Duke Energy makes life better for millions of people every day by providing electric and gas services in a sustainable way - affordable, reliable, and clean (quote www.duke-energy.com/about-us ). They became America's largest electric utility with 7.2 million suscribers after a merger with Progress Energy according to the New York Times. The article Duke Energy's Corporate Incompetence - or Fraud? consists of charges that Duke Energy gained hundreds of millions of dollars from charging improper rates and passing inappropriate expenses on to its small user customer base. The introduction of the article starts, either Duke Energy's accountants are grossly incompetent or the corporation has deliberately sought to improperly charge North Carolina's customers hundreds of millions of dollars each year. The first point of analysis is Duke Energy's attempt at overcharging customers and the North Carolina Utilities Comission Public Staff allowing them to circumvent penalties. Duke Energy ended up negotiating a secret deal with the public staff in which they overlooked the overcharges they caught, set minimum profit range higher than needed, and gave money back that they overcharged. The issue being raised is how this unethical deal-making is an abuse of the customers that the company is supposed to service. Another point of scrutiny is Duke Energy has a rate rigging scheme that charges small customers unfairly each year for power plants and power lines used by Duke's largest customers. Duke uses a rate-making system based on the hottest hour of the year to maximize rates on small users because that typically is when their use is highest, instead of calculating using average usage. The author contends Duke uses this strategy to build plants for peak hours which they use to attract large energy users with low prices while passing actual costs on to the small consumers like families, small business and local governments. The reason this is a dilemna is because these business practices are not fair to all parties involved, mainly the small customer who is stuck in a energy sector with no competition. The third claim the article makes is monoplies like Duke Energy abuse the regulatory system by passing unacceptable expenses on to its customers instead of keeping expenses down and passing savings on to its customers which it would have to do if they competed for its customers. The main way Duke Energy exploites its monoply status is by passing on large expenses to its small monoply-captive customers. In this way Duke can attract large use customers with a choice of where to put their operations with low rates and to increase profits for shareholders. Without heavy penalties by the regulatory comission, the author suggest that Duke Energy with continue to use unethical business practices in the pursuit of higher profits. The article implies that Duke Energy ignored its social and legal responsibility to the consumer so it could pass unallowable and unrecoverable expenses on to its customers to cushion shareholders from poor management. Improper charges included Duke Energy's attempt to overcharge North Carolina customers tens of millions of dollars in annual operating expenses from the merger with Progress Energy that were unallowable by North Carolina's Utilities Comission. One of the charges being raised is why the Public Staff of the North Carolina Utilities Comission is giving Duke Energy money back after being caught improperly charging customers instead of them being penalized.