REGULATORY MATTERS

RATE RELATED INFORMATION

The NCUC, PSCSC, FPSC, IURC, PUCO and KPSC approve rates for retail electric and natural gas services within their respective states. 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.

Duke Energy Carolinas

William States Lee Combined Cycle Facility

On April 9, 2014, the PSCSC granted Duke Energy Carolinas and North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation (NCEMC) a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of a 750 MW combined-cycle natural gas-fired generating plant at Duke Energy Carolinas' existing William States Lee Generating Station in Anderson, South Carolina. Duke Energy Carolinas began construction in July 2015, and estimates a cost to build of $600 million for its share of the facility, including allowance for funds used during construction (AFUDC). The project is expected to be commercially available in late 2017. NCEMC will own approximately 13 percent of the project. On July 3, 2014, the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League and Southern Alliance for Clean Energy jointly filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeals of South Carolina seeking the court's review of the PSCSC's decision. The case has been fully briefed and is pending in the Court of Appeals. Duke Energy Carolinas cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Duke Energy Progress

Sutton Black Start Combustion Turbine CPCN

On April 15, 2015, Duke Energy Progress filed a certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) application with the NCUC for approval to construct an 84 MW black start combustion turbine (CT) project at the existing Sutton Plant (Sutton Black Start CT Project). The Sutton Black Start CT Project would replace three existing CTs with total capacity of 61 MW with two new 42 MW CT units with black start and fast start capability. In addition to peaking system capacity, the Sutton Black Start CT Project will provide regional black start capability and tertiary backup power services for the Brunswick Nuclear Plant. In June 2015, the Public Staff of the NCUC recommended the NCUC approve Duke Energy Progress' application. On August 3, 2015, the NCUC issued an order granting the application and requiring annual construction and cost progress reports.

Western Carolinas Modernization Plan

In May 2015, Duke Energy Progress announced a $1.1 billion plan to modernize the Western Carolinas energy system. The plan includes retiring the Asheville coal-fired plant, building a 650 MW combined-cycle natural gas power plant and installing solar generation at the site, building new transmission lines and upgrading area substations. These investments will be made within the next five years in North Carolina and South Carolina. Duke Energy is also working with the local natural gas distribution company to upgrade an existing natural gas pipeline to serve the natural gas plant. On June 24, 2015, the North Carolina governor signed into law the Mountain Energy Act of 2015 (Mountain Energy Act) which provides for an expedited CPCN process for the proposed Asheville combined-cycle project and extends certain North Carolina Coal Ash Management Act of 2014 (Coal Ash Act) deadlines for the coal ash basin at the Asheville Plant site. The plan requires various approvals including regulatory approvals in North Carolina and South Carolina.

The carrying value of the 376 MW Asheville coal-fired plant, including associated ash basin closure costs, of $460 million is included in Generation facilities to be retired, net on Duke Energy Progress' Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2015.

Duke Energy Florida

FERC Transmission Return on Equity Complaint

Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. and Florida Municipal Power Agency filed multiple complaints with the FERC alleging Duke Energy Florida's current rate of return on equity in transmission formula rates of 10.8 percent is unjust and unreasonable. The latest complaint, filed on August 12, 2014, claims the rate of return on equity should be reduced to 8.69 percent. The FERC consolidated all complaints for the purposes of settlement, hearing and decision. On July 21, 2015, the parties filed with the FERC for approval of a settlement agreement under which (i) Duke Energy Florida will pay a total of $14.1 million as refunds for all periods through December 31, 2014, (ii) the rate of return on equity will be 10 percent effective January 1, 2015, and (iii) none of the parties will seek a change in the rate of return on equity prior to January 1, 2018.

Citrus County Combined Cycle Facility

On October 2, 2014, the FPSC granted Duke Energy Florida a Determination of Need for the construction of a 1,640 MW combined-cycle natural gas plant in Citrus County, Florida. On May 5, 2015, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection approved Duke Energy Florida's Site Certification Application. The facility is expected to be commercially available in 2018 at an estimated cost of $1.5 billion, including AFUDC. Additional environmental and governmental approvals will be sought for the Citrus County project.

Purchase of Osprey Energy Center

In December 2014, Duke Energy Florida and Osprey Energy Center, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Calpine Corporation (Calpine), entered into an Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement for the purchase of a 599 MW combined-cycle natural gas plant in Auburndale, Florida (Osprey Plant acquisition) for approximately $166 million. On January 30, 2015, Duke Energy Florida petitioned the FPSC requesting a determination that the Osprey Plant acquisition or, alternatively, the construction of a 320 MW combustion turbine at its existing Suwannee generating facility (Suwannee project) with an estimated cost of $197 million, is the most cost-effective generation alternative to meet Duke Energy Florida's remaining generation need prior to 2018. On July 21, 2015, the FPSC approved the Osprey Plant acquisition as the most cost-effective alternative and an order is expected in August 2015. On July 24, 2015, the FERC issued an order approving the Osprey Plant acquisition. Closing of the acquisition is contingent upon the expiration of the Hart Scott Rodino waiting period and is expected to occur by the first quarter of 2017 upon the expiration of an existing Power Purchase Agreement between Calpine and Duke Energy Florida.

Crystal River Unit 3

On May 22, 2015, Duke Energy Florida petitioned the FPSC for approval to include in base rates the revenue requirement for the Crystal River Unit 3 Regulatory asset as authorized by the 2013 Revised and Restated Stipulation and Settlement Agreement (2013 Agreement). The value of the Crystal River Unit 3 Regulatory asset to be recovered is projected to be $1.298 billion at December 31, 2015. Based upon this projected value, the initial annual revenue requirement is estimated to be $170 million.

In June 2015, the Governor of Florida signed into law legislation to allow utilities to petition for a financing order for securitization of certain retired nuclear generation assets. On July 27, 2015, Duke Energy Florida petitioned the FPSC for a financing order to finance the Crystal River Unit 3 Regulatory asset with low-cost securities. If the FPSC issues an acceptable financing order and Duke Energy Florida issues the bonds, securitization would replace the base rate recovery methodology established in the 2013 Agreement described above, and would result in a lower rate impact to customers. The annual revenue requirement with securitization, subject to changes in assumed interest rates and timing of issuance of the securitization bonds, is estimated to be approximately $100 million. The FPSC is expected to hold a hearing on both the Crystal River Unit 3 Regulatory asset filing and the securitization filing in October 2015. Duke Energy Florida cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Levy Nuclear Project

On April 16, 2015, the FPSC approved Duke Energy Florida’s petition to cease collection of the Levy Nuclear Project fixed charge beginning with the first billing cycle in May. Duke Energy Florida also sought approval to defer collection of the $54 million regulatory asset until litigation with Westinghouse Electric Co. concludes. The FPSC found that it was unnecessary to act on the request, finding that its previous order requiring the downward adjustment in projected costs primarily affected the timing of when the fixed charge would end, but that it did not disallow recovery of any costs previously determined to be prudent.

Duke Energy Ohio

2014 Electric Security Plan

In April 2015, the PUCO modified and approved Duke Energy Ohio's proposed ESP, with a three-year term and an effective date of June 1, 2015. The PUCO approved a competitive procurement process for SSO load, a distribution capital investment rider, and a tracking mechanism for incremental distribution expenses caused by major storms. The PUCO order also approved a placeholder tariff for a price stabilization rider, but denied Duke Energy Ohio's specific request to include OVEC in the rider at this time; however, the order allows Duke Energy Ohio to submit additional information to request recovery in the future. On May 4, 2015, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application for rehearing requesting the PUCO to modify or amend certain aspects of the order. On May 14, 2015, Duke Energy Ohio completed a competitive bidding process to procure a portion of the supply for its SSO load for the term of the ESP. The PUCO approved the results on May 15, 2015. On May 28, 2015, the PUCO granted all applications for rehearing filed in the case for future consideration. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

2012 Natural Gas Rate Case

On November 13, 2013, the PUCO issued an order approving a settlement among Duke Energy Ohio, the PUCO Staff and intervening parties (the Gas Settlement). The Gas Settlement provided for (i) no increase in base rates for natural gas distribution service and (ii) a return on equity of 9.84 percent. The Gas Settlement provided for a subsequent hearing on Duke Energy Ohio’s request for rider recovery of environmental remediation costs associated with its former manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites. The PUCO authorized Duke Energy Ohio to recover $56 million, excluding carrying costs, of environmental remediation costs. The MGP rider became effective in April 2014 for a five-year period. On March 31, 2014, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application with the PUCO to adjust the MGP rider for investigation and remediation costs incurred in 2013.

Certain consumer groups appealed the PUCO’s decision authorizing the MGP rider to the Ohio Supreme Court and asked the court to stay implementation of the PUCO’s order and collections under the MGP rider pending their appeal. The Ohio Supreme Court granted the motion to stay and subsequently required the posting of a bond to effectuate the stay. When the bond was not posted, the PUCO approved Duke Energy Ohio’s request, in January 2015, to reinstate collections under the MGP rider and Duke Energy Ohio resumed billings. Amounts collected prior to the suspension of the rider were immaterial. On March 31, 2015, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application to adjust the MGP rider to recover remediation costs incurred in 2014. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of the appeal of this matter.

Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) Realignment

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 Planning (MTEP) costs, including but not limited to Multi Value Project (MVP) costs, directly or indirectly charged to Ohio 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.

As of June 30, 2015, Duke Energy Ohio had recorded obligations of $93 million related to its withdrawal from MISO and a Regulatory asset of $73 million recorded on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. MTEP costs billed by MISO are recovered by Duke Energy Ohio through a non-bypassable rider.

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 operations and maintenance, taxes and return over the project lives, the number of years in service for the projects and the allocation to Duke Energy Ohio.

Any liability related to the MISO MVP matter or MTEP costs attributable to the Disposal Group was not transferred to Dynegy upon the sale of the nonregulated Midwest generation business.

FERC Transmission Return on Equity and MTEP Cost Settlement

On October 14, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky submitted with the FERC proposed modifications to the PJM Interconnection Open Access Transmission Tariff pertaining to recovery of the transmission revenue requirement as PJM transmission owners. The filing was made in connection with Duke Energy Ohio's and Duke Energy Kentucky's move from MISO to PJM effective January 1, 2012. On April 24, 2012, the FERC issued an order accepting the proposed filing effective January 1, 2012, except that the order denied a request to recover certain costs associated with the move from MISO to PJM without prejudice to the right to submit another filing seeking such recovery and including certain additional evidence, and set the rate of return on equity of 12.38 percent for settlement and hearing. On April 16, 2015, the FERC approved a settlement agreement between Duke Energy Ohio, Duke Energy Kentucky and six PJM transmission customers with load in the Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky zone. The principal terms of the settlement agreement are that, effective upon the date of FERC approval, (i) the return on equity for wholesale transmission service is reduced to 11.38 percent, (ii) the settling parties agreed not to seek a change in the return on equity that would be effective prior to June 1, 2017, and (iii) Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky will recover 30 percent of the wholesale portion of costs arising from their obligation to pay any portion of the costs of projects included in any MTEP that was approved prior to the date of Duke Energy Ohio's and Duke Energy Kentucky's integration into PJM.

Duke Energy Indiana

Edwardsport Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) Plant

On November 20, 2007, the IURC granted Duke Energy Indiana a CPCN for the construction of the Edwardsport IGCC Plant. 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. The Edwardsport IGCC Plant 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 ninth semi-annual IGCC rider order was appealed by the Joint Intervenors. On September 8, 2014, the Indiana Court of Appeals remanded the IURC order in the ninth IGCC rider proceeding back to the IURC for further findings. On February 25, 2015, the IURC issued a new order upholding its prior decision and provided additional detailed findings. Joint Intervenors have appealed this remand order to the Indiana Court of Appeals.

The 10th semi-annual IGCC rider order was also appealed by the Joint Intervenors. On August 21, 2014 the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the IURC order in the 10th IGCC rider proceeding and on October 29, 2014 denied the Joint Intervenors' request for rehearing. The Joint Intervenors requested the Indiana Supreme Court to review the decision, which was denied on April 23, 2015, concluding the appeal.

An order on the 11th semi-annual IGCC rider is currently pending. The 12th and 13th semi-annual IGCC riders were combined for hearings which were held in February 2015 and an order is currently pending. Issues in this proceeding include whether the IGCC plant was properly declared in service for ratemaking purposes in June 2013 and the operational performance of the plant during its initial 10 months of operations. Duke Energy Indiana has filed the 14th and 15th semi-annual IGCC rider proceedings, with a hearing scheduled in November 2015.

On April 2, 2014, the IURC established a subdocket to Duke Energy Indiana’s current fuel adjustment clause proceeding. In this fuel adjustment subdocket, the IURC intends to 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. In addition to the OUCC, the Duke Energy Indiana Industrial Group, Nucor Steel-Indiana, Steel Dynamics, Inc., and the Joint Intervenors are parties to the subdocket. The IURC has deferred the fuel adjustment subdocket until resolution of the 12th and 13th semi-annual IGCC rider proceedings. In addition, although the IURC approved fuel adjustment clause recovery for the period December 2013 through March 2014, it determined such fuel costs reasonably related to the operational performance of the Edwardsport IGCC Plant shall be subject to refund pending the outcome of the 12th and 13th semi-annual IGCC riders.

On August 6, 2015, the IURC granted a motion to defer ruling on all pending matters until September 15, 2015 to allow time for settlement discussions. The Commission is expected to proceed with issuance of an order if the parties do not reach a settlement agreement. Duke Energy Indiana cannot predict the outcome of the fuel adjustment clause proceedings or pending and future IGCC rider proceedings.

FERC Transmission Return on Equity Complaint

Customer groups have filed with the FERC complaints against MISO and its transmission-owning members, including Duke Energy Indiana, alleging, among other things, that the current base rate of return on equity earned by MISO transmission owners of 12.38 percent is unjust and unreasonable. The latest complaint, filed on February 12, 2015, claims the base rate of return on equity should be reduced to 8.67 percent and requests a consolidation of complaints. On January 5, 2015, the FERC issued an order accepting the MISO transmission owners 0.50 percent adder to the base rate of return on equity based on participation in an RTO subject to it being applied to a return on equity that is shown to be just and reasonable in the pending return on equity complaint. Settlement procedures in the base return on equity proceeding were terminated and a hearing is scheduled for August 17, 2015. Duke Energy Indiana cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Grid Infrastructure Improvement Plan

On August 29, 2014, Duke Energy Indiana filed a seven-year grid infrastructure improvement plan with the IURC with an estimated cost of $1.9 billion, focusing on the reliability, integrity and modernization of the transmission and distribution system. In May 2015, the IURC denied the proposal due to an insufficient level of detailed projects and cost estimates in the plan. Duke Energy Indiana is evaluating the order and plans to file a revised infrastructure improvement plan by the end of 2015.

OTHER REGULATORY MATTERS

Atlantic Coast Pipeline

On September 2, 2014, Duke Energy, Dominion Resources (Dominion), Piedmont Natural Gas and AGL Resources announced the formation of a company, Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC (ACP), to build and own the proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline (the pipeline), a 550-mile interstate natural gas pipeline. The pipeline is designed to meet the needs identified in requests for proposals by Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Piedmont Natural Gas. Dominion will build and operate the pipeline and will own 45 percent. Duke Energy will have a 40 percent ownership interest in ACP through its Commercial Portfolio segment. The remaining share will be owned by Piedmont Natural Gas and AGL Resources. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress, among others, will be customers of the pipeline. Purchases will be made under several 20-year supply contracts, subject to state regulatory approval. In October 2014, the NCUC and PSCSC approved the Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress requests to enter into certain affiliate agreements, pay compensation to ACP and to grant a waiver of certain Code of Conduct provisions relating to contractual and jurisdictional matters. The project will require FERC approval, which ACP will seek to secure by summer 2016. The estimated in-service date of the pipeline is late 2018.

Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC Pipeline

On May 4, 2015, Duke Energy acquired a 7.5 percent ownership interest from Spectra Energy in the proposed 500-mile Sabal Trail natural gas pipeline. Spectra Energy will continue to own 59.5 percent of the pipeline and NextEra Energy will own the remaining 33 percent of the pipeline. The pipeline will traverse Alabama, Georgia and Florida to meet rapidly growing demand for natural gas in those states. The primary customers of the pipeline, Duke Energy Florida and Florida Power & Light Company, have each contracted to buy pipeline capacity for 25-year initial terms. The pipeline, scheduled to begin service in 2017, requires federal and other regulatory approvals.

East Bend Station

On December 30, 2014, Duke Energy Ohio acquired The Dayton Power and Light Company's (DP&L) 31 percent interest in East Bend Station for approximately $12.4 million. The purchase price, in accordance with FERC guidelines, was reflected with the net purchase amount as an increase to property, plant and equipment as of December 31, 2014 and with the DP&L's historical original cost as an increase to property, plant and equipment and accumulated depreciation as of June 30, 2015.

NC WARN FERC Complaint

On December 16, 2014, North Carolina Waste Awareness and Reduction Network filed a complaint with the FERC against Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress that alleged (i) Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress manipulated the electricity market by constructing costly and unneeded generation facilities leading to unjust and unreasonable rates; (ii) Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress failed to comply with Order 1000 by not effectively connecting their transmission systems with neighboring utilities which also have excess capacity; (iii) the plans of Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress for unrealistic future growth lead to unnecessary and expensive generating plants; (iv) the FERC should investigate the practices of Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress and the potential benefits of having them enter into a regional transmission organization; and (v) the FERC should force Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress to purchase power from other utilities rather than construct wasteful and redundant power plants. NC WARN also filed a copy of the complaint with the PSCSC on January 6, 2015. In April 2015, the FERC and the PSCSC issued separate orders dismissing the NC WARN petition. On May 14, 2015, NC WARN filed with FERC a motion for reconsideration.

Potential Coal Plant Retirements

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 long term (10 to 20 years), 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 North Carolina, Florida and Indiana earlier than their current estimated useful lives. These facilities do not have the requisite emission control equipment, primarily to meet United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations recently approved or proposed.

The table below contains the net carrying value of generating facilities planned for retirement or included in recent IRPs as evaluated for potential retirement due to a lack of requisite environmental control equipment. Dollar amounts in the table below are included in Net property, plant and equipment on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.



	June 30, 2015
	Duke Energy		Progress Energy_(b)		Duke Energy Florida_(b)		Duke Energy Indiana_(c)
Capacity (in MW)	1,541		873		873		668
Remaining net book value (in millions)^(a)	$	237	$	125	$	125	$	112


(a)	Remaining net book value amounts presented exclude any capitalized asset retirement costs related to closure of ash basins.


(b)	Includes Crystal River Units 1 and 2.


(c)	Includes Wabash River Units 2 through 6. Wabash River Unit 6 is being evaluated for potential conversion to natural gas. Duke Energy Indiana committed to retire or convert the Wabash River Units 2 through 5 by June 2018 in conjunction with a settlement agreement associated with the Edwardsport air permit.

In addition to evaluations based on the extent facilities are equipped to comply with environmental regulations, Duke Energy continually monitors and evaluates the appropriate generation mix and fuel diversity for its generation fleet when making retirement decisions. Duke Energy Carolinas is evaluating the potential retirement of coal-fired generating units with a net carrying value of approximately $110 million, excluding capitalized asset retirement costs related to closure of ash basins, included in Net property, plant and equipment on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. These generating units are not included in the table above.

Duke Energy continues to evaluate the potential need to retire generating facilities earlier than the current estimated useful lives, and plans to seek regulatory recovery, as necessary, 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.

Refer to the "Western Carolinas Modernization Plan" discussion above for details of planned retirements for Duke Energy Progress.