That's why I want to have my own carbon allocation, that then the utility has to buy back from me, if it wants to supply electricity to me (or anyone else). It also gives me the option of withholding my allotment and living like a monk for the good of the planet. If I want to.
Btw, this also uses the "law of large numbers". The allocations are spread out over large numbers of people whose cumulative decisions then drive policy and innovation. Radical, I know.

He sounds like the real deal.  That's pretty cool.  He says one thing that brings up an interesting question: Your question makes my point. We've got to be going all-out with all of this. It's not either-or; it's both. We've got to avoid the tyranny of one or the other. We need solar, we need wind, we need nuclear, we need carbon capture and sequestration -- we need all of it.

One of the common themes I hear here against investing in CCS is that there is a limited pool of money, and that investing in CCS necessarily takes away from investment in other, better technologies.  Rogers' position seems to be that what we need to do is expand the pool of available resources to fully support both avenues of development.  So what I see here is a potential point of alliance between greens and industry, and a basis for uniting to try to direct more money in total towards clean energy research.

I am sure his CFO and engineers would spoil that nice story.  Nobody in heavy industry believes CCS and pv are remotely cost effective.  The liabilities of public opinion concerning coal were avoided while pleasant Mr. Rogers told us what we wanted to hear.  

The near future of coal will most likely be cost prohibitive for both power production and exports due to inevitable draconian carbon legislation.

Market pull for low-carbon resilient energy is a vast opportunity for Duke.  I would invest in something that actually makes sense.