Charles W. Moorman IV Carlos A. Saladrigas |
E. Marie McKee
DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement 25
INFORMATION ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Corporate Governance Committee
Six meetings held in 2016
Committee Members | ||||
Michael G. Browning, Chairperson Daniel R. DiMicco Ann Maynard Gray William E. Kennard |
Michael G. Browning
Finance and Risk Management Committee
Six meetings held in 2016
Committee Members | ||||
John H. Forsgren, Chairperson Michael J. Angelakis Theodore F. Craver, Jr. Michael G. Browning Ann Maynard Gray William E. Kennard |
John H. Forsgren
26 DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement
INFORMATION ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Nuclear Oversight Committee
Six meetings held in 2016
Committee Members | ||||
John T. Herron, Chairperson Daniel R. DiMicco Charles W. Moorman IV Thomas E. Skains William E. Webster, Jr. |
John T. Herron
Regulatory Policy and Operations Committee
Five meetings held in 2016
Committee Members | ||||
James B. Hyler, Jr., Chairperson Theodore F. Craver, Jr. John T. Herron William E. Kennard Thomas E. Skains William E. Webster, Jr. |
James B. Hyler, Jr.
Each committee operates under a written charter adopted by the Board of Directors. The charters are posted on our website at www.duke-energy.com/our-company/investors/corporate-governance/board-committee-charters.
DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement 27
INFORMATION ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
BOARD OF DIRECTORS COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP ROSTER
Name |
Audit |
Compensation |
Corporate Governance |
Finance and Risk Management |
Nuclear Oversight |
Regulatory Policy and Operations |
||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael J. Angelakis |
C | | | ✔ | | | ||||||
Michael G. Browning |
✔ | C | ✔ | |||||||||
Theodore F. Craver, Jr. |
| | | ✔ | | ✔ | ||||||
Daniel R. DiMicco |
✔ | ✔ | ||||||||||
John H. Forsgren |
✔ | | | C | | | ||||||
Lynn J. Good |
||||||||||||
Ann Maynard Gray(1) |
| | ✔ | ✔ | | | ||||||
John T. Herron |
C | ✔ | ||||||||||
James B. Hyler, Jr. |
✔ | | | | | C | ||||||
William E. Kennard |
✔ | ✔ | ✔ | |||||||||
E. Marie McKee |
✔ | C | | | | | ||||||
Charles W. Moorman IV |
✔ | ✔ | ||||||||||
Carlos A. Saladrigas |
✔ | ✔ | | | | | ||||||
Thomas E. Skains |
✔ | ✔ | ||||||||||
William E. Webster, Jr. |
| | | | ✔ | ✔ | ||||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
28 DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement
REPORT OF THE CORPORATE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE
The following is the report of the Corporate Governance Committee with respect to its philosophy, responsibilities and initiatives.
Philosophy and Responsibilities
We believe that sound corporate governance has three components: (i) Board of Directors' independence, (ii) processes and practices that foster solid decision-making by both management and the Board of Directors, and (iii) balancing the interests of all of our stakeholders our investors, customers, employees, the communities we serve and the environment. The Corporate Governance Committee's charter is available on our website at www.duke-energy.com/our-company/investors/corporate-governance/board-committee-charters/corporate-governance and is summarized below. Additional information about the Corporate Governance Committee and its members is detailed on page 26 of the proxy statement.
Membership. The committee must be comprised of three or more members, all of whom must qualify as independent directors under the listing standards of the NYSE and other applicable rules and regulations.
Responsibilities. The committee's responsibilities include, among other things, (i) implementing policies regarding corporate governance matters, (ii) assessing the Board of Directors' membership needs and recommending nominees, (iii) recommending to the Board of Directors those directors to be selected for membership on, or removal from, the various Board of Directors' committees and those directors to be designated as chairs of Board of Directors' committees, (iv) sponsoring and overseeing annual performance evaluations for the various Board of Directors' committees, including the Corporate Governance Committee, the Board of Directors and the Chief Executive Officer, (v) overseeing the Corporation's political expenditures and activities pursuant to the Political Activity Policy, and (vi) reviewing the Corporation's charitable contributions and community service policies and practices. The committee may also conduct or authorize investigations into or studies of matters within the scope of the committee's duties and responsibilities, and may retain, at the Corporation's expense, and in the committee's sole discretion, consultants to assist in such work as the committee deems necessary.
All of our Board committee charters, as well as our Principles for Corporate Governance, Code of Business Ethics for Employees and Code of Business Conduct & Ethics for Directors, are available on our website at www.duke-energy.com/our-company/investors/corporate-governance. Any amendments to or waivers from our Code of Business Ethics for Employees with respect to executive officers or Code of Business Conduct & Ethics for Directors must be approved by the Board and will be posted on our website. During 2016, our Board of Directors held four executive sessions with independent directors only.
Director Qualifications. We look for the following characteristics in any candidate for nomination to our Board of Directors:
DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement 29
REPORT OF THE CORPORATE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE
Director Candidate Recommendations. The committee may engage a third party from time to time to assist it in identifying and evaluating director-nominee candidates, in addition to current members of the Board of Directors standing for re-election. The committee will provide the third party, based on the profile described above, the characteristics, skills and experiences that may complement those of our existing members. The third party will then provide recommendations for nominees with such attributes. The committee considers nominees recommended by shareholders on a similar basis, taking into account, among other things, the profile criteria described above and the nominee's experiences and skills. In addition, the committee considers the shareholder-nominee's independence with respect to both the Corporation and the recommending shareholder. All of the nominees on the proxy card are current members of our Board of Directors and were recommended by the committee.
Shareholders interested in submitting nominees as candidates for election as directors must provide timely written notice to the Corporate Governance Committee, c/o Ms. Julia S. Janson, Executive Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary, Duke Energy Corporation, DEC 48H, P.O. Box 1414, Charlotte, NC 28201-1414. The written notice must set forth, as to each person whom the shareholder proposes to nominate for election as director:
Director Candidate Nominations through Proxy Access. In order to nominate a director pursuant to the Corporation's proxy access provision, shareholders who meet the eligibility and other requirements set forth in Section 3.04 of the Corporation's By-Laws must send a written notice to the Corporate Governance Committee, c/o Ms. Julia S. Janson, Executive Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary, Duke Energy Corporation, DEC 48H, P.O. Box 1414, Charlotte, NC 28201-1414. The written notice must provide the information set forth above, as well as the other detailed requirements set forth in Section 3.04 of the Corporation's By-Laws, which can be located on our website at www.duke-energy.com/our-company/investors/corporate-governance.
30 DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement
REPORT OF THE CORPORATE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE
New Directors Since the 2016 Annual Meeting
Following the 2016 Annual Meeting at which four of the Corporation's directors retired, the Corporate Governance Committee sought to recruit additional Board members whose qualifications align with the needs of the Board in light of the major risks and issues facing the Corporation as well as its long-term strategy. After working with an independent search firm, the Corporate Governance Committee recommended in August 2016 that Mr. William E. Webster, Jr. be appointed to the Board effective September 1, 2016. Mr. Webster brings extensive knowledge gained during his 34 years in the nuclear industry which has given him regulatory expertise as well as a unique insight into best practices in engineering and risk management. The committee also recommended, in connection with the acquisition by the Corporation of Piedmont Natural Gas, that Mr. Thomas E. Skains, the Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Piedmont Natural Gas prior to the closing of the acquisition, join the Corporation's Board, effective upon the closing of the acquisition on October 3, 2016. Among other things, Mr. Skains, who retired from Piedmont Natural Gas upon the closing of the acquisition, brings his significant knowledge of the natural gas business to the Corporation's Board which is extremely valuable to the Board following the Corporation's expansion of its natural gas business through the Piedmont Natural Gas acquisition. In February of 2017, the Corporate Governance Committee recommended the appointment of Mr. Theodore F. Craver, Jr. effective March 1, 2017. Mr. Craver has 20 years of experience at Edison International, the parent company of a large utility and various competitive electric businesses, at which he was Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer from 2008 until his retirement in 2016.
Director Onboarding. With the addition of a number of new directors to our Board over the past several years, the director onboarding process has become increasingly more important to educating our new directors about Duke Energy. Immediately following their appointment, each new director meets individually with the senior executives responsible for our major lines of business and operations so that they may better understand the issues involved in all aspects of the Corporation's business. In addition to discussing the Corporation's businesses and operations, the new directors learn about our corporate governance practices and policies; the financial and technical aspects of the Corporation's electric utility, natural gas and commercial renewables businesses; the enterprise's significant risks; the Corporation's long-term strategy; and Duke Energy's long-standing mission to provide clean, reliable and affordable energy for our customers.
Interested parties can communicate with any of our directors by writing to our Corporate Secretary at the following address:
Corporate Secretary
Ms. Julia S. Janson
Executive Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary
Duke Energy Corporation
DEC 48H
P.O. Box 1414
Charlotte, NC 28201-1414
Interested parties can communicate with our Independent Lead Director by writing to the following address:
Independent Lead Director
c/o Ms. Julia S. Janson
Executive Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary
Duke Energy Corporation
DEC 48H
P.O. Box 1414
Charlotte, NC 28201-1414
Our Corporate Secretary will distribute communications to the Board of Directors, or to any individual director or directors as appropriate, depending on the facts and circumstances outlined in the communication. In that regard, the Duke Energy Board of Directors has requested that certain items that are unrelated to the duties and responsibilities of the Board of Directors be excluded, such as: spam; junk mail and mass mailings; service complaints; resumes and other forms of job inquiries; surveys; and business solicitations or advertisements. In addition, material that is unduly hostile, threatening, obscene or similarly unsuitable will be excluded. However, any communication that is so excluded remains available to any director upon request.
Corporate Governance Committee
Michael G. Browning, Chairperson
Daniel R. DiMicco
Ann Maynard Gray
William E. Kennard
DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement 31
DIRECTOR COMPENSATION
Annual Retainer and Fees. During 2016, the retainer and meeting fees paid to our independent directors consisted of:
|
| |
| Meeting Fees | | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Type of Fee |
| Fee (Other Than for Meetings) ($) |
| In-Person Attendance at Meetings Held in Conjunction With a Regular Board of Directors Meeting ($) |
| In-Person Meetings Not Held in Conjunction With a Regular Board of Directors Meeting ($) |
| Telephonic Participation in Meetings ($) |
| ||||||||||||
| | | | | | | | | | ||||||||||||
Annual Board of Directors Retainer (Cash) |
| | 90,000 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ||||
Annual Board of Directors Retainer (Stock) |
| | 125,000 | | | | | | | | | | | | |||||||
Board of Directors Meeting Fees |
| | | | | | 2,000 | | | | 2,500 | | | | 2,000 | | | ||||
Annual Board Chair Retainer (if applicable) |
| | 100,000 | | | | | | | | | | | | |||||||
Annual Lead Director Retainer (if applicable) |
| | 40,000 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ||||
Annual Audit Committee Chair Retainer |
| | 25,000 | | | | | | | | | | | | |||||||
Annual Chair Retainer (Other committees) |
| | 15,000 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ||||
Audit Committee and Finance and Risk Management Committee Meeting Fees |
| | | | | 3,000 | | | | 2,500 | | | | 2,000 | | | |||||
Nuclear Oversight Committee Meeting Fees |
| | | | | | 4,000 | | | | 2,500 | | | | 2,000 | | | ||||
Regulatory Policy and Operations Committee Meeting Fees |
| | | | | 3,500 | | | | 2,500 | | | | 2,000 | | | |||||
Other Committee Meeting Fees |
| | | | | | 2,000 | | | | 2,500 | | | | 2,000 | | | ||||
| | | | | | | | | |
Annual Stock Retainer for 2016. In 2016, each eligible director received the portion of his or her annual retainer that was payable in stock in the form of fully-vested shares.
Deferral Plan and Stock Purchases. Directors may elect to receive all or a portion of their annual compensation, consisting of retainers and attendance fees, on a current basis, or defer such compensation under the Duke Energy Corporation Directors' Savings Plan (the "Directors' Savings Plan"). Deferred amounts are credited to an unfunded account, the balance of which is adjusted for the performance of phantom investment options, including the Duke Energy common stock fund, as elected by the director, and generally are paid when the director terminates his or her service from the Board of Directors.
Charitable Giving Program. The Duke Energy Foundation, independent of Duke Energy, maintains the Duke Energy Foundation Matching Gifts Program under which directors are eligible to request matching contributions of up to $5,000 per director per calendar year to qualifying institutions. Duke Energy also maintains a Directors' Charitable Giving Program. Eligibility for this program has been frozen and Ms. Gray is the only current director who is eligible. Under this program, Duke Energy will make a donation of up to $1 million upon the director's death, or the actuarial present value of that amount during the director's lifetime, to a charitable organization selected by the director. At Ms. Gray's request, a donation was made under this program during 2016. No additional contributions will be made under this legacy program on behalf of our current directors. In addition, Duke Energy made a $2,500 donation to designated charities on behalf of the independent directors who retired in May 2016 as well as a $1,000 donation to the American Red Cross in November 2016 on behalf of each of the independent directors who were actively serving at that time.
Expense Reimbursement and Insurance. Duke Energy provides travel insurance to directors and reimburses directors for expenses reasonably incurred in connection with attendance and participation at Board of Directors and committee meetings and special functions.
Stock Ownership Guidelines. Outside directors are subject to stock ownership guidelines, which establish a target level of ownership of Duke Energy common stock (or common stock equivalents). Currently, each independent director is required to own shares with a value equal to at least five times the annual Board of Directors cash retainer (i.e., an ownership level of $450,000) or retain 50% of his or her vested annual equity retainer. All independent directors were in compliance with the guidelines as of December 31, 2016.
32 DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement
DIRECTOR COMPENSATION
The following table describes the compensation earned during 2016 by each individual who served as an independent director during 2016. Because Mr. Craver joined the Board of Directors on March 1, 2017, he did not receive any compensation in 2016 and is not listed below.
Name |
| Fees Earned or Paid in Cash ($)(2) |
| Stock Awards ($)(3) |
| All Other Compensation ($)(4) |
| Total ($) |
| ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | | | | | | | ||||||||
Michael J. Angelakis |
| | 155,346 | | | 125,000 | | | 1,270 | | | 281,616 | | ||||
Michael G. Browning |
| | 215,308 | | | 125,000 | | | 6,270 | | | 346,578 | | ||||
Harris E. DeLoach, Jr.(1) |
| | 52,654 | | | 0 | | | 3,493 | | | 56,147 | | ||||
Daniel R. DiMicco |
| | 132,000 | | | 125,000 | | | 1,270 | | | 258,270 | | ||||
John H. Forsgren |
| | 164,808 | | | 125,000 | | | 6,270 | | | 296,078 | | ||||
Ann Maynard Gray |
| | 153,192 | | | 125,000 | | | 488,988 | (5) | | 767,180 | | ||||
James H. Hance, Jr.(1) |
| | 67,846 | | | 0 | | | 7,749 | | | 75,595 | | ||||
John T. Herron |
| | 159,808 | | | 125,000 | | | 6,270 | | | 291,078 | | ||||
James B. Hyler, Jr. |
| | 165,500 | | | 125,000 | | | 1,270 | | | 291,770 | | ||||
William E. Kennard |
| | 157,783 | | | 125,000 | | | 6,270 | | | 289,053 | | ||||
E. Marie McKee |
| | 178,500 | | | 125,000 | | | 6,270 | | | 309,770 | | ||||
Richard A. Meserve(1) |
| | 50,154 | | | 0 | | | 7,749 | | | 57,903 | | ||||
Charles W. Moorman IV(1) |
| | 110,165 | | | 147,321 | | | 6,226 | | | 263,712 | | ||||
James T. Rhodes(1) |
| | 57,346 | | | 0 | | | 7,749 | | | 65,095 | | ||||
Carlos A. Saladrigas |
| | 156,654 | | | 125,000 | | | 6,270 | | | 287,924 | | ||||
Thomas E. Skains(1) |
| | 43,011 | | | 73,146 | | | 6,066 | | | 122,223 | | ||||
William E. Webster, Jr.(1) |
| | 50,837 | | | 84,135 | | | 2,915 | | | 137,887 | | ||||
| | | | | | | | | |
Name |
| Personal Use of Airplane ($) |
| Business Travel Accident Insurance ($) |
| Charitable Contributions ($) |
| Retirement Gift ($) |
| Total ($) |
| |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |||||||||||||
Michael J. Angelakis |
| | 0 | | | | 270 | | | | 1,000 | | | | 0 | | | 1,270 | | |||||
Michael G. Browning |
| | 0 | | | | 270 | | | | 6,000 | | | | 0 | | | 6,270 | | |||||
Harris E. DeLoach, Jr. |
| | 744 | | | | 93 | | | | 2,500 | | | | 156 | | | 3,493 | | |||||
Daniel R. DiMicco |
| | 0 | | | | 270 | | | | 1,000 | | | | 0 | | | 1,270 | | |||||
John H. Forsgren |
| | 0 | | | | 270 | | | | 6,000 | | | | 0 | | | 6,270 | | |||||
Ann Maynard Gray |
| | 0 | | | | 270 | | | | 488,718 | (5) | | | 0 | | | 488,988 | | |||||
James H. Hance, Jr. |
| | 0 | | | | 93 | | | | 7,500 | | | | 156 | | | 7,749 | | |||||
John T. Herron |
| | 0 | | | | 270 | | | | 6,000 | | | | 0 | | | 6,270 | | |||||
James B. Hyler, Jr. |
| | 0 | | | | 270 | | | | 1,000 | | | | 0 | | | 1,270 | | |||||
William E. Kennard |
| | 0 | | | | 270 | | | | 6,000 | | | | 0 | | | 6,270 | | |||||
E. Marie McKee |
| | 0 | | | | 270 | | | | 6,000 | | | | 0 | | | 6,270 | | |||||
Richard A. Meserve |
| | 0 | | | | 93 | | | | 7,500 | | | | 156 | | | 7,749 | | |||||
Charles W. Moorman IV |
| | 0 | | | | 226 | | | | 6,000 | | | | 0 | | | 6,226 | | |||||
James T. Rhodes |
| | 0 | | | | 93 | | | | 7,500 | | | | 156 | | | 7,749 | | |||||
Carlos A. Saladrigas |
| | 0 | | | | 270 | | | | 6,000 | | | | 0 | | | 6,270 | | |||||
Thomas E. Skains |
| | 0 | | | | 66 | | | | 6,000 | | | | 0 | | | 6,066 | | |||||
William E. Webster, Jr. |
| | 0 | | | | 90 | | | | 2,825 | | | | 0 | | | 2,915 | | |||||
| | | | | | | | | | | |
DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement 33
SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT
The following table indicates the amount of Duke Energy common stock beneficially owned by the current directors, the executive officers listed in the Summary Compensation Table under Executive Compensation (referred to as the named executive officers), and all directors and executive officers as a group as of February 26, 2017. There were 699,611,196 shares of Duke Energy common stock outstanding as of February 26, 2017. Because Mr. Craver, Jr. did not join the Board until March 1, 2017, he is not included in the following tables. On March 1, 2017, Mr. Craver received 268 shares of Duke Energy common stock as a prorated portion of the 2016-2017 annual stock retainer.
Name or Identity of Group |
| Total Shares Beneficially Owned(1) |
| Percent of Class |
| ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | | | ||||||
Michael J. Angelakis |
| | 11,482 | | | | * | | | ||
Michael G. Browning |
| | 71,899 | | | | * | | | ||
Daniel R. DiMicco |
| | 41,771 | | | | * | | | ||
John H. Forsgren |
| | 20,006 | | | | * | | | ||
Lynn J. Good |
| | 100,112 | | | | * | | | ||
Ann Maynard Gray |
| | 25,799 | | | | * | | | ||
John T. Herron |
| | 13,726 | | | | * | | | ||
James B. Hyler, Jr. |
| | 14,831 | | | | * | | | ||
Dhiaa M. Jamil |
| | 18,664 | | | | * | | | ||
Julia S. Janson |
| | 15,981 | | | | * | | | ||
William E. Kennard |
| | 5,932 | | | | * | | | ||
E. Marie McKee |
| | 137 | | | | * | | | ||
Charles W. Moorman IV |
| | 3,307 | | | | * | | | ||
Carlos A. Saladrigas |
| | 4,092 | | | | * | | | ||
Thomas E. Skains |
| | 28,615 | | | | * | | | ||
William E. Webster, Jr. |
| | 1,061 | | | | * | | | ||
Lloyd M. Yates |
| | 41,650 | | | | * | | | ||
Steven K. Young |
| | 42,741 | | | | * | | | ||
Directors and executive officers as a group (22) |
| | 534,426 | | | | * | | | ||
| | | | | |
Ownership of Units Representing Common Stock
The table below shows ownership of other units (not listed in the table above) related to Duke Energy common stock under the Directors' Savings Plan. These units do not represent an equity interest in Duke Energy and possess no voting rights, but are equal in economic value to one share of Duke Energy common stock.
Name |
| Number of Units |
| |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | |||
Michael J. Angelakis |
| | 0 | | | |
Michael G. Browning |
| | 28,763 | | | |
Daniel R. DiMicco |
| | 1,313 | | | |
John H. Forsgren |
| | 0 | | | |
Ann Maynard Gray |
| | 5,113 | | | |
John T. Herron |
| | 0 | | | |
James B. Hyler, Jr. |
| | 11,103 | | | |
William E. Kennard |
| | 0 | | | |
E. Marie McKee |
| | 56,190 | | | |
Charles W. Moorman IV |
| | 0 | | | |
Carlos A. Saladrigas |
| | 33,368 | | | |
Thomas E. Skains |
| | 0 | | | |
William E. Webster, Jr. |
| | 0 | | | |
| | | |
34 DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement
SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT
The table below shows ownership of other units (not listed in the table on page 34) related to Duke Energy common stock under the Duke Energy Corporation Executive Savings Plan ("Executive Savings Plan"). These units do not represent an equity interest in Duke Energy and possess no voting rights, but are equal in economic value to one share of Duke Energy common stock.
Name |
| Number of Units |
| |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | |||
Lynn J. Good |
| | 72 | | | |
Steven K. Young |
| | 478 | | | |
Dhiaa M. Jamil |
| | 1,805 | | | |
Julia S. Janson |
| | 201 | | | |
Lloyd M. Yates |
| | 10,984 | | | |
| | | |
The following table lists the beneficial owners of five percent or more of Duke Energy's outstanding shares of common stock as of December 31, 2016. This information is based on the most recently available reports filed with the SEC and provided to us by the company listed.
Name or Identity of Beneficial Owner |
| Shares of Common Stock Beneficially Owned |
| Percentage |
| ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | | | ||||||
The Vanguard Group 100 Vanguard Blvd. Malvern, PA 19355 |
|
| 46,552,427 | | | | 6.75 | %(1) | | ||
BlackRock Inc. 40 East 52nd Street New York, NY 10022 |
| | 42,107,192 | | | | 6.10 | %(2) | | ||
| | | | | |
DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement 35
PROPOSAL 2:
RATIFICATION OF DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP AS
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION'S INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM FOR
2017
The Audit Committee is directly responsible for the appointment and compensation, including the preapproval of audit fees as described below, and the retention and oversight of the independent registered public accounting firm that audits our financial statements and our internal control over financial reporting. The Audit Committee has selected Deloitte & Touche LLP ("Deloitte") as Duke Energy's independent registered public accounting firm for 2017. Deloitte has served as our independent registered public accounting firm since 1978.
The Audit Committee and the Board believe that the continued retention of Deloitte as Duke Energy's independent registered public accounting firm is in the best interests of the Corporation and its shareholders. Deloitte's years of experience with Duke Energy have allowed them to gain expertise regarding Duke Energy's operations, accounting policies and practices and internal controls over financial reporting. It also prevents the significant time commitment that educating a new auditor would entail, which could also result in distraction in focus for Duke Energy management.
To safeguard the continued independence of the independent registered public accounting firm, the Audit Committee adopted a policy that provides that the independent registered public accounting firm is only permitted to provide services to Duke Energy and its subsidiaries that have been preapproved by the Audit Committee. Pursuant to the policy, detailed audit services, audit-related services, tax services and certain other services have been specifically preapproved up to certain categorical fee limits. In the event that the cost of any of these services may exceed the preapproved limits, the Audit Committee must approve the service before the independent registered public accounting firm is engaged for such service. All other services that are not prohibited pursuant to the SEC's or other applicable regulatory bodies' rules or regulations must be specifically approved by the Audit Committee before the independent registered public accounting firm is engaged for such service. All services performed in 2016 and 2015 by the independent registered public accounting firm were approved by the Duke Energy Audit Committee pursuant to its policy on Engaging the Independent Auditor for Services.
In addition to the annual review of Deloitte's independence and in association with the mandated rotation of Deloitte's lead engagement partner, the Audit Committee is directly involved in the selection of Deloitte's new lead engagement partner.
Representatives of Deloitte are expected to participate in the Annual Meeting and will be available to respond to appropriate questions. Information on Deloitte's fees for services rendered in 2016 and 2015 are listed below.
The approval of a majority of shares represented in person or by proxy at the Annual Meeting is required to approve this proposal.
Type of Fees |
| 2016 |
| 2015 |
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | | | ||||
Audit Fees(1) |
| $ | 13,822,090 | | | $ | 12,392,000 | (5) | |
Audit-Related Fees(2) |
| 649,000 | | | 2,438,000 | (5) | | ||
Tax Fees(3) |
| 384,000 | | | 195,000 | | | ||
All Other Fees(4) |
| 225,000 | | | 40,000 | | | ||
| | | | | | ||||
TOTAL FEES: |
| $ | 15,080,090 | | | $ | 15,065,000 | | |
| | | | | |
For the Above Reasons, the Board of Directors Recommends a Vote "FOR" This Proposal.
36 DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement
REPORT OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE
The following is the report of the Audit Committee with respect to Duke Energy's audited financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.
The information contained in this Audit Committee Report shall not be deemed to be "soliciting material" or "filed" or "incorporated by reference" in future filings with the SEC, or subject to the liabilities of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, except to the extent that Duke Energy specifically incorporates it by reference into a document filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act.
The purpose of the Audit Committee is to assist the Board in its general oversight of Duke Energy's financial reporting, internal controls and audit functions. The Audit Committee Charter describes in greater detail the full responsibilities of the committee and is available on our website at www.duke-energy.com/our-company/investors/corporate-governance/board-committee-charters/audit. Further information about the Audit Committee, its Policy on Engaging the Independent Auditor for Services and its members is detailed on pages 24 and 36 of the proxy statement.
The Audit Committee has reviewed and discussed the consolidated financial statements with management and Deloitte, the Corporation's independent registered public accounting firm. Management is responsible for the preparation, presentation and integrity of Duke Energy's financial statements; accounting and financial reporting principles; establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(e)); establishing and maintaining internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(f)); evaluating the effectiveness of disclosure controls and procedures; evaluating the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting; and, evaluating any change in internal control over financial reporting that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, internal control over financial reporting. Deloitte is responsible for performing an independent audit of the consolidated financial statements and expressing an opinion on the conformity of those financial statements with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States ("GAAP"), as well as expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting based on the criteria established in Internal Control Integrated Framework (2013).
The Audit Committee reviewed the Corporation's audited financial statements with management and Deloitte, and met separately with both management and Deloitte to discuss and review those financial statements and reports prior to issuance. These discussions also addressed the quality, not just the acceptability, of the accounting principles, the reasonableness of significant judgments and the clarity of disclosures in the financial statements. Management has represented, and Deloitte has confirmed, that the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, in conformity with GAAP.
In addition, management completed the documentation, testing and evaluation of Duke Energy's system of internal control over financial reporting in response to the requirements set forth in Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and related regulations. The Audit Committee was kept apprised of the progress of the evaluation and provided oversight and advice to management during the process. In connection with this oversight, the Audit Committee received periodic updates provided by management and Deloitte at regularly scheduled Audit Committee meetings. At the conclusion of the process, management presented to the Audit Committee on the effectiveness of the Corporation's internal control over financial reporting. The Audit Committee also reviewed the report of management contained in the Corporation's Form 10-K filed with the SEC, as well as Deloitte's Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm included in the Corporation's Form 10-K related to its audit of (i) the consolidated financial statements and (ii) the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting. The Audit Committee continues to oversee the Corporation's efforts related to its internal control over financial reporting and management's preparations for the evaluation in fiscal 2017.
The Audit Committee has discussed with Deloitte the matters required to be discussed by professional and regulatory requirements, including, but not limited to, the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board regarding The Auditors' Communications with Those Charged with Governance. In addition, Deloitte has provided the Audit Committee with the written disclosures and the letter required by "Public Company Accounting Oversight Board Ethics and Independence Rule 3526, Communications with Audit Committees Concerning Independence" that relates to Deloitte's independence from Duke Energy and its subsidiaries and the Audit Committee has discussed with Deloitte the firm's independence.
Based on its review of the consolidated financial statements and discussions with and representations from management and Deloitte referred to above, the Audit Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the audited financial statements be included in Duke Energy's 2016 Form 10-K, for filing with the SEC.
Audit Committee
Michael J. Angelakis, Chairperson
John H. Forsgren
James B. Hyler, Jr.
E. Marie McKee
Carlos A. Saladrigas
DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement 37
PROPOSAL 3:
ADVISORY VOTE TO APPROVE DUKE ENERGY
CORPORATION'S NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICER
COMPENSATION
At the 2011 Annual Meeting, our shareholders recommended that our Board of Directors hold say-on-pay votes on an annual basis. As a result, we are providing our shareholders with the opportunity to approve, on a nonbinding, advisory basis, the compensation of our named executive officers as disclosed in this proxy statement. This proposal gives our shareholders the opportunity to express their views on the compensation of our named executive officers.
In connection with this proposal, the Board of Directors encourages shareholders to review in detail the description of the compensation program for our named executive officers that is set forth in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis beginning on page 39, as well as the information contained in the compensation tables and narrative discussion in this proxy statement.
As described in more detail in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section, the guiding principle of our compensation philosophy is that pay should be linked to performance and that the interests of our executives and shareholders should be aligned. Our compensation program is designed to provide significant upside and downside potential depending on actual results as compared to predetermined measures of success. A significant portion of our named executive officers' total direct compensation is directly contingent upon achieving specific results that are important to our long-term success and growth in shareholder value. We supplement our pay-for-performance program with a number of compensation policies that are aligned with the long-term interests of Duke Energy and its shareholders.
We are asking our shareholders to indicate their support for the compensation of our named executive officers as disclosed in this proxy statement by voting "FOR" the following resolution:
"RESOLVED, that the shareholders of Duke Energy approve, on an advisory basis, the compensation paid to Duke Energy's named executive officers, as disclosed pursuant to Item 402 of Regulation S-K of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, including the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, the compensation tables and the narrative discussion in Duke Energy's 2017 Proxy Statement."
The approval of a majority of shares represented in person or by proxy at the Annual Meeting is required to approve this proposal. Because your vote is advisory, it will not be binding on the Board of Directors, the Compensation Committee or Duke Energy. The Compensation Committee, however, will review the voting results and take them into consideration when making future decisions regarding the compensation of our named executive officers.
For the Above Reasons, the Board of Directors Recommends a Vote "FOR" This Proposal.
38 DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement
REPORT OF THE COMPENSATION COMMITTEE
The Compensation Committee of Duke Energy is responsible for the oversight of the Corporation's compensation programs and compensation of the Corporation's executives, per the Committee's Charter which is available on our website at www.duke-energy.com/our-company/investors/corporate-governance/board-committee-charters/compensation.
The Compensation Committee of Duke Energy has reviewed and discussed the Compensation Discussion and Analysis with management and, based on such review and discussions, the Compensation Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in this proxy statement.
Compensation Committee
E. Marie McKee, Chairperson
Michael G. Browning
Charles W. Moorman IV
Carlos A. Saladrigas
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
The purpose of this Compensation Discussion and Analysis is to provide information about Duke Energy's compensation objectives and policies for our named executive officers, who, for 2016 are:
Name |
| Title |
---|---|---|
| | |
Lynn J. Good | | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer |
Steven K. Young | | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
Dhiaa M. Jamil | | Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer |
Julia S. Janson | | Executive Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary |
Lloyd M. Yates | | Executive Vice President, Customer and Delivery Operations and President, Carolinas Region |
| | |
DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement 39
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Executive Summary of the Compensation Discussion and Analysis |
2016 Compensation Highlights
As discussed throughout this Compensation Discussion and Analysis, our compensation program is designed to link pay to performance. Our 2016 Business Highlights are described on page 5 of this proxy statement.
40 DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Objectives of the Compensation Program
Duke Energy is committed to creating value for our shareholders while building trust and transforming our energy future. We continuously strive to achieve this core purpose of creating shareholder value in all that we do, but with a particular emphasis on the areas described below in The Road Ahead.
DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement 41
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
We design our compensation program so that it motivates our executives to focus on the four priorities in The Road Ahead, all of which are designed to ensure that our compensation program aligns with the interests of executives and shareholders:
42 DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Pay-for-Performance
The guiding principle of our compensation philosophy is that pay should be linked to performance and that the interests of executives and shareholders should be aligned. Our compensation program is designed to provide significant upside and downside potential depending on actual results, as compared to predetermined measures of success.
Our core compensation program consists of base salary, STI and LTI (performance shares and restricted stock units). The following chart illustrates the components of the target total direct compensation opportunities provided to our named executive officers.
DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement 43
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Align Interests of Named Executive Officers and Shareholders
Following are key features of our executive compensation program, which reinforce our pay-for-performance philosophy and strengthen the alignment of interests of our executives and shareholders:
| | | | | | |
AT DUKE ENERGY WE... | AT DUKE ENERGY WE DO NOT... | |||||
| | | | | | |
Require significant stock ownership. We maintain aggressive guidelines to reinforce the importance of Duke Energy stock ownership. These guidelines are intended to align the interests of executives and shareholders and to focus the executives on our long-term success. Under these guidelines, each of our current named executive officers must own Duke Energy shares in accordance with the following schedule: | Provide tax gross-ups. We do not provide excise tax gross-ups for severance received by our named executive officers under Change in Control Agreements or under the Executive Severance Plan, and we do not provide tax gross-ups on other payments such as perquisites. |
Leadership Position |
Value of Shares |
|
---|---|---|
| | |
Chief Executive Officer | 6x Base Salary* | |
Other Named Executive Officers | 3x Base Salary | |
| | |
*In order to further strengthen our stock ownership guidelines, the Chief Executive Officer's ownership requirement was increased from 5X to 6X of her base salary during 2016.
| | | | | | |
Maintain a stock holding policy. Each named executive officer is required to hold 50% of all shares acquired under the LTI program (after payment of any applicable taxes) and 100% of all shares acquired upon the exercise of stock options (after payment of the exercise price and taxes) until the applicable stock ownership requirement is satisfied. Each of our named executive officers was in compliance with the stock ownership/stock holding policy during 2016. | Permit hedging or pledging of Duke Energy securities. We have a policy that prohibits employees (including the named executive officers) and directors from trading in options, warrants, puts and calls or similar instruments in connection with Duke Energy securities, or selling Duke Energy securities "short." In addition, we prohibit the pledging of Duke Energy securities in margin accounts. | |||||
| | | | | | |
Tie incentive compensation to a clawback policy. We maintain a "clawback policy," which would allow us to recover (i) certain cash or equity-based incentive compensation tied to financial results in the event those results were restated due at least in part to the recipient's fraud or misconduct or (ii) an inadvertent payment based on an incorrect calculation. | Provide "single trigger" severance upon a change in control. Our Change in Control Agreements provide cash severance only upon a "double trigger," meaning that change in control severance is payable only if our named executive officers incur a qualifying termination of employment (i.e., an involuntary termination without "cause" or a voluntary termination for "good reason") and the termination occurs in connection with a change in control of Duke Energy. | |||||
| | | | | | |
Provide a consistent level of severance. We maintain the Duke Energy Corporation Executive Severance Plan ("Executive Severance Plan") in order to provide a consistent approach to executive severance and to provide eligible employees, including our named executive officers (excluding Ms. Good, who is provided with severance compensation through her employment agreement), with certainty and security while they are focusing on their duties and responsibilities. Under this plan, severance compensation is payable only upon a qualifying termination of employment (i.e., an involuntary termination without "cause" or a voluntary termination for "good reason"). | Provide employment agreements to a broad group. Except for our Chief Executive Officer, no executive is provided a comprehensive employment agreement. | |||||
| | | | | | |
Maintain a shareholder approval policy for severance agreements. We have a policy generally to seek shareholder approval for any future agreements with our named executive officers that provide severance compensation in excess of 2.99 times the executive's annual compensation or that provide for tax gross-ups in connection with a termination event. | Encourage excessive or inappropriate risk-taking through our compensation program. In consultation with the Compensation Committee, members of management from Duke Energy's Human Resources, Legal and Risk Management groups assessed whether our compensation policies and practices encourage excessive or inappropriate risk-taking by our employees, including employees other than our named executive officers. This assessment included a review of the risk characteristics of Duke Energy's business and the design of our incentive plans and policies. Management reported its findings to the Compensation Committee, and after review and discussion, the Compensation Committee concluded that our plans and policies do not encourage excessive or inappropriate risk-taking. | |||||
| | | | | | |
44 DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
| | | | | | |
AT DUKE ENERGY WE... | AT DUKE ENERGY WE DO NOT... | |||||
| | | | | | |
Comply with equity award granting policy. In recognition of the importance of adhering to specific practices and procedures in the granting of equity awards, the Compensation Committee has adopted a policy that applies to the granting of equity awards. Under this policy, annual grants to employees may be made at any regularly scheduled meeting, provided that reasonable efforts will be made to make such grants at the first regularly scheduled meeting of each calendar year, and annual grants to independent directors may be made by the Board of Directors at any regularly scheduled meeting, provided that reasonable efforts will be made to make such grants at the regularly scheduled meeting that is held in conjunction with the annual meeting of shareholders each year. | Provide excessive perquisites. Our perquisites program is limited to an executive physical, an airline club membership to facilitate travel, limited personal use of corporate aircraft (subject generally to the requirement that the executive reimburse Duke Energy for the direct operating costs for such travel), financial planning and matching charitable contributions. See page 52 for additional details. | |||||
| | | | | | |
Use an independent compensation consultant. The Compensation Committee has engaged FW Cook to report directly to the Compensation Committee as its independent compensation consultant. The consultant has been instructed to provide completely independent advice to the Compensation Committee and is not permitted to provide any services to Duke Energy other than at the direction of the Compensation Committee. The Compensation Committee has assessed the independence of FW Cook pursuant to SEC rules and concluded that no conflict of interest exists that would prevent the consulting firm from independently advising the Compensation Committee. | Provide dividend equivalents on unearned performance shares. Dividend equivalents are paid with respect to our performance share awards only if, and to the extent, the related performance share awards are earned and become vested. | |||||
| | | | | | |
Review tally sheets. At least once a year, the Compensation Committee reviews tally sheets for each executive officer, which include a summary of compensation paid in prior years, compensation for the current year, the valuation of all outstanding equity awards and a summary of amounts payable upon a termination of employment under various circumstances. This information allows the Compensation Committee to evaluate the total compensation package for each named executive officer, as well as adjustments to specific elements of the total direct compensation package. | ||||||
| | | | | | |
Consider prior year's "say-on-pay" vote. As required by the Dodd Frank Act, we included a shareholder vote on executive compensation in last year's proxy statement, which was approved by approximately 92% of the votes represented in person or by proxy. The Compensation Committee considers the results of this advisory vote when designing our compensation program, including our emphasis on pay-for-performance, which is structured and designed to achieve our stated goals and objectives. In addition, we regularly engage our shareholders in an open dialogue regarding our compensation program. | ||||||
| | | | | | |
DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement 45
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Elements of Duke Energy's Compensation Program |
As discussed in more detail below, during 2016, the principal components of compensation for the named executive officers were: base salary; STI compensation; LTI compensation; retirement and welfare benefits, and perquisites.
Following is a summary of each principal compensation component provided to the named executive officers during 2016.
Base Salary The salary for each named executive officer is based, among other factors, upon job responsibilities, level of experience, individual performance, comparisons to the salaries of executives in similar positions obtained from market surveys and internal comparisons. The following base salary adjustments for the named executive officers occurred in 2016:
Short-Term Incentive Compensation STI opportunities are provided to our named executive officers under the Duke Energy Corporation Executive Short-Term Incentive Plan to promote the achievement of annual performance objectives.
Each year, the Compensation Committee establishes the target annual incentive opportunity for each named executive officer, which is based on a percentage of his or her base salary. No changes were made to the target incentive opportunities of the named executive officers in 2016 other than for Ms. Good, whose target incentive opportunity was increased from 140% to 150% of her annual base salary, effective as of January 1, 2016, to bring her total compensation to approximately the market median.
Name |
| Target Incentive Opportunity (as a % of base salary) |
| |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | |||
Lynn J. Good |
| | 150 | % | | |
Steven K. Young |
| | 80 | % | | |
Dhiaa M. Jamil |
| | 80 | % | | |
Julia S. Janson |
| | 80 | % | | |
Lloyd M. Yates |
| | 80 | % | | |
| | | |
46 DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
As discussed in more detail below, the Compensation Committee established the following objectives under the STI Plan in February 2016 with the STI target opportunity allocated between corporate and individual objectives.
In order to emphasize the importance of the EPS objective, the Compensation Committee established a circuit-breaker, providing that if an adjusted diluted EPS performance level of at least $4.11 (increased from $4.10 as explained on the next page) was not achieved, the named executive officers would not have received any payout under the 2016 STI Plan. To encourage a continued focus on safety, the Compensation Committee also included a potential safety adder and penalty, each in the amount of five percent of a participant's entire STI payment.
Depending on actual performance, named executive officers were eligible to earn up to 183.75% of the amount of their STI target opportunity, based on a potential maximum payout of 200% for the EPS objective, a 150% potential maximum payout for the operational excellence, customer satisfaction and individual objectives, and a potential five percent safety adder.
DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement 47
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Corporate Objectives
The 2016 corporate objectives and the related target and performance results were as follows and are defined below:
Objective(1) |
Weight |
Threshold (50%) |
Target (100%) |
Maximum(2) |
Result |
Payout |
|||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Adjusted Diluted EPS(3) | | 50 | % | $ | 4.36 | $ | 4.61 | $ | 4.86 | $ | 4.71 | | 140 | % | |||||
Operational Excellence(4) | 20 | % | |||||||||||||||||
(a) Operations and Maintenance Expense |
| | $ | 5.085B | $ | 4.985B | $ | 4.885B | $ | 5.009B | | 87.8 | % | ||||||
(b) Reliability(5) |
|||||||||||||||||||
Regulated Generation (Fossil/Hydro) Commercial Availability |
| | | 85.75 | % | | 86.92 | % | | 87.92 | % | | 84.66 | % | | 0 | % | ||
Nuclear Generation Capacity Factor |
91.76 | % | 94.12 | % | 95.28 | % | 95.72 | % | 150 | % | |||||||||
System Average Interruption Duration Index |
| | | 135 | | 126 | | 117 | | 144 | | 0 | % | ||||||
Renewables Availability |
93.00 | % | 96.00 | % | 98.00 | % | 94.00 | % | 66.67 | % | |||||||||
International Equivalent Availability |
| | | 88.3 | % | | 90.3 | % | | 92.3 | % | | 90.8 | % | | 112.5 | % | ||
(c) Safety/Environmental(6) |
|||||||||||||||||||
Total Incident Case Rate: |
| | | | | | |||||||||||||
Employees |
| | | 0.55 | | 0.40 | | 0.38 | | 0.40 | | 100 | % | ||||||
Contractors |
| | | 1.10 | | 1.00 | | 0.90 | | 0.87 | | 150 | % | ||||||
Reportable Environmental Events |
54 | 45 | 39 | 39 | 150 | % | |||||||||||||
Customer Satisfaction | | 10 | % | | 752 | | 762 | | 770 | | 779 | | 150 | % | |||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
The Compensation Committee established the target for the EPS objective under the 2016 STI Plan at $4.61 (adjusted as described below), which is slightly less than the $4.65 level established under the 2015 STI Plan but is in excess of our actual EPS under the STI Plan of $4.54 in 2015. The EPS target for 2015 was established based on the assumption that we would own the Midwest Commercial Generation business for approximately one quarter during 2015, and was based on normal hydrology and stable economic conditions in Brazil. Due to the deterioration of hydrology conditions in Brazil (which was expected to continue into 2016) and the disposition of the Midwest Commercial Generation business, the Compensation Committee determined that it was appropriate to establish the target for EPS under the 2016 STI Plan at $4.61.
After the end of 2016, the Compensation Committee approved the following adjustments to the performance levels under the 2016 STI Plan to reflect the acquisition of Piedmont Natural Gas on October 3, 2016: (i) increased each of the threshold, target, and maximum adjusted diluted EPS performance levels, as well as the circuit-breaker, by $0.01, and (ii) increased each of the threshold, target, and maximum O&M expense performance levels by $70 million. These adjustments were made under the terms of the 2016 STI Plan because the original performance levels were established based on the assumption that the acquisition of Piedmont Natural Gas would not close during 2016. The adjusted diluted EPS result shown above ($4.71) is $0.02 higher than the amount reported in our 2016 earnings release. This difference is attributable to an adjustment approved by the Compensation Committee, pursuant to the terms of the 2016 STI Plan, to exclude the impact of a significant unanticipated contribution to the Duke Energy Foundation.
48 DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Reliability Metrics |
Description |
|
---|---|---|
| | |
Regulated Generation (Fossil/Hydro) Commercial Availability | A measure of regulated fossil generation reliability, determined as the weighted percentage of time the regulated fossil generation units are available to generate electricity, where the availability each hour is weighted by the difference between market price and unit cost. | |
Nuclear Generation Capacity Factor |
A measure of the amount of electricity produced by a nuclear generating unit relative to the amount of electricity the unit is capable of producing. |
|
System Average Interruption Duration Index |
A measure of the number of outage minutes experienced during the year per customer served from both transmission and distribution systems calculated in accordance with the applicable guidelines set forth in the IEEE Standard 1366-Guide for Electric Power Distribution Reliability Indices, including application of the "major event day" exclusions described therein. |
|
Renewables Availability |
A renewables energy yield metric, calculated by comparing actual generation to expected generation based on the wind speed measured at the turbine and by calculating the actual generation to expected generation based on solar intensity measures at the panels. The renewables energy yield is weighted 90% to wind and 10% to solar. |
|
International Equivalent Availability |
A measure of the amount of electricity that potentially could be produced by an international generating unit relative to the amount of electricity the unit is actually producing. |
|
| | |
Safety/Environmental Metrics |
Description |
|
---|---|---|
| | |
Reportable Environmental Events | REE refers to environmental events resulting from Duke Energy operations that require notification to, or enforcement action by, a regulatory agency. This objective emphasizes service reliability and the mitigation of environmental risks associated with our operations. | |
Total Incident Case Rate |
TICR measures the number of occupational injuries and illnesses per 100 employees and staff augmentation contractors. This objective emphasizes our focus on achieving an event-free and injury-free workplace. |
|
| | |
Customer Satisfaction Metric |
|
|
---|---|---|
| | |
Description | The CSAT metric is a composite of customer satisfaction results for each regulated utility. | |
Calculation |
Results are based on the J.D. Power Electric Utility Residential Customer Satisfaction Index ("JDP CSI"), and internal surveys of customers through the Small/Medium Customer Perception Tracker ("SMB CPT") and the Large Business Perception Tracker ("LB CPT") using the following formula: |
|
CSAT=0.50 (JDP CSI Score) +0.25 (SMB CPT Score X 10) +0.25 (LB CPT Score X 10) |
||
The enterprise-wide CSAT score is calculated utilizing the regulated utility level CSAT scores, based on the following weights: Duke Energy Carolinas (32%); Duke Energy Progress (19%); Duke Energy Florida (24%); Duke Energy Indiana (12%); and Duke Energy Ohio/Kentucky (13%). |
||
| | |
DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement 49
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Individual Objectives
The 2016 individual objectives were as follows:
Safety Component
In order to emphasize a continued focus on safety, the Compensation Committee included the following safety measures in the 2016 STI Plan:
There was one LAI during 2016, which is less than the number (9) at which the safety penalty otherwise would apply, and no significant operational events or controllable work-related fatalities occurred. Therefore, the safety adder applies such that payments under the 2016 STI Plan were increased by 5% for eligible employees.
Payouts
As a result of the aggregate corporate, operational and individual performance, each named executive officer's aggregate payout under the 2016 STI Plan was equal to:
Name |
| Payout |
| |
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | | |
Lynn J. Good | | $ | 2,676,465 | | |
Steven K. Young | | $ | 665,742 | | |
Dhiaa M. Jamil | | $ | 832,658 | | |
Julia S. Janson | | $ | 588,035 | | |
Lloyd M. Yates | | $ | 680,129 | | |
| | | | |
50 DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Long-Term Incentive Compensation
Opportunities under the LTI program are provided to our named executive officers to provide appropriate balance to the STI Plan and to align executive and shareholder interests in an effort to maximize shareholder value.
2016 LTI Program
Each year, the Compensation Committee establishes the target LTI opportunity for each named executive officer, which is based on a percentage of his or her base salary. Guided by the fact that actual realized LTI compensation will depend substantially on our long-term performance and is aligned with the interests of our shareholders, the Compensation Committee approved an increase in Ms. Good's target LTI opportunity from 600% to 700% of her annual base salary, effective January 1, 2016. The Compensation Committee's decision was based on a number of factors (none of which was assigned a fixed weight), including, but not limited to: market data that indicated Ms. Good's target compensation opportunity was below market levels for an organization of our size and scope, recognition of the complexity and importance of Ms. Good's position, as well as her outstanding performance record and leadership and potential future contributions to Duke Energy.
The target 2016 LTI opportunities for Mr. Jamil and Ms. Janson were increased from 250% to 275% and from 200% to 225%, respectively, in order to bring their total compensation levels closer to market median and for internal equity purposes. No changes were made to the target LTI opportunities of the other named executive officers for 2016.
Name |
| Target LTI Opportunity (as a % of base salary) |
| |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | |||
Lynn J. Good |
| | 700 | % | | |
Steven K. Young |
| | 225 | % | | |
Dhiaa M. Jamil |
| | 275 | % | | |
Julia S. Janson |
| | 225 | % | | |
Lloyd M. Yates |
| | 225 | % | | |
| | | |
The Compensation Committee reviews the allocation between performance shares and restricted stock units annually with its compensation consultant, which confirmed that the present 70%/30% mix was market based among both utility peers and the general industry. The Compensation Committee believes that this allocation strikes an appropriate balance to both incentivize and retain our executive officers and aligns with our strong pay-for-performance philosophy. Under the 2016 LTI program, each named executive officer's LTI opportunity was provided in the form of restricted stock units and performance shares, as follows:
Retention Grants
The Compensation Committee grants restricted stock units, in addition to those provided under the LTI program, when needed for retention purposes in light of the marketability of our executive officers. In February, 2016, the Compensation Committee approved retention grants of time-based restricted stock units to the named executive officers, other than Ms. Good. Different from our annual restricted stock unit awards, these grants are subject to a more-restrictive three-year cliff vesting schedule and are intended to enhance retention incentives for our top executives.
Name |
| Restricted Stock Units Granted |
| |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | |||
Steven K. Young |
| | 3,336 | | | |
Dhiaa M. Jamil |
| | 13,342 | | | |
Julia S. Janson |
| | 3,336 | | | |
Lloyd M. Yates |
| | 10,007 | | | |
| | | |
DUKE ENERGY 2017 Proxy Statement 51
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
2014-2016 Performance Shares under the Duke Energy 2016 LTI Program
The 2014 performance shares could be earned based on Duke Energy's relative TSR for the three-year period from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2016, as compared to the companies in the UTY. The results and payout levels for the 2014-2016 performance shares are as follows:
Relative TSR Performance Percentile |
| Percent Payout of Target 2014-2016 Performance Shares |
| Result |
| Payout of Target |
| |
||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | | | | | | ||||||
90th or Higher |
| | 200 | % | | 16.6th | | | 0 | % | | |||
50th (Target) |
| | 100 | % | | | | | | |||||
25th |
| | 30 | % | | | | | | | | |||
Below 25th |
| | 0 | % | | | | | | |||||
| | | | | | | | |
Retirement and Welfare Benefits
Our named executive officers participate in the retirement and welfare plans generally available to other eligible employees. In addition, in order to attract and retain key executive talent, we believe that it is important to provide our named executive officers with certain limited retirement benefits that are offered only to a select group of management. These retirement plans provided to our named executive officers are described on pages 59-62 and are generally comparable to the benefits provided by peers of Duke Energy, as determined based on market surveys.
Duke Energy provides the named executive officers with the same health and welfare benefits it provides to all other similarly situated employees, and at the same cost charged to all other eligible employees. The named executive officers also are entitled to the same post-retirement health and welfare benefits as those provided to similarly situated retirees.
Perquisites
In 2016, Duke Energy provided our named executive officers with certain other perquisites, which are disclosed in footnote 6 to the Summary Compensation Table on page 56. Duke Energy provides these perquisites as well as other benefits to certain executives in order to provide competitive compensation packages. The cost of perquisites and other personal benefits is not part of base salary, and, therefore, does not affect the calculation of awards and benefits under Duke Energy's other compensation arrangements (i.e., retirement and incentive compensation plans).
Our named executive officers were eligible to receive the following perquisites and other benefits during 2016: (i) up to $2,500 for the cost of a comprehensive physical examination, (ii) reimbursement of expenses incurred for tax and financial planning services, which program is administered on a three-year cycle, such that participating executives can be reimbursed for up to $15,000 of eligible expenses during the three-year cycle, (iii) matching contributions from the Duke Energy Foundation of up to $5,000 to qualifying charitable institutions, and (iv) preferred status at American Airlines.
In addition, Ms. Good may use corporate aircraft for personal travel in North America. With advance approval from the Chief Executive Officer, the other named executive officers may use the corporate aircraft for personal travel in North America. If Ms. Good or any other named executive officer uses the aircraft for personal travel, he or she must reimburse Duke Energy for the direct operating costs for such travel. However, Ms. Good is not required to reimburse Duke Energy for the cost of travel to the executive physical described above or to meetings of the board of directors of other companies on whose board she serves. For additional information on the use of the corporate aircraft, see footnote 6 to the Summary Compensation Table.
Compensation Peer Group |
One of our core compensation objectives is to attract and retain talented executive officers through total compensation that generally is competitive with that of other executives and key employees of similarly sized companies with similar complexity, whether within or outside of the utility sector. The Compensation Committee has developed a customized peer group for review of executive compensation levels and plan design practices.
The customized peer group consists of 23 similarly sized companies from the utility and general sectors, with the general industry companies also having satisfied at least one of the following characteristics: (i) operates in capital intensive industry, (ii) operates in a highly regulated industry, (iii) has significant manufacturing operations, or (iv) derives more than 50% of revenue in the United States. The customized combined peer group, which did not change in 2016, consists of: