CFACT recently took its shareholder activism directly to three major utility company shareholder meetings, pressing Dominion Energy, Duke Energy, and Enbridge on whether their renewable energy and ESG-driven strategies truly serve reliability, affordability, and shareholder value.
The most revealing exchange came at Dominion Energy’s 2026 shareholder meeting on May 5, where CFACT national director Nate Myers challenged the company’s continued promotion of “increasing clean energy,” carbon reductions, solar, and offshore wind. Myers asked how Dominion’s management can justify investments in intermittent energy sources as better for reliability, affordability, and shareholder returns when solar and wind cannot replace firm generation.
CFACT’s question about renewables was echoed by others in the meeting. Another shareholder pressed Dominion CEO Robert Blue on why the company is investing so heavily in solar and wind while America still has abundant natural gas and nuclear power. The shareholder also questioned why Dominion sold off parts of its gas business while shareholders have watched the stock lag and the dividend remain flat.
Blue responded by defending Dominion’s “all of the above” strategy, saying the company is not investing only in solar or wind, but also in nuclear and natural gas. He pointed to Dominion’s five-year, $65 billion capital expenditure plan, stating that about 25 percent is going toward natural gas and nuclear, while 15 percent is going toward solar, storage, and wind. Still, Blue conceded a central point raised in CFACT’s question: Solar and wind “are not dispatchable” and operate only when “the sun is shining and the wind is blowing,” while natural gas and nuclear are available when needed.
That admission matters. Dominion’s own answer confirmed the concern CFACT raised: intermittent renewables require backup, storage, and continued reliance on traditional power sources to justify their addition to the grid, almost always at the cost of higher prices for ratepayers. For shareholders, the question remains: why does Dominion continue to pour nearly $10 billion dollars into politically favored energy projects while customer demand, especially from data centers, is making dispatchable baseload power more important than ever? Utility companies cannot continue to map the national grid’s future based solely off the direction of political winds. The result will be a weaker, more unreliable grid, not an empowered one.
CFACT also voted in favor of two allied shareholder proposals at Dominion’s shareholder meeting. The first, submitted by the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC), called for Dominion to adopt a policy requiring an independent board chair. CFACT voted in favor of the proposal because Dominion CEO Robert Blue currently serves as both chairman and chief executive, concentrating authority in the same leadership structure driving the company’s renewable energy and “clean energy” strategy. The proposal received 24.48 percent in favor and 75.52 percent against and was not approved.
The second allied proposal, submitted by the Heritage Foundation, requested a report on Dominion’s use of environmental, social and governance (ESG) and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) metrics in executive compensation plans. CFACT also voted in favor of the Heritage proposal because shareholders deserve to know whether executives are being rewarded for operational performance or for meeting ideological target metrics. The proposal received 1.32 percent in favor and 98.68 percent against and was also not approved.
During Enbridge’s shareholder meeting the following day, CFACT, via Myers, likewise pressed the company on renewable energy capital allocation, asking how Enbridge can justify a $900 million investment in Texas solar projects such as Clear Fork and Sequoia Solar when solar cannot reliably power 24/7 AI data centers on demand and must compete against the company’s core dispatchable energy infrastructure. Enbridge had no allied shareholder proposals on the ballot, but CFACT’s question echoed the concerns of many others in attendance.
Lastly, during Duke Energy’s shareholder meeting on May 7, Mr. Myers submitted a question asking why Duke executives are rewarded for environmental and energy-modernization metrics instead of strictly for reliability, affordability, safety, and shareholder returns. While Duke did not face any shareholder proposals from CFACT allies, the meeting still raised major questions about the company’s energy priorities. In response to a shareholder’s question about the company’s outlook on nuclear power and small modular reactors, Duke emphasized that it operates the largest regulated nuclear fleet in the country while side-stepping a direct response or firm commitment to new nuclear development. It seems Duke’s board would rather straddle the fence between eco-activism and common-sense grid planning in an attempt to wait out the Trump presidency.
Across all three meetings, CFACT used its shareholder status to confront utility companies on the same core issue: whether management is prioritizing dependable, affordable energy and shareholder returns or chasing renewable energy fanfare and federal subsidies. Dominion’s meeting showed the most promise. The company faced direct pressure on renewables, shareholder return, board independence, and ESG compensation — and CFACT was there, voting and speaking out alongside a host of other outraged shareholders who want utilities focused on reliable power, not political energy schemes.