US energy sector better off than four years ago? Duke CEO says yes.

Duke CEO Rogers gives Obama's energy plan a thumbs up, pointing to improved efficiency, low natural gas prices, and two nuclear plants licensed.

Christian Hartmann/Reuters/File
James Rogers, chairman and CEO of Duke Energy Corp., attends a session at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in this 2009 file photo. Mr. Rogers supports Obama's energy policies.

President Barack Obama has been given an important vote of confidence from within the energy sector, with Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers telling news network CNN that the country is better off now when it comes to energy than it was before Obama’s election.

The statement comes just as the Democratic National Convention gets set to open in Charlotte, North Carolina, with Rogers acting as co-chairman of the event’s host committee. While the words come from within his own camp, Obama appears to be gaining ground on rival Mitt Romney with voters across the country where energy policy is concerned.

 “Well, from an energy-sector [standpoint], we’re better off today than we were four years ago. Think about it. President Obama pursued an all-of-the-above strategy. Are we better off in terms of efficiency? We see per-home usage of electricity declining. That’s a good thing,” Rogers said to a CNN interviewer.

“The second thing is we [have had] two license[s] for nuclear plants issued. We have abundant supply of natural gas at low prices. And so as you look at the various ways to generate electricity in this country, we’re better off today than we were four years ago.”

Despite Romney focusing much of his campaign in recent weeks on what he calls Obama’s energy failures, a USA Today/Gallop poll conducted from August 20-22 shows that 53 percent of respondents see Obama as the better candidate to lead American energy policy into the future; by comparison, only 40 percent see that quality in Romney.

With energy issues playing a more and more prominent role leading up the election, both candidates are likely to continue to focus on that sector leading into November.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.