13. ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS

We are subject to regulation by various federal, state and local authorities in the areas of air quality, water quality, control of toxic substances and hazardous and solid wastes, and other environmental matters. We believe that we are in substantial compliance with those environmental regulations currently applicable to our business and operations and believe we have all necessary permits to conduct such operations. Environmental laws and regulations frequently change and the ultimate costs of compliance cannot always be precisely estimated. We are evaluating the impacts of environmental regulations, which could include the potential need to retire additional generating facilities earlier than their current estimated useful lives.

A. HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and a number of states are considering additional regulatory measures that may affect management, treatment, marketing and disposal of coal combustion residues, primarily ash, from each of the Utilities' coal-fired plants. Revised or new laws or regulations under consideration may impose changes in solid waste classifications or groundwater protection environmental controls. In June 2010, the EPA proposed two options for new rules to regulate coal combustion residues. The first option would create a comprehensive program of federally enforceable requirements for coal combustion residues management and disposal under federal hazardous waste rules. The other option would have the EPA set design and performance standards for coal combustion residues management facilities and regulate disposal of coal combustion residues as nonhazardous waste with enforcement by the courts or state laws. The EPA did not identify a preferred option. Under both options, the EPA may leave in place a regulatory exemption for approved beneficial uses of coal combustion residues that are recycled. A final rule is not expected before sometime in 2013, at the earliest. There are federal legislative proposals that may direct the EPA to regulate coal combustion residues destined for disposal as non-hazardous wastes. Environmental groups filed a lawsuit on April 5, 2012, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to require the EPA to complete its rulemaking process and finalize new regulations for the storage, transportation and disposal of coal combustion residues. On June 19, 2012, the U.S. District Court granted the petition for leave to intervene by the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, of which we are a member. Compliance plans and estimated costs to meet the regulations or statutes will be determined when any new regulations are finalized. We are also evaluating the effect on groundwater quality from past and current operations, which may result in operational changes and additional measures under existing regulations. These issues are also under evaluation by state agencies. Certain regulated chemicals have been measured in wells near our ash ponds at levels above groundwater quality standards. Additional monitoring and investigation will be conducted. Detailed plans and cost estimates will be determined if these evaluations reveal that corrective actions are necessary. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

The provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA), authorize the EPA to require the cleanup of hazardous waste sites. This statute imposes retroactive joint and several liabilities. Some states, including North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida have similar types of statutes. We are periodically notified by regulators, including the EPA and various state agencies, of our involvement or potential involvement in sites that may require investigation and/or remediation. There are presently several sites with respect to which we have been notified of our potential liability by the EPA, the state of North Carolina, the state of Florida, or potentially responsible party (PRP) groups as described below in greater detail. Various organic materials associated with the production of manufactured gas, generally referred to as coal tar, are regulated under federal and state laws. PEC and PEF are each PRPs at several manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites. We are also currently in the process of assessing potential costs and exposures at other sites. These costs are eligible for regulatory recovery through either base rates or cost-recovery clauses. Both PEC and PEF evaluate potential claims against other PRPs and insurance carriers and plan to submit claims for cost recovery where appropriate. The outcome of potential and pending claims cannot be predicted.

We measure our liability for environmental sites based on available evidence, including our experience in investigating and remediating environmentally impaired sites. The process often involves assessing and developing cost-sharing arrangements with other PRPs. For all sites, as assessments are developed and analyzed, we will accrue costs for the sites in O&M expense on the Statements of Comprehensive Income to the extent our liability is probable and the costs can be reasonably estimated. Because the extent of environmental impact, allocation among PRPs for all sites, remediation alternatives (which could involve either minimal or significant efforts), and concurrence of the regulatory authorities have not yet reached the stage where a reasonable estimate of the remediation costs can be made, we cannot determine the total costs that may be incurred in connection with the remediation of all sites at this time. It is probable that current estimates will change and additional losses, which could be material, may be incurred in the future.

The following tables contain information about accruals for probable and estimable costs related to various environmental sites, which were included in other current liabilities and other liabilities and deferred credits on the Balance Sheets:

PROGRESS ENERGY
(in millions)		MGP and Other Sites		Remediation of Distribution and Substation Transformers		Total
Balance, December 31, 2011		$	17	$	6	$	23
Amount accrued for environmental loss contingencies^(a)			15		2		17
Expenditures for environmental loss contingencies^(b)			(2)		(4)		(6)
Balance, June 30, 2012^(c)		$	30	$	4	$	34

Balance, December 31, 2010		$	20	$	15	$	35
Amount accrued for environmental loss contingencies^(a)			-		3		3
Expenditures for environmental loss contingencies^(b)			(2)		(9)		(11)
Balance, June 30, 2011^(c)		$	18	$	9	$	27

^(a)	Amounts accrued are for the six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011. For the three months ended June 30, 2012, our accruals were $12 million for the remediation of MGP and other sites and were not material for the remediation of distribution and substations transformers. For the three months ended June 30, 2011, our accruals for environmental loss contingencies were not material.
^(b)	Expenditures are for the six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011. For the three months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, our expenditures for environmental loss contingencies were not material.
^(c)	Expected to be paid out over one to 12 years.

PEC
(in millions)						MGP and Other Sites
Balance, December 31, 2011						$	11
Amount accrued for environmental loss contingencies^(a)							4
Expenditures for environmental loss contingencies^(b)							(1)
Balance, June 30, 2012^(c)						$	14

Balance, December 31, 2010						$	12
Amount accrued for environmental loss contingencies^(a)							-
Expenditures for environmental loss contingencies^(b)							-
Balance, June 30, 2011^(c)						$	12

^(a)	Amounts accrued are for the six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011. For the three months ended June 30, 2012, PEC's accruals were $5 million for the remediation of MGP and other sites. For the three months ended June 30, 2011, PEC's accruals for the remediation of MGP and other sites were not material.
^(b)	Expenditures are for the six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011. For the three months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, PEC's expenditures for the remediation of MGP and other sites were not material.
^(c)	Expected to be paid out over one to ten years.

PEF
(in millions)		MGP and Other Sites		Remediation of Distribution and Substation Transformers		Total
Balance, December 31, 2011		$	6	$	6	$	12
Amount accrued for environmental loss contingencies^(a)			11		2		13
Expenditures for environmental loss contingencies^(b)			(1)		(4)		(5)
Balance, June 30, 2012^(c)		$	16	$	4	$	20

Balance, December 31, 2010		$	8	$	15	$	23
Amount accrued for environmental loss contingencies^(a)			-		3		3
Expenditures for environmental loss contingencies^(b)			(2)		(9)		(11)
Balance, June 30, 2011^(c)		$	6	$	9	$	15

^(a)	Amounts accrued are for the six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011. For the three months ended June 30, 2012, PEF's accruals were $7 million for the remediation of MGP and other sites and were not material for the remediation of distribution and substation transformers. For the three months ended June 30, 2011, PEF's accruals for environmental loss contingencies were not material.
^(b)	Expenditures are for the six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011. For the three months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, PEF's expenditures for environmental loss contingencies were not material.
^(c)	Expected to be paid out over one to 12 years.

PROGRESS ENERGY

In addition to the Utilities' sites discussed under “PEC” and “PEF” below, we incurred indemnity obligations related to certain pre-closing liabilities of divested subsidiaries, including certain environmental matters (See discussion under Guarantees in Note 14B).

PEC

The accruals for PEC's MGP and other sites relate to one former MGP site and other sites associated with PEC that have required, or are anticipated to require, investigation and/or remediation. Remediation of PEC's other MGP sites has been substantially completed. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2012, PEC completed a preliminary remedial action plan for its remaining MGP site, which indicates a range of viable remedial approaches with estimated costs of $2 million to $25 million. PEC believes one approach has more merit than the other approaches and increased its accrual for the site to reflect the approximately $7 million estimated cost for the remedial approach considered to have more merit. The maximum amount of the range for all of PEC's environmental sites cannot be determined at this time. Actual experience may differ from current estimates, and it is probable that estimates will continue to change in the future.

In 2004, the EPA advised PEC that it had been identified as a PRP at the Ward Transformer site located in Raleigh, N.C. (Ward). The EPA offered PEC and a number of other PRPs the opportunity to negotiate the removal action for the Ward site and reimbursement to the EPA for the EPA's past expenditures in addressing conditions at the Ward site. Subsequently, PEC and other PRPs signed a settlement agreement, which requires the participating PRPs to remediate the Ward site. At June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, PEC's recorded liability for the site was approximately $5 million. In 2008 and 2009, PEC filed civil actions against non-participating PRPs seeking contribution for and recovery of costs incurred in remediating the Ward site, as well as a declaratory judgment that defendants are jointly and severally liable for response costs at the site. PEC has settled with a number of the PRPs and is in active settlement negotiations with others. The court established a “test case” program providing for a determination of liability on the part of a set of representative defendants. Summary judgment motions and responsive pleadings are being filed by and against these defendants and discovery and briefing were completed during the second quarter of 2012. Meanwhile, proceedings with respect to the other defendants have been stayed. The outcome of these matters cannot be predicted.

In 2008, the EPA issued a Record of Decision for the operable unit for stream segments downstream from the Ward site (Ward OU1) and advised 61 parties, including PEC, of their identification as PRPs for Ward OU1 and for the operable unit for further investigation at the Ward facility and certain adjacent areas (Ward OU2). The EPA's estimate for the selected remedy for Ward OU1 is approximately $6 million. The EPA offered PEC and the other PRPs the opportunity to negotiate implementation of a response action for Ward OU1 and a remedial investigation and feasibility study for Ward OU2, as well as reimbursement to the EPA of approximately $1 million for the EPA's past expenditures in addressing conditions at the site. On September 29, 2011, the EPA issued unilateral administrative orders to certain parties, which did not include PEC, directing the performance of remedial activities with regard to Ward OU1. On July 10, 2012, the EPA issued a Special Notice Letter to PEC and the other participating PRPs providing notification of the opportunity to perform and fund the tasks included in Ward OU2. The recipients have 60 days from receipt of the Special Notice Letter to submit a “good faith” offer to perform the work. It is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the total amount of PEC's obligation, if any, for Ward OU1 and Ward OU2.

PEF

The accruals for PEF's MGP and other sites relate to two former MGP sites and other sites associated with PEF that have required, or are anticipated to require, investigation and/or remediation. Remediation of one MGP site has been substantially completed. At June 30, 2012, PEF's accrual primarily relates to an MGP site located in Orlando, Fla. The PRP group for the Orlando MGP site has agreed to an interim allocation for the Orlando MGP site and is conducting a feasibility study for remediation of soil and groundwater down to 50 feet, which has not been completed. The study preliminarily indicates a range of viable remedial approaches. During the three months ended June 30, 2012, the PRPs received refined estimates for the range of viable remedial approaches. Additionally, the PRPs believe one approach has more merit than the other approaches; however, the recommendation has not been submitted to or approved by the EPA at this time. During the six months ended June 30, 2012, one participating PRP ended its participation in the PRP group. The PRP allocations have been adjusted accordingly. The PRPs for the Orlando MGP site intend to seek recovery from the non-participating PRP, but no amount for recovery has been recorded. PEF has accrued its best estimate of its obligation with respect to the Orlando MGP site. Based on current estimates for the remedial approach considered to have more merit and its current allocation share, PEF accrued additional obligations of approximately $6 million and $9 million, respectively, during the three and six months ended June 30, 2012, for remediation of soil and groundwater down to 50 feet. Based on current estimates for the range of viable remedial approaches and its current allocation share, PEF could incur additional obligations of up to approximately $8 million for remediation of soil and groundwater down to 50 feet. Results of an investigative study revealed the presence of MGP byproduct material at least 200 feet below the surface. The layer between approximately 50 feet and 200 feet below the surface, which is clay, is not impacted. The maximum amount of the range for remediation, if any, below 200 feet at the Orlando MGP site and for PEF's other sites cannot be determined at this time. Actual experience may differ from current estimates, and it is probable that estimates will continue to change in the future. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

PEF has received approval from the FPSC for recovery through the ECRC of the majority of costs associated with the remediation of distribution and substation transformers. Under agreements with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), PEF has reviewed these distribution transformer sites and substation sites for mineral oil-impacted soil caused by equipment integrity issues. Should additional distribution transformer sites be identified outside of this population, the distribution O&M expense will not be recoverable through the ECRC.

B. AIR AND WATER QUALITY

We are, or may ultimately be, subject to various current and proposed federal, state and local environmental compliance laws and regulations governing air and water quality, which likely would result in increased capital expenditures and O&M expense. Control equipment installed for compliance with then-existing or proposed laws and regulations may address some of the issues outlined. PEC and PEF have been developing an integrated compliance strategy to meet these evolving requirements. PEC has installed environmental compliance controls that meet the emission reduction requirements under the first phase of the North Carolina Clean Smokestacks Act (Clean Smokestacks Act). The air quality controls installed to comply with nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) requirements under certain sections of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the Clean Smokestacks Act, as well as PEC's plan to replace a portion of its coal-fired generation with natural gas-fueled generation, largely address the CAIR requirements for NOx and SO2 for our North Carolina units at PEC. PEF has installed environmental compliance controls that meet the emission reduction requirements under the first phase of CAIR.

After prior mercury regulation was vacated in federal court, the EPA developed maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards. The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), which are the final MACT standards for coal-fired and oil-fired electric steam generating units, became effective on April 16, 2012. Compliance is due three years after the effective date with provision for a one-year extension granted by state agencies on a case-by-case basis. The MATS contains stringent emission limits for mercury, non-mercury metals, and acid gases from coal-fired units and hazardous air pollutant metals, acid gases, and hydrogen fluoride from oil-fired units. Several petitions regarding portions of the MATS rule have been filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C. Court of Appeals), including one by the Utility Air Regulatory Group, of which we are a member. On July 20, 2012, the EPA announced that it will reconsider the new source emissions standards contained in the MATS rule. The North Carolina mercury rule contains a requirement that all coal-fired units in the state install mercury controls by December 31, 2017, and requires compliance plan applications to be submitted in 2013. Due to significant investments in NOx and SO2 emission controls and fleet modernization projects completed or under way, we believe PEC is relatively well positioned to comply with the MATS. However, PEF will be required to complete additional emissions controls and/or fleet modernization projects in order to meet the compliance timeframe for the MATS. On March 29, 2012, PEF announced plans to convert Anclote to 100 percent natural gas, which will substantially reduce emissions, as part of its MATS compliance strategy. We are continuing to evaluate the impacts of the MATS on the Utilities. PEF's Crystal River Units 1 and 2 (CR1 and CR2) are under evaluation for MATS compliance with the potential to be retired. We anticipate that compliance with the MATS will satisfy the North Carolina mercury rule requirements for PEC. The outcome of these matters cannot be predicted.

The CAIR, issued by the EPA, required the District of Columbia and 28 states, including North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida, to reduce NOx and SO2 emissions. The CAIR set emission limits to be met in two phases beginning in 2009 and 2015 for NOx and beginning in 2010 and 2015 for SO2. States were required to adopt rules implementing the CAIR, and the EPA approved the North Carolina CAIR, the South Carolina CAIR and the Florida CAIR. A 2008 decision by the D.C. Court of Appeals remanded the CAIR without vacating it for the EPA to conduct further proceedings.

On July 7, 2011, the EPA issued the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to replace the CAIR. The CSAPR, which was scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2012, contains new emissions trading programs for NOx and SO2 emissions as well as more stringent overall emissions targets in 27 states, including North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida. A number of parties, including groups of which PEC and PEF are members, filed petitions for reconsideration and stay of, as well as legal challenges to, the CSAPR. On December 30, 2011, the D.C. Court of Appeals issued an order staying the implementation of the CSAPR, pending a decision by the court resolving the challenges to the rule. Oral argument for the CSAPR litigation occurred on April 13, 2012. As a result of the stay of CSAPR, the CAIR remains in effect. The EPA issued the CSAPR as four separate programs, including the NOx annual trading program, the NOx ozone season trading program, the SO2 Group 1 trading program and the SO2 Group 2 trading program. If the CSAPR is upheld, North Carolina and South Carolina are included in the NOx and SO2 annual trading programs, as well as the NOx ozone season trading program. North Carolina remains classified as a Group 1 state, which will require additional NOx and SO2 emission reductions beginning in January 2014. South Carolina remains classified as a Group 2 state with no additional reductions required in 2014. Under the CSAPR, Florida is subject only to the NOx ozone season trading program. Due to significant investments in NOx and SO2 emissions controls and fleet modernization projects completed or under way, we believe PEC and PEF are positioned to comply with the CSAPR without the need for significant capital expenditures. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

To date, expenditures at PEF for CAIR regulation primarily relate to environmental compliance projects at CR4 and CR5, which have both been completed and placed in service. Under an agreement with the FDEP, PEF will retire CR1 and CR2 as coal-fired units and operate emission control equipment at CR4 and CR5. CR1 and CR2 were originally scheduled to be retired after the second proposed nuclear unit at Levy completes its first fuel cycle, which was anticipated to be around 2020. As discussed in Note 5B, major construction activities for Levy are being postponed, and the in-service date for the first Levy unit has been shifted to 2024. As required, PEF will continue to advise the FDEP of developments that may delay the retirement of CR1 and CR2. We are currently evaluating the impacts of the Levy schedule on PEF's compliance with environmental regulations. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

As previously discussed, the CSAPR establishes new NOx annual and seasonal ozone programs and a new SO2 trading program. NOx and SO2 emission allowances applicable to the current CAIR cannot be used to satisfy the new CSAPR programs. SO2 emission allowances will be utilized by the Utilities to comply with existing CAA requirements. NOx allowances cannot be utilized to comply with other requirements. As a result of the previously discussed D.C. Court of Appeals order staying the implementation of the CSAPR, the CAIR emission allowance program remains in effect. Emission allowances are included on the Balance Sheets in inventory and in other assets and deferred debits and have not changed materially from what was reported in the 2011Form 10-K.

Enviromental Matters Disclosure [Line Items]

Environmental Matters

13. ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS

We are subject to regulation by various federal, state and local authorities in the areas of air quality, water quality, control of toxic substances and hazardous and solid wastes, and other environmental matters. We believe that we are in substantial compliance with those environmental regulations currently applicable to our business and operations and believe we have all necessary permits to conduct such operations. Environmental laws and regulations frequently change and the ultimate costs of compliance cannot always be precisely estimated. We are evaluating the impacts of environmental regulations, which could include the potential need to retire additional generating facilities earlier than their current estimated useful lives.

A. HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and a number of states are considering additional regulatory measures that may affect management, treatment, marketing and disposal of coal combustion residues, primarily ash, from each of the Utilities' coal-fired plants. Revised or new laws or regulations under consideration may impose changes in solid waste classifications or groundwater protection environmental controls. In June 2010, the EPA proposed two options for new rules to regulate coal combustion residues. The first option would create a comprehensive program of federally enforceable requirements for coal combustion residues management and disposal under federal hazardous waste rules. The other option would have the EPA set design and performance standards for coal combustion residues management facilities and regulate disposal of coal combustion residues as nonhazardous waste with enforcement by the courts or state laws. The EPA did not identify a preferred option. Under both options, the EPA may leave in place a regulatory exemption for approved beneficial uses of coal combustion residues that are recycled. A final rule is not expected before sometime in 2013, at the earliest. There are federal legislative proposals that may direct the EPA to regulate coal combustion residues destined for disposal as non-hazardous wastes. Environmental groups filed a lawsuit on April 5, 2012, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to require the EPA to complete its rulemaking process and finalize new regulations for the storage, transportation and disposal of coal combustion residues. On June 19, 2012, the U.S. District Court granted the petition for leave to intervene by the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, of which we are a member. Compliance plans and estimated costs to meet the regulations or statutes will be determined when any new regulations are finalized. We are also evaluating the effect on groundwater quality from past and current operations, which may result in operational changes and additional measures under existing regulations. These issues are also under evaluation by state agencies. Certain regulated chemicals have been measured in wells near our ash ponds at levels above groundwater quality standards. Additional monitoring and investigation will be conducted. Detailed plans and cost estimates will be determined if these evaluations reveal that corrective actions are necessary. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

The provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA), authorize the EPA to require the cleanup of hazardous waste sites. This statute imposes retroactive joint and several liabilities. Some states, including North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida have similar types of statutes. We are periodically notified by regulators, including the EPA and various state agencies, of our involvement or potential involvement in sites that may require investigation and/or remediation. There are presently several sites with respect to which we have been notified of our potential liability by the EPA, the state of North Carolina, the state of Florida, or potentially responsible party (PRP) groups as described below in greater detail. Various organic materials associated with the production of manufactured gas, generally referred to as coal tar, are regulated under federal and state laws. PEC and PEF are each PRPs at several manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites. We are also currently in the process of assessing potential costs and exposures at other sites. These costs are eligible for regulatory recovery through either base rates or cost-recovery clauses. Both PEC and PEF evaluate potential claims against other PRPs and insurance carriers and plan to submit claims for cost recovery where appropriate. The outcome of potential and pending claims cannot be predicted.

We measure our liability for environmental sites based on available evidence, including our experience in investigating and remediating environmentally impaired sites. The process often involves assessing and developing cost-sharing arrangements with other PRPs. For all sites, as assessments are developed and analyzed, we will accrue costs for the sites in O&M expense on the Statements of Comprehensive Income to the extent our liability is probable and the costs can be reasonably estimated. Because the extent of environmental impact, allocation among PRPs for all sites, remediation alternatives (which could involve either minimal or significant efforts), and concurrence of the regulatory authorities have not yet reached the stage where a reasonable estimate of the remediation costs can be made, we cannot determine the total costs that may be incurred in connection with the remediation of all sites at this time. It is probable that current estimates will change and additional losses, which could be material, may be incurred in the future.

The following tables contain information about accruals for probable and estimable costs related to various environmental sites, which were included in other current liabilities and other liabilities and deferred credits on the Balance Sheets:

PEF
(in millions)		MGP and Other Sites		Remediation of Distribution and Substation Transformers		Total
Balance, December 31, 2011		$	6	$	6	$	12
Amount accrued for environmental loss contingencies^(a)			11		2		13
Expenditures for environmental loss contingencies^(b)			(1)		(4)		(5)
Balance, June 30, 2012^(c)		$	16	$	4	$	20

Balance, December 31, 2010		$	8	$	15	$	23
Amount accrued for environmental loss contingencies^(a)			-		3		3
Expenditures for environmental loss contingencies^(b)			(2)		(9)		(11)
Balance, June 30, 2011^(c)		$	6	$	9	$	15

^(a)	Amounts accrued are for the six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011. For the three months ended June 30, 2012, PEF's accruals were $7 million for the remediation of MGP and other sites and were not material for the remediation of distribution and substation transformers. For the three months ended June 30, 2011, PEF's accruals for environmental loss contingencies were not material.
^(b)	Expenditures are for the six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011. For the three months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, PEF's expenditures for environmental loss contingencies were not material.
^(c)	Expected to be paid out over one to 12 years.

PEF

The accruals for PEF's MGP and other sites relate to two former MGP sites and other sites associated with PEF that have required, or are anticipated to require, investigation and/or remediation. Remediation of one MGP site has been substantially completed. At June 30, 2012, PEF's accrual primarily relates to an MGP site located in Orlando, Fla. The PRP group for the Orlando MGP site has agreed to an interim allocation for the Orlando MGP site and is conducting a feasibility study for remediation of soil and groundwater down to 50 feet, which has not been completed. The study preliminarily indicates a range of viable remedial approaches. During the three months ended June 30, 2012, the PRPs received refined estimates for the range of viable remedial approaches. Additionally, the PRPs believe one approach has more merit than the other approaches; however, the recommendation has not been submitted to or approved by the EPA at this time. During the six months ended June 30, 2012, one participating PRP ended its participation in the PRP group. The PRP allocations have been adjusted accordingly. The PRPs for the Orlando MGP site intend to seek recovery from the non-participating PRP, but no amount for recovery has been recorded. PEF has accrued its best estimate of its obligation with respect to the Orlando MGP site. Based on current estimates for the remedial approach considered to have more merit and its current allocation share, PEF accrued additional obligations of approximately $6 million and $9 million, respectively, during the three and six months ended June 30, 2012, for remediation of soil and groundwater down to 50 feet. Based on current estimates for the range of viable remedial approaches and its current allocation share, PEF could incur additional obligations of up to approximately $8 million for remediation of soil and groundwater down to 50 feet. Results of an investigative study revealed the presence of MGP byproduct material at least 200 feet below the surface. The layer between approximately 50 feet and 200 feet below the surface, which is clay, is not impacted. The maximum amount of the range for remediation, if any, below 200 feet at the Orlando MGP site and for PEF's other sites cannot be determined at this time. Actual experience may differ from current estimates, and it is probable that estimates will continue to change in the future. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

PEF has received approval from the FPSC for recovery through the ECRC of the majority of costs associated with the remediation of distribution and substation transformers. Under agreements with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), PEF has reviewed these distribution transformer sites and substation sites for mineral oil-impacted soil caused by equipment integrity issues. Should additional distribution transformer sites be identified outside of this population, the distribution O&M expense will not be recoverable through the ECRC.

B. AIR AND WATER QUALITY

We are, or may ultimately be, subject to various current and proposed federal, state and local environmental compliance laws and regulations governing air and water quality, which likely would result in increased capital expenditures and O&M expense. Control equipment installed for compliance with then-existing or proposed laws and regulations may address some of the issues outlined. PEC and PEF have been developing an integrated compliance strategy to meet these evolving requirements. PEC has installed environmental compliance controls that meet the emission reduction requirements under the first phase of the North Carolina Clean Smokestacks Act (Clean Smokestacks Act). The air quality controls installed to comply with nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) requirements under certain sections of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the Clean Smokestacks Act, as well as PEC's plan to replace a portion of its coal-fired generation with natural gas-fueled generation, largely address the CAIR requirements for NOx and SO2 for our North Carolina units at PEC. PEF has installed environmental compliance controls that meet the emission reduction requirements under the first phase of CAIR.

After prior mercury regulation was vacated in federal court, the EPA developed maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards. The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), which are the final MACT standards for coal-fired and oil-fired electric steam generating units, became effective on April 16, 2012. Compliance is due three years after the effective date with provision for a one-year extension granted by state agencies on a case-by-case basis. The MATS contains stringent emission limits for mercury, non-mercury metals, and acid gases from coal-fired units and hazardous air pollutant metals, acid gases, and hydrogen fluoride from oil-fired units. Several petitions regarding portions of the MATS rule have been filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C. Court of Appeals), including one by the Utility Air Regulatory Group, of which we are a member. On July 20, 2012, the EPA announced that it will reconsider the new source emissions standards contained in the MATS rule. The North Carolina mercury rule contains a requirement that all coal-fired units in the state install mercury controls by December 31, 2017, and requires compliance plan applications to be submitted in 2013. Due to significant investments in NOx and SO2 emission controls and fleet modernization projects completed or under way, we believe PEC is relatively well positioned to comply with the MATS. However, PEF will be required to complete additional emissions controls and/or fleet modernization projects in order to meet the compliance timeframe for the MATS. On March 29, 2012, PEF announced plans to convert Anclote to 100 percent natural gas, which will substantially reduce emissions, as part of its MATS compliance strategy. We are continuing to evaluate the impacts of the MATS on the Utilities. PEF's Crystal River Units 1 and 2 (CR1 and CR2) are under evaluation for MATS compliance with the potential to be retired. We anticipate that compliance with the MATS will satisfy the North Carolina mercury rule requirements for PEC. The outcome of these matters cannot be predicted.

The CAIR, issued by the EPA, required the District of Columbia and 28 states, including North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida, to reduce NOx and SO2 emissions. The CAIR set emission limits to be met in two phases beginning in 2009 and 2015 for NOx and beginning in 2010 and 2015 for SO2. States were required to adopt rules implementing the CAIR, and the EPA approved the North Carolina CAIR, the South Carolina CAIR and the Florida CAIR. A 2008 decision by the D.C. Court of Appeals remanded the CAIR without vacating it for the EPA to conduct further proceedings.

On July 7, 2011, the EPA issued the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to replace the CAIR. The CSAPR, which was scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2012, contains new emissions trading programs for NOx and SO2 emissions as well as more stringent overall emissions targets in 27 states, including North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida. A number of parties, including groups of which PEC and PEF are members, filed petitions for reconsideration and stay of, as well as legal challenges to, the CSAPR. On December 30, 2011, the D.C. Court of Appeals issued an order staying the implementation of the CSAPR, pending a decision by the court resolving the challenges to the rule. Oral argument for the CSAPR litigation occurred on April 13, 2012. As a result of the stay of CSAPR, the CAIR remains in effect. The EPA issued the CSAPR as four separate programs, including the NOx annual trading program, the NOx ozone season trading program, the SO2 Group 1 trading program and the SO2 Group 2 trading program. If the CSAPR is upheld, North Carolina and South Carolina are included in the NOx and SO2 annual trading programs, as well as the NOx ozone season trading program. North Carolina remains classified as a Group 1 state, which will require additional NOx and SO2 emission reductions beginning in January 2014. South Carolina remains classified as a Group 2 state with no additional reductions required in 2014. Under the CSAPR, Florida is subject only to the NOx ozone season trading program. Due to significant investments in NOx and SO2 emissions controls and fleet modernization projects completed or under way, we believe PEC and PEF are positioned to comply with the CSAPR without the need for significant capital expenditures. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

To date, expenditures at PEF for CAIR regulation primarily relate to environmental compliance projects at CR4 and CR5, which have both been completed and placed in service. Under an agreement with the FDEP, PEF will retire CR1 and CR2 as coal-fired units and operate emission control equipment at CR4 and CR5. CR1 and CR2 were originally scheduled to be retired after the second proposed nuclear unit at Levy completes its first fuel cycle, which was anticipated to be around 2020. As discussed in Note 5B, major construction activities for Levy are being postponed, and the in-service date for the first Levy unit has been shifted to 2024. As required, PEF will continue to advise the FDEP of developments that may delay the retirement of CR1 and CR2. We are currently evaluating the impacts of the Levy schedule on PEF's compliance with environmental regulations. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

As previously discussed, the CSAPR establishes new NOx annual and seasonal ozone programs and a new SO2 trading program. NOx and SO2 emission allowances applicable to the current CAIR cannot be used to satisfy the new CSAPR programs. SO2 emission allowances will be utilized by the Utilities to comply with existing CAA requirements. NOx allowances cannot be utilized to comply with other requirements. As a result of the previously discussed D.C. Court of Appeals order staying the implementation of the CSAPR, the CAIR emission allowance program remains in effect. Emission allowances are included on the Balance Sheets in inventory and in other assets and deferred debits and have not changed materially from what was reported in the 2011Form 10-K.