Whereas: Duke Energy is under contract with the Department of Energy (DOE) to use plutonium fuel (MOX) in the McGuire and Catawba nuclear reactors.

Whereas: Duke shareholders are concerned about the impact of plutonium fuel on the safe, efficient and economic operation of the company for the following reasons:

1. Economic dividends from this program are small, speculative, far in the future and not worth the risks to reactor safety or company reputation.

2. Growing public and legislative opposition creates a bad public relations image for our company during a time of utility deregulation and growing competition.

3. Weapons grade plutonium has never been used in commercial nuclear reactors posing unanticipated risks. European experience with reactor grade plutonium fuel has produced inadequate information of unknown relevance to the U.S. weapons grade plutonium fuel program.

4. Uranium fuel is plentiful and inexpensive, with predictable impacts on reactor operations. Plutonium fuel introduces differences in reactor physics which increase accident risks and increases cancer deaths from serious accidents by as much as 25%.

5. Duke Energy participation in this plutonium fuel program would make the company dependent on the Department of Energy and the French government owned firm Cogema. The difficulties and red tape involved in doing business with these two government agencies make the business dynamics of this venture risky.

6. The plutonium fuel program depends on the Russian government doing a parallel program. Duke Energy should not involve itself in a program that depends on political events in Russia.

7. Use of plutonium fuel sends the message that plutonium is acceptable for use in other countries, thus increasing the risk of nuclear weapons material proliferation.

8. Plutonium fuel use would require amending the operating licenses of the nuclear reactors in a process that could be expensive, time consuming and possibly unsuccessful.

9. The Department of Energy is also planning to immobilize some of the plutonium by mixing it with nuclear waste and encasing it in glass or ceramics. The immobilization option is faster, safer, cheaper and does not promote nuclear materials proliferation. Duke shareholders should promote this better option for plutonium disposal. There is no need for Duke Energy to use the unproven weapons plutonium fuel.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the shareholders of Duke Energy require the Board of Directors to establish a firm policy against the use of plutonium (MOX) fuel.

Supporting Statement: Documentation and more information is freely available from Robert Mills, 1443 Gorsuch Avenue, Baltimore, Maryland 21218, Phone (410) 662-8483, E-mail: rmills4@bcpl.net and from the Website: www.nci.org/nci-wpu.htm

We urge all shareholders to please vote FOR this resolution.

Primary filer: Robert B. Mills
Co-filers: Edward Lewis King, Hill Powell, Ellen Stanley, Wells Eddleman and Thomas J. Haupert

For more information on what you can do, contact Joan King at joank@stc.net.

DUKE STOCK: TOP SHAREHOLDERS Is one of them managing YOUR money? Urge them to VOTE YES to STOP MOX! (Click here for complete contact information.) Putnam Investments Barclays Bank PLC The Duke Endowment Capital Research and Management Smith Barney (Citigroup) State Street Bank & Trust Wellington Management Bankers Trust (Taurus Corp.) Lord Abbett Affiliated Fund Vanguard Group State Farm Insurance Robeco Group (RG America Fund) Prudential Massachusetts Financial Services Fidelity Management Merrill Lynch Asset Management T. Rowe Price TIAA-CREF First Union Northern Trust Co. US Bankcorp California Public Employees Retirement New York State Teachers Retirement Bank of America Wachovia Asset Cooke & Bieler Inc. Scudder Kemper Investment California State Teachers Retirement US Trust Co. of New York World Asset Management Chicago Asset Management To find out more about some of these mutual funds, see www.brill.com/fundlink.html

More on MOX
WAND's Nix MOX Bulletin Board
Problems with MOX