The NCUC, PSCSC, FPSC, IURC, PUCO and KPSC approve rates for retail electric and natural gas services within their states. Nonregulated sellers of natural gas and electric generation are also allowed to operate in Ohio once certified by the PUCO. The FERC approves rates for electric sales to wholesale customers served under cost-based rates (excluding Ohio and Indiana), as well as sales of transmission service.

On September 24, 2013, the NCUC approved a settlement agreement related to Duke Energy Carolinas' request for a rate increase with minor modifications. The parties agreed to a three-year step-in rate increase, with the first two years providing for $204 million, or a 4.5 percent average increase in rates, and the third year providing for rates to be increased by an additional $30 million, or 0.6 percent. The agreement is based upon a return on equity of 10.2 percent and an equity component of the capital structure of 53 percent. New rates went into effect on September 25, 2013.

On October 23, 2013, the North Carolina Attorney General (NCAG) appealed the rate of return and capital structure approved in the agreement. On October 24, 2013, the NC Waste Awareness and Reduction Network (NC WARN) also appealed various matters in the settlement. The North Carolina Supreme Court (NCSC) denied a Motion to Consolidate these appeals with other North Carolina rate case appeals involving Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress on March 13, 2014. Briefing continues in this matter, and no oral argument has been scheduled at this time. Duke Energy Carolinas cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

On September 11, 2013, the PSCSC approved a settlement agreement related to Duke Energy Carolinas' request for a rate increase. Parties to the settlement agreement were the Office of Regulatory Staff, Wal-Mart Stores East, LP and Sam's East, Incorporated, the South Carolina Energy Users Committee, Public Works of the City of Spartanburg, South Carolina and the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce. The parties agreed to a two-year step-in rate increase, with the first year providing for approximately $80 million, or a 5.5 percent average increase in rates, and the second year providing for rates to be increased by an additional $38 million, or 2.6 percent. The settlement agreement is based upon a return on equity of 10.2 percent and a 53 percent equity component of the capital structure. New rates went into effect on September 18, 2013.

On January 27, 2012, the NCUC approved a settlement agreement related to Duke Energy Carolinas' request for a rate increase. The Public Staff was a party to the settlement. On October 23, 2013, the NCUC reaffirmed the rate of return approved in the January 27, 2012 settlement agreement, in response to an appeal by the NCAG. On November 21, 2013, the NCAG appealed the reaffirmed order. The NCSC denied a Motion to Consolidate this appeal with other North Carolina rate case appeals involving Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress on March 13, 2014. Briefing continues in this matter, and no oral argument has been scheduled at this time. Duke Energy Carolinas cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

On April 9, 2014, the PSCSC granted Duke Energy Carolinas a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Convenience and Necessity (CECPCN) for the construction and operation of a 750 MW combined cycle natural gas-fired generating plant at its existing William States Lee Generating Station in Anderson, South Carolina. Receipt of the CECPCN does not commit Duke Energy Carolinas to build the facility. Duke Energy Carolinas will make a decision regarding this facility by mid-2014. If constructed, the North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation will own 14 percent of the project.

On May 30, 2013, the NCUC approved a settlement agreement related to Duke Energy Progress' request for a rate increase. The Public Staff was a party to the settlement agreement. The parties agreed to a two-year step-in rate increase, with the first year providing for a $147 million, or a 4.5 percent average increase in rates, and the second year providing for rates to be increased by an additional $31 million, or a 1.0 percent average increase in rates. The agreement is based upon a return on equity of 10.2 percent and an equity component of the capital structure of 53 percent. New rates went into effect on June 1, 2013.

On July 1, 2013, the NCAG appealed the NCUC's approval of the rate of return and capital structure included in the agreement. NC WARN also appealed various matters in the settlement. The NCSC denied a Motion to Consolidate these appeals with other North Carolina rate case appeals involving Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress on March 13, 2014. Briefing has concluded in this matter and oral argument was held on May 5, 2014. Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

On April 19, 2013, Duke Energy Progress filed an application with FERC for acceptance of changes to generation depreciation rates and in August filed for acceptance of additional changes. These changes will affect the rates of Duke Energy Progress wholesale power customers that purchase or will purchase power under formula rates. Certain Duke Energy Progress wholesale customers filed interventions and protests. FERC accepted the depreciation rate changes, subject to refund, and set the matter for settlement and hearing in a consolidated proceeding. FERC further initiated an action with respect to the justness and reasonableness of the proposed rate changes. A settlement conference is scheduled for May 22, 2014. Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

On February 22, 2012, the FPSC approved a settlement agreement (the 2012 Settlement) among Duke Energy Florida, the Florida Office of Public Counsel (OPC) and other customer advocates. The 2012 Settlement was to continue through the last billing cycle of December 2016. On October 17, 2013, the FPSC approved a settlement agreement (the 2013 Settlement) between Duke Energy Florida, OPC, and other customer advocates. The 2013 Settlement replaces and supplants the 2012 Settlement and substantially resolves issues related to (i) Crystal River Unit 3, (ii) Levy, (iii) Crystal River 1 and 2 coal units, and (iv) future generation needs in Florida. Refer to the remaining sections below and the 2013 Annual Report on Form 10-K for further discussion of these settlement agreements.

On February 5, 2013, Duke Energy Florida announced the retirement of Crystal River Unit 3. On February 20, 2013, Duke Energy Florida filed with the NRC a certification of permanent cessation of power operations and permanent removal of fuel from the reactor vessel. In December 2013, Duke Energy Florida filed an updated site-specific decommissioning plan with the NRC. The plan included a decommissioning cost estimate of $1,180 million, including amounts applicable to joint owners, under the safe storage (SAFSTOR) option. Duke Energy Florida's decommissioning study assumes Crystal River Unit 3 will be in SAFSTOR configuration, requiring limited staffing to monitor plant conditions, until the eventual dismantling and decontamination activities to be completed by 2073. This decommissioning approach is currently utilized at a number of retired domestic nuclear power plants and is one of three accepted approaches to decommissioning approved by the NRC.

Duke Energy Florida has reclassified all Crystal River Unit 3 investments, including property, plant and equipment, nuclear fuel, inventory, and other assets, to a regulatory asset. Duke Energy Florida is allowed to accelerate cash recovery of approximately $130 million of the Crystal River Unit 3 regulatory asset from retail customers from 2014 through 2016 through its fuel clause. Duke Energy Florida will begin recovery of the remaining Crystal River Unit 3 regulatory asset, up to a cap of $1,466 million from retail customers upon the earlier of (i) full recovery of the uncollected Levy investment or (ii) the first billing period of January 2017. Recovery will continue 240 months from inception of collection of the regulatory asset in base rates. The Crystal River Unit 3 base rate component will be adjusted at least every four years. Included in this recovery, but not subject to the cap, are costs of building a dry cask storage facility for spent nuclear fuel. The return rate will be based on the currently approved AFUDC rate with a return on equity of 7.35 percent, or 70 percent of the currently approved 10.5 percent. The return rate is subject to change if the return on equity changes in the future. Construction of the dry cask storage facility is subject to separate FPSC approval. The regulatory asset associated with the uprate project will continue to be recovered through the Nuclear Cost Recovery Clause (NCRC) over an estimated seven year period beginning in 2013.

Through March 31, 2014, Duke Energy Florida deferred $1,321 million for rate recovery related to Crystal River Unit 3, which is subject to the rate recovery cap in the 2013 Settlement. In addition, Duke Energy Florida deferred $311 million for recovery associated with building a dry cask storage facility and the original uprate project, which is not subject to the rate recovery cap discussed above. Duke Energy Florida does not expect the Crystal River Unit 3 regulatory asset to exceed the cap.

The following table includes a summary of retail customer refunds agreed to in the 2012 Settlement and the 2013 Settlement. Refer to the 2013 Annual Report on Form 10-K for additional information on each of these refunds.

	March 31, 2014
					Remaining Amount to be Refunded
(in millions)	Total		Refunded to date			2014		2015		2016
2012 Settlement refund	$	288	$	164		$	104	$	10	$	10
Retirement decision refund		100		―			―		40		60
NEIL proceeds		490		367			123		―		―
Total customer refunds	$	878		531			227		50		70
Accelerated regulatory asset recovery		(130)		(8)			(29)		(37)		(56)
Net customer refunds		748	$	523		$	198	$	13	$	14

On July 28, 2008, Duke Energy Florida applied to the NRC for a Combined Construction and Operating License (COL) for two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors at Levy. In 2008, the FPSC granted Duke Energy Florida's petition for an affirmative Determination of Need and related orders requesting cost recovery under Florida's nuclear cost-recovery rule, together with the associated facilities, including transmission lines and substation facilities.

On January 28, 2014, Duke Energy Florida terminated the Levy engineering, procurement and construction agreement (EPC). Duke Energy Florida may be required to pay for work performed under the EPC and to bring existing work to an orderly conclusion, including but not limited to costs to demobilize and cancel certain equipment and material orders placed. Duke Energy Florida recorded an exit obligation of $25 million upon termination of the EPC. This liability was recorded within Other in Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities with an offset primarily to Regulatory assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Duke Energy Florida is allowed to recover reasonable and prudent EPC cancellation costs from its retail customers. See Note 5 for a discussion of litigation related to the EPC termination.

The 2012 Settlement provided that Duke Energy Florida include the allocated wholesale cost of Levy as a retail regulatory asset and include this asset as a component of rate base and amortization expense for regulatory reporting. In accordance with the 2013 Settlement, Duke Energy Florida ceased amortization of the wholesale allocation of Levy investments against retail rates.

Recovery of the remaining retail portion of the project costs will occur over five years from 2013 through 2017. Duke Energy Florida has an ongoing responsibility to demonstrate prudency related to the wind down of the Levy investment and the potential for salvage of Levy assets. As of March 31, 2014, Duke Energy Florida has a net uncollected investment in Levy of approximately $248 million, including AFUDC. Of this amount, $31 million is included in Regulatory assets, $121 million related to land and the COL is included in Net, property, plant and equipment, and $96 million is included in Regulatory assets within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

The 2013 Settlement establishes a recovery mechanism for additional generation needs. This recovery mechanism, the Generation Base Rate Adjustment (GBRA), allows recovery of prudent costs of these items through an increase in base rates, upon the in-service date of such assets, without a general rate case at a 10.5 percent return on equity. On October 8, 2013, Duke Energy Florida issued a request for proposals to evaluate alternatives for an additional generation facility. Duke Energy Florida is currently reviewing bids received on December 9, 2013, and expects to make a decision by mid-2014.

The 2012 Settlement and the 2013 Settlement provided Duke Energy Florida the discretion to reduce cost of removal amortization expense up to the balance in the cost of removal reserve until the earlier of its applicable cost of removal reserve reaching zero or the expiration of the 2013 Settlement. Duke Energy Florida was not allowed to reduce amortization expense if the reduction would cause it to exceed the appropriate high point of the return on equity range. Duke Energy Florida recognized a reduction in amortization expense of $56 million for the three months ended March 31, 2013. Duke Energy Florida had no cost of removal reserves eligible for amortization to income remaining after December 31, 2013.

On May 1, 2013, the PUCO approved a settlement agreement (the Electric Settlement) related to Duke Energy Ohio's electric distribution rate case. All intervening parties signed the Electric Settlement. The Electric Settlement provides for a net increase in electric distribution revenues of $49 million, or an average increase of 2.9 percent, based upon a return on equity of 9.84 percent. Revised rates were effective in May 2013.

On April 2, 2013, Duke Energy Ohio, the PUCO Staff, and intervening parties filed a settlement (the Gas Settlement) with the PUCO related to a gas distribution case. The Gas Settlement provides for no increase in base rates for natural gas distribution service. The Gas Settlement left unresolved the recovery of environmental remediation costs associated with former manufactured gas plants (MGP). The Gas Settlement is based upon a return on equity of 9.84 percent.

On November 13, 2013, the PUCO issued an order approving the Gas Settlement and allowing for the recovery of $56 million of MGP costs, excluding carrying costs, to be recovered over a five-year period beginning in 2014. Beginning March 5, 2014, consumer groups filed notices of appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court. On March 17, 2014, these parties filed a motion to stay the MGP rider. The PUCO Staff and Duke Energy Ohio filed memoranda in opposition on March 25, 2014. On April 24, 2014, the court granted Duke Energy Ohio's motion to intervene. The PUCO Staff's motion remains pending. On March 21, 2014, consumer groups also filed an application for rehearing on the PUCO's decision to deny their motion for stay or, in the alternative, to implement the MGP rider subject to refund. Duke Energy Ohio has opposed the application. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter. On March 31, 2014, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application for approval to adjust the MGP rider to include remediation costs incurred in 2013. The tariff was effective with April 2014 billing.

Duke Energy Ohio including Duke Energy Kentucky, transferred control of its transmission assets from Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO) to PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM), effective December 31, 2011.

On December 22, 2010, the KPSC approved Duke Energy Kentucky's request to effect the RTO realignment, subject to a commitment not to seek double-recovery in a future rate case of the transmission expansion fees that may be charged by MISO and PJM in the same period or overlapping periods.

On May 25, 2011, the PUCO approved a settlement between Duke Energy Ohio, Ohio Energy Group, the Office of Ohio Consumers' Counsel and the PUCO Staff related to Duke Energy Ohio's recovery of certain costs of the RTO realignment via a non-bypassable rider. Duke Energy Ohio is allowed to recover all MISO Transmission Expansion Project (MTEP) costs, including but not limited to Multi-Value Project (MVP) costs, directly or indirectly charged to Ohio customers. Duke Energy Ohio did not recover any portion of the MISO exit obligation, PJM integration fees, or internal costs associated with the RTO realignment, and will not recover the first $121 million of PJM transmission expansion costs from Ohio retail customers. Duke Energy Ohio also agreed to vigorously defend against any charges for MVP projects from MISO.

Upon its exit from MISO on December 31, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio recorded a liability for its exit obligation and share of MTEP costs, excluding MVP. This liability was recorded within Other in Current liabilities and Other in Deferred credits and other liabilities on Duke Energy Ohio's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

The following table provides a reconciliation of the beginning and ending balance of Duke Energy Ohio's recorded obligations related to its withdrawal from MISO.

MVP. MISO approved 17 MVP proposals prior to Duke Energy Ohio's exit from MISO on December 31, 2011. Construction of these projects is expected to continue through 2020. Costs of these projects, including operating and maintenance costs, property and income taxes, depreciation and an allowed return, are allocated and billed to MISO transmission owners.

On December 29, 2011, MISO filed a tariff with the FERC providing for the allocation of MVP costs to a withdrawing owner based on monthly energy usage. The FERC set for hearing (i) whether MISO's proposed cost allocation methodology to transmission owners who withdrew from MISO prior to January 1, 2012 is consistent with the tariff at the time of their withdrawal from MISO, and, (ii) if not, what the amount of and methodology for calculating any MVP cost responsibility should be. On July 16, 2013, a FERC Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an initial decision. Under this initial decision, Duke Energy Ohio would be liable for MVP costs. Duke Energy Ohio filed exceptions to the initial decision, requesting the FERC overturn the ALJ's decision. After reviewing the initial decision, along with all exceptions and responses filed by the parties, the FERC will issue a final decision. Duke Energy Ohio fully intends to appeal to the federal court of appeals if the FERC affirms the ALJ's decision. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of these proceedings.

In 2012, MISO estimated Duke Energy Ohio's MVP obligation over the period from 2012 to 2071 at $2.7 billion, on an undiscounted basis. The estimated obligation is subject to great uncertainty including the ultimate cost of the projects, the annual costs of O&M, taxes and return over the project lives and the allocation to Duke Energy Ohio.

On November 20, 2007, the IURC granted Duke Energy Indiana a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) for the construction of a 618 MW IGCC power plant at Duke Energy Indiana's existing Edwardsport Generating Station in Knox County, Indiana with a cost estimate of $1.985 billion assuming timely recovery of financing costs related to the project. The Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc., Sierra Club, Inc., Save the Valley, Inc., and Valley Watch, Inc. (collectively, the Joint Intervenors) were intervenors in several matters related to the Edwardsport IGCC Plant.

On December 27, 2012, the IURC approved a settlement agreement (2012 Edwardsport settlement) related to the cost increase for the construction of the project, including subdockets before the IURC related to the project. The Office of Utility Consumer Counselor (OUCC), the Duke Energy Indiana Industrial Group and Nucor Steel-Indiana were parties to the settlement. The settlement agreement, as approved, capped costs to be reflected in customer rates at $2.595 billion, including estimated AFUDC through June 30, 2012. Duke Energy Indiana is allowed to recover AFUDC after June 30, 2012, until customer rates are revised, with such recovery decreasing to 85 percent on AFUDC accrued after November 30, 2012.

The project was placed in commercial operation in June 2013. Costs for the Edwardsport IGCC plant are recovered from retail electric customers via a tracking mechanism, the IGCC Rider. Updates to the IGCC Rider are filed semi-annually. The Joint Intervenors have challenged and/or appealed most IGCC Rider updates. To date, all IGCC Rider updates have been approved by the IURC and upheld on appeal.

On March 18, 2014, the Indiana Court of Appeals denied an appeal filed by the Joint Intervenors' and affirmed the IURC order approving the 2012 Edwardsport settlement and other related regulatory orders.

On April 2, 2014, the IURC ordered a subdocket to Duke Energy Indiana's current fuel adjustment clause proceeding. The subdocket will review underlying causes for net negative generation amounts at the Edwardsport IGCC plant during the period September through November 2013. Duke Energy Indiana contends the net negative generation is related to the consumption of fuel and auxiliary power when the plant was in start-up or off-line. The Joint Intervenors, OUCC, the Duke Energy Indiana Industrial Group, and Nucor Steel-Indiana are parties to the subdocket. A prehearing conference was held on April 23, 2014.

Duke Energy Indiana cannot predict the outcome of the fuel adjustment clause subdocket or future IGCC Rider proceedings.

On January 9, 2013, the City of Orangeburg and NC WARN appealed the NCUC's approval of the merger between Duke Energy and Progress Energy. On April 29, 2013, the NCUC granted Duke Energy's motion to dismiss certain exceptions contained in NC WARN's appeal. On November 6, 2013, the North Carolina Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on the appeals. On March 4, 2014, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion affirming the NCUC's approval of the merger. On April 8, 2014, NC WARN filed a petition for discretionary review by the North Carolina Supreme Court. On April 21, 2014, Duke Energy and the NCUC Public Staff jointly filed their response opposing NC WARN's petition. The City of Orangeburg did not file a petition for discretionary review.

In June 2012, the FERC approved the merger with Progress Energy, including Duke Energy and Progress Energy's revised market power mitigation plan, the Joint Dispatch Agreement (JDA) and the joint Open Access Transmission Tariff. The revised market power mitigation plan provides for the acceleration of one transmission project and the completion of seven other transmission projects (Long-term FERC Mitigation) and interim firm power sale agreements during the completion of the transmission projects (Interim FERC Mitigation). The Long-term FERC Mitigation is expected to increase power imported into the Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress service areas and enhance competitive power supply options in the service areas. These projects are expected to be completed in 2014. On August 8, 2012, FERC granted certain intervenors' request for rehearing for further consideration.

Following the closing of the merger, outside counsel reviewed Duke Energy's mitigation plan and discovered a technical error in the calculations. On December 6, 2013, Duke Energy submitted a filing to the FERC disclosing the error and arguing that no additional mitigation is necessary. On March 28, 2014, Duke Energy submitted responses to a FERC deficiency letter seeking additional information concerning the market power mitigation calculations. The City of New Bern filed a protest to Duke Energy's response and requested that FERC order additional mitigation. Duke Energy cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

The Subsidiary Registrants periodically file Integrated Resource Plans (IRP) with their state regulatory commissions. The IRPs provide a view of forecasted energy needs over a 10 to 20-year period, and options being considered to meet those needs. Recent IRPs filed by the Subsidiary Registrants included planning assumptions to potentially retire certain coal-fired generating facilities in South Carolina, Florida, Indiana and Ohio earlier than their current estimated useful lives. The facilities do not have the requisite emission control equipment, primarily to meet EPA regulations recently approved or that are not yet effective.

The table below contains the net carrying value of generating facilities planned for early retirement or being evaluated for potential retirement included in Property, plant and equipment, net on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.


		March 31, 2014
		Duke Energy		Duke Energy Carolinas^(b)		Progress Energy		Duke Energy Florida^(c)		Duke Energy Ohio^(d)		Duke Energy Indiana^(e)
Capacity (in MW)			2,297		200		873		873		556		668
Remaining net book value (in millions)^(a)		$	255	$	13	$	112	$	112	$	9	$	121

(a)	Included in Property, plant and equipment, net as of March 31, 2014, on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.
(b)	Includes Lee Units 1 and 2. Excludes 170 MW Lee Unit 3 that is expected to be converted to gas in 2014. Duke Energy Carolinas expects to retire or convert these units by December 2020 in conjunction with a settlement agreement associated with the Cliffside Unit 6 air permit.
(c)	Includes Crystal River Units 1 and 2.
(d)	Includes Beckjord Units 5 and 6 and Miami Fort Unit 6. Beckjord units have no remaining book value.
(e)	Includes Wabash River Units 2 through 6. Wabash River Unit 6 is being evaluated for potential conversion to gas. Duke Energy Indiana committed to retire or convert these units by June 2018 in conjunction with a settlement agreement associated with the Edwardsport air permit.

Duke Energy continues to evaluate the potential need to retire these coal-fired generating facilities earlier than the current estimated useful lives, and plans to seek regulatory recovery for amounts that would not be otherwise recovered when any of these assets are retired. However, such recovery, including recovery of carrying costs on remaining book values, could be subject to future regulatory approvals and therefore cannot be assured.