Regulatory Matters

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2020

Regulated Operations [Abstract]

Regulatory Matters

REGULATORY MATTERS

RATE-RELATED INFORMATION

The NCUC, PSCSC, FPSC, IURC, PUCO, TPUC and KPSC approve rates for retail electric and natural gas services within their 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. The FERC also regulates certification and siting of new interstate natural gas pipeline projects.

Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress

COVID-19 Filings

North Carolina

On March 10, 2020, Governor Roy Cooper issued Executive Order No. 116 declaring a state of emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In an effort to help mitigate the financial impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on their customers, on March 19, 2020, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a request with the NCUC seeking authorization to waive: (1) any late payment charges incurred by a residential or nonresidential customer, effective March 21, 2020; (2) the application of fees for checks returned for insufficient funds for residential and nonresidential customers; (3) the reconnection charge when a residential or nonresidential customer seeks to have service restored for those customers whose service was recently disconnected for nonpayment and to work with customers regarding the other requirements to restore service, including re-establishment of credit; and (4) the fees and charges associated with the use of credit cards or debit cards to pay residential electric utility bills, effective March 21, 2020. The NCUC granted the companies’ request on March 20, 2020.

On March 31, 2020, the governor issued Executive Order No. 124, which, in addition to requiring the steps in the NCUC order noted above, stated that nothing in Executive Order No. 124 shall relieve a customer of its obligation to pay bills for receipt of utility services provided. Executive Order No. 124 remains in effect for 60 days unless otherwise rescinded or replaced with a superseding Executive Order.

On March 31, 2020, the Carolina Utility Customers Association (CUCA) filed a petition with the NCUC to temporarily suspend minimum demand charges for commercial and industrial customers. On April 2, 2020, the NCUC issued an order requiring the North Carolina Public Staff (Public Staff) and Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and other utilities to file responses. On April 9, 2020, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed responses to CUCA’s petition opposing CUCA’s request. The companies assert that voiding commission-approved tariffs and allowing all commercial and industrial customers on the requested rate schedules to avoid paying a portion of their bills is not legally permissible and would result in these costs unfairly being shifted to other customers that are already paying their respective fair share of similar fixed components. Pursuant to the NCUC’s April 2 order, reply comments were filed by CUCA, the Public Staff and Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress on April 15, 2020. A final order from the NCUC deciding CUCA's request is pending. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

South Carolina

On March 13, 2020, Governor Henry McMaster issued Executive Order No. 2020-08 declaring a state of emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The governor also issued a letter on March 14, 2020, to the ORS Executive Director regarding the suspension of disconnection of essential utility services for nonpayment. On March 16, 2020, citing the governor’s letter, the ORS filed a request asking the PSCSC to grant waivers so that utilities could suspend disconnections of utility services for nonpayment. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress supported such motion. On March 18, 2020, the PSCSC issued an order approving such waivers, and also approved waivers for regulations related to late fees and reconnect fees. The PSCSC's order also required utilities to track the financial impacts of actions taken pursuant to such waivers for possible reporting to the PSCSC.

On April 30, 2020, the ORS requested the PSCSC grant a waiver of the applicable regulations to allow customers the flexibility to obtain deferred payment plans longer than 6 months for past-due amounts. On May 5, 2020, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed responsive comments stating that while utility bills will remain due, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress do not plan to immediately reinstitute disconnection upon the expiration of the state of emergency and intend to work through a potential grace period as economic recovery begins. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress also concurred with the observation of the ORS that reduced usage is impacting the fixed cost recovery and revenue assumptions included in rates. Those costs include not only ongoing operational and financing costs necessary to serve customers, but also the borrowings necessary to support extended payment arrangements that will be an important part of emerging from the COVID-19 pandemic. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress will continue to track such costs, lost revenues and potential cost savings for future evaluation by the PSCSC.

Additionally, on May 8, 2020, the ORS filed a motion for the PSCSC to solicit comments from utilities and interested stakeholders regarding measures to be taken to mitigate impacts of COVID-19 on utility customers and require recordkeeping. In a detailed motion, the ORS specifically asked the PSCSC to: (1) solicit input from utilities regarding the temporary mitigation measures to address COVID-19; (2) request utilities to inform the PSCSC of the plans utilities have to return to normalized operations; (3) require utilities to track revenue impacts, incremental costs and savings related to COVID-19 and file the findings with the PSCSC on a quarterly basis; and (4) include any other matters that the PSCSC believes should be addressed. The ORS requests that such comments be filed within 30 days of a PSCSC order approving the motion. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Duke Energy Carolinas

2017 North Carolina Rate Case

On August 25, 2017, Duke Energy Carolinas filed an application with the NCUC for a rate increase for retail customers of approximately $647 million, which represented an approximate 13.6% increase in annual base revenues. The request for rate increase was driven by capital investments subsequent to the previous base rate case, including the William States Lee Combined Cycle Facility, grid improvement projects, AMI, investments in customer service technologies, costs of complying with CCR regulations and the Coal Ash Act and recovery of costs related to licensing and development of the William States Lee III Nuclear Station.

On February 28, 2018, Duke Energy Carolinas and the Public Staff filed an Agreement and Stipulation of Partial Settlement resolving certain portions of the proceeding. Terms of the settlement included a return on equity of 9.9% and a capital structure of 52% equity and 48% debt.

On June 22, 2018, the NCUC issued an order approving the Stipulation of Partial Settlement and requiring a revenue reduction.

On July 20, 2018, the North Carolina Attorney General filed a Notice of Appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court from the June 22, 2018, Order Accepting Stipulation, Deciding Contested Issues and Requiring Revenue Reduction issued by the NCUC. The Attorney General contends the commission’s order should be reversed and remanded, as it is in excess of the commission’s statutory authority; affected by errors of law; unsupported by competent, material and substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted; and arbitrary or capricious. The Sierra Club, North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association, North Carolina Justice Center, North Carolina Housing Coalition, Natural Resource Defense Council and Southern Alliance for Clean Energy also filed Notices of Appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court. On August 8, 2018, the Public Staff filed a Notice of Cross Appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court, which contends the commission’s June 22, 2018, order should be reversed and remanded, as it is affected by errors of law, and is unsupported by substantial evidence with regard to the commission’s failure to consider substantial evidence of coal ash related environmental violations. On November 29, 2018, the North Carolina Attorney General's Office filed a motion with the North Carolina Supreme Court requesting the court consolidate the Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress appeals and enter an order adopting the parties’ proposed briefing schedule as set out in the filing. On November 29, 2018, the North Carolina Supreme Court adopted a schedule for briefing set forth in the motion to consolidate the Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress appeals. Appellant briefs were filed on April 26, 2019. The Appellee response briefs were filed on September 25, 2019. Oral arguments before the North Carolina Supreme Court were held on March 11, 2020. Duke Energy Carolinas cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

2019 North Carolina Rate Case

On September 30, 2019, Duke Energy Carolinas filed an application with the NCUC for a net rate increase for retail customers of approximately $291 million, which represented an approximate 6% increase in annual base revenues. The gross rate case revenue increase request was $445 million, which was offset by an EDIT rider of $154 million to return to customers North Carolina and federal EDIT resulting from recent reductions in corporate tax rates. The request for rate increase was driven by major capital investments subsequent to the previous base rate case, coal ash pond closure costs, accelerated coal plant depreciation and deferred 2018 storm costs. Duke Energy Carolinas requested rates be effective no later than August 1, 2020. The NCUC established a procedural schedule with an evidentiary hearing to begin on March 23, 2020. On March 16, 2020, in consideration of public health and safety as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a motion with the NCUC seeking a suspension of the procedural schedule in the rate case, including issuing discovery requests, and postponement of the evidentiary hearing for 60 days. Also on March 16, 2020, the NCUC issued an Order Postponing Hearing and Addressing Procedural Matters, which postponed the evidentiary hearing until further order by the commission.

On March 25, 2020, Duke Energy Carolinas and the Public Staff filed an Agreement and Stipulation of Partial Settlement, which is subject to review and approval of the NCUC, resolving certain issues in the base rate proceeding. Major components of the settlement included:

• Removal of deferred storm costs from the rate case;

• Filing a petition seeking to securitize the deferred storm costs within 120 days of a commission order in this rate case regarding the reasonableness and prudency of the storm costs;

• Agreement of certain assumptions to demonstrate the quantifiable benefits to customers of a securitization financing; and

• Agreement on certain accounting matters, including recovery of employee incentives, severance, aviation costs and executive compensation.

On May 6, 2020, Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and the Public Staff filed a joint motion requesting that the NCUC issue an order scheduling one consolidated evidentiary hearing to consider the companies’ applications for net rate increases. The joint motion suggests, health and safety permitting, that the commission consider the possibility of holding the consolidated hearing in July. If the NCUC grants the joint motion, Duke Energy Carolinas expects the NCUC to issue an order on its net rate increase by the end of the year. Duke Energy Carolinas cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

2018 South Carolina Rate Case

On November 8, 2018, Duke Energy Carolinas filed an application with the PSCSC for a rate increase for retail customers of approximately $168 million, which represented an approximate 10% increase in retail revenues. The request for rate increase was driven by capital investments and environmental compliance progress made by Duke Energy Carolinas since its previous rate case, including the further implementation of Duke Energy Carolinas’ generation modernization program, which consists of retiring, replacing and upgrading generation plants, investments in customer service technologies and continued investments in base work to maintain its transmission and distribution systems. The request included net tax benefits resulting from the Tax Act of $66 million to reflect the change in ongoing tax expense, primarily from the reduction in the federal income tax rate from 35% to 21%. The request also included $46 million to return EDIT resulting from the federal tax rate change and deferred revenues since January 2018 related to the change and benefits of $17 million from a reduction in North Carolina state income taxes allocable to South Carolina (EDIT Rider).

Duke Energy Carolinas also requested approval of its proposed Grid Improvement Plan (GIP), adjustments to its Prepaid Advantage Program and a variety of accounting orders related to ongoing costs for environmental compliance, including recovery over a five-year period of $242 million of deferred coal ash related compliance costs, grid investments between rate changes, incremental depreciation expense, a result of new depreciation rates from the depreciation study approved in the 2017 North Carolina Rate Case above, and the balance of development costs associated with the cancellation of the Lee Nuclear Project. Finally, Duke Energy Carolinas sought approval to establish a reserve and accrual for end-of-life nuclear costs for nuclear fuel and materials and supplies. On March 8, 2019, the ORS moved to establish a new and separate hearing docket to review and consider the GIP proposed by Duke Energy Carolinas. Subsequently, on March 12, 2019, the ORS and Duke Energy Carolinas executed a Stipulation resolving the ORS’s motion. The Stipulation provided that costs incurred for the GIP after January 1, 2019, would be deferred with a return, subject to evaluation in a future rate proceeding. The Stipulation was approved by the PSCSC on June 19, 2019. On December 16, 2019, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a Joint Petition to Establish an Informational Docket for Review and Consideration of Grid Improvement Plans through which Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress would provide interested stakeholders information on the companies' grid activities. The PSCSC requested parties comment on procedural matters by January 31, 2020; accordingly, various groups filed comments, none of which opposed an informational docket. Duke Energy Carolinas cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

After hearings in March 2019, the PSCSC issued an order on May 21, 2019, which included a return on equity of 9.5% and a capital structure of 53% equity and 47% debt. The order also included the following material components:

• Approval of cancellation of the Lee Nuclear Project, with Duke Energy Carolinas maintaining the Combined Operating License;

• Approval of recovery of $125 million (South Carolina retail portion) of Lee Nuclear Project development costs (including AFUDC through December 2017) over a 12-year period, but denial of a return on the deferred balance of costs;

• Approval of recovery of $96 million of coal ash costs over a five-year period with a return at Duke Energy Carolinas' WACC;

• Denial of recovery of $115 million of certain coal ash costs deemed to be related to the Coal Ash Act and incremental to the federal CCR rule;

• Approval of a $66 million decrease to base rates to reflect the change in ongoing tax expense, primarily the reduction in the federal income tax rate from 35% to 21%;

• Approval of a $45 million decrease through the EDIT Rider to return EDIT resulting from the federal tax rate change and deferred revenues since January 2018 related to the change, to be returned in accordance with the Average Rate Assumption Method (ARAM) for protected EDIT, over a 20-year period for unprotected EDIT associated with Property, Plant and Equipment, over a five-year period for unprotected EDIT not associated with Property, Plant and Equipment and over a five-year period for the deferred revenues; and

• Approval of a $17 million decrease through the EDIT Rider related to reductions in the North Carolina state income tax rate from 6.9% to 2.5% to be returned over a five-year period.

As a result of the order, revised customer rates were effective June 1, 2019. On May 31, 2019, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a Petition for Rehearing or Reconsideration of that order contending substantial rights of Duke Energy Carolinas were prejudiced by unlawful, arbitrary and capricious rulings by the commission on certain issues presented in the proceeding. On June 19, 2019, the PSCSC issued a Directive denying Duke Energy Carolinas' request to rehear or reconsider the commission's rulings on certain issues presented in the proceeding including coal ash remediation and disposal costs, return on equity and the recovery of a return on deferred operation and maintenance expenses. An order detailing the commission's decision in the Directive was issued on October 18, 2019. Duke Energy Carolinas filed a notice of appeal on November 15, 2019, with the Supreme Court of South Carolina. On November 20, 2019, the South Carolina Energy Users Committee filed a Notice of Appeal and the ORS filed a Notice of Cross Appeal with the Supreme Court of South Carolina. On February 12, 2020, Duke Energy Carolinas and the ORS filed a joint motion to extend briefing schedule deadlines, which was approved by the Supreme Court of South Carolina on February 20, 2020. On March 10, 2020, the ORS filed a consent motion requesting withdrawal of their appeal. Initial briefs were filed on April 21, 2020. Response briefs and reply briefs are due July 6, 2020, and August 11, 2020, respectively. Also on April 21, 2020, the South Carolina Energy User's Committee filed a brief arguing that the PSCSC erred in allowing Duke Energy Carolinas' recovery of costs related to the Lee Nuclear Station. Based on legal analysis and the filing of the appeal, Duke Energy Carolinas has not recorded an adjustment for its deferred coal ash costs. Duke Energy Carolinas cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Duke Energy Progress

2017 North Carolina Rate Case

On June 1, 2017, Duke Energy Progress filed an application with the NCUC for a rate increase for retail customers of approximately $477 million, which represented an approximate 14.9% increase in annual base revenues. Subsequent to the filing, Duke Energy Progress adjusted the requested amount to $420 million, representing an approximate 13% increase. The request for rate increase was driven by capital investments subsequent to the previous base rate case, costs of complying with CCR regulations and the Coal Ash Act, costs relating to storm recovery, investments in customer service technologies and recovery of costs associated with renewable purchased power.

On November 22, 2017, Duke Energy Progress and the Public Staff filed an Agreement and Stipulation of Partial Settlement resolving certain portions of the proceeding. Terms of the settlement included a return on equity of 9.9% and a capital structure of 52% equity and 48% debt. On February 23, 2018, the NCUC issued an order approving the stipulation.

On May 15, 2018, the Public Staff filed a Notice of Cross Appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court from the NCUC's February 23, 2018, order. The Public Staff contends the NCUC’s order should be reversed and remanded, as it is affected by errors of law, and is unsupported by competent, material and substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted. The North Carolina Attorney General and Sierra Club also filed Notices of Appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court from the February 23, 2018, order. On November 29, 2018, the North Carolina Attorney General's Office filed a motion with the North Carolina Supreme Court requesting the court consolidate the Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Carolinas appeals and enter an order adopting the parties’ proposed briefing schedule as set out in the filing. Appellant briefs were filed on April 26, 2019. The Appellee response briefs were filed on September 25, 2019. Oral arguments before the North Carolina Supreme Court were held on March 11, 2020. Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

2019 North Carolina Rate Case

On October 30, 2019, Duke Energy Progress filed an application with the NCUC for a net rate increase for retail customers of approximately $464 million, which represented an approximate 12.3% increase in annual base revenues. The gross rate case revenue increase request was $586 million, which was offset by riders of $122 million, primarily an EDIT rider of $120 million to return to customers North Carolina and federal EDIT resulting from recent reductions in corporate tax rates. The request for rate increase was driven by major capital investments subsequent to the previous base rate case, coal ash pond closure costs, accelerated coal plant depreciation and deferred 2018 storm costs. Duke Energy Progress seeks to defer and recover incremental Hurricane Dorian storm costs in this proceeding and requests rates be effective no later than September 1, 2020. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, on March 24, 2020, the NCUC suspended the procedural schedule and postponed the previously scheduled evidentiary hearing on this matter indefinitely. On April 7, 2020, the NCUC issued an order partially resuming the procedural schedule requiring intervenors to file direct testimony on April 13, 2020. Public Staff filed supplemental direct testimony on April 23, 2020. Duke Energy Progress filed rebuttal testimony on May 4, 2020. On May 6, 2020, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Carolinas and the Public Staff filed a joint motion requesting that the NCUC issue an order scheduling one consolidated evidentiary hearing to consider the companies’ applications for net rate increases. The joint motion suggests, health and safety permitting, that the commission consider the possibility of holding the consolidated hearing in July. If the NCUC grants the joint motion, Duke Energy Progress expects the NCUC to issue an order on its net rate increase by the end of the year. Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Hurricane Dorian

Hurricane Dorian reached the Carolinas in September 2019 as a Category 2 hurricane making landfall within Duke Energy Progress’ service territory. Approximately 270,000 North Carolina customers and 30,000 South Carolina customers were impacted by the slow-moving storm that brought high winds, tornadoes and heavy rain. With storm-response mobilization occurring in preparation for the storm and the assistance of mutual aid partners, full restoration was accomplished within four days for all customers able to receive service. Total estimated incremental operation and maintenance expenses incurred to repair and restore the system are approximately $177 million with an additional $4 million in capital investments made for restoration efforts. Approximately $151 million and $179 million of the operation and maintenance expenses are deferred in Regulatory assets within Other Noncurrent Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of March 31, 2020, and December 31, 2019, respectively. A request for an accounting order to defer incremental storm costs associated with Hurricane Dorian was included in Duke Energy Progress' October 30, 2019, general rate case filing with the NCUC. Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

On February 7, 2020, a petition was filed with the PSCSC in the 2019 storm deferrals docket requesting deferral of approximately $22 million in operation and maintenance expenses to an existing storm deferral balance previously approved by the PSCSC. The PSCSC voted to approve the request on March 4, 2020, and issued a final order on April 7, 2020.

2018 South Carolina Rate Case

On November 8, 2018, Duke Energy Progress filed an application with the PSCSC for a rate increase for retail customers of approximately $59 million, which represented an approximate 10.3% increase in annual base revenues. The request for rate increase was driven by capital investments and environmental compliance progress made by Duke Energy Progress since its previous rate case, including the further implementation of Duke Energy Progress’ generation modernization program, which consists of retiring, replacing and upgrading generation plants, investments in customer service technologies and continued investments in base work to maintain its transmission and distribution systems. The request included a decrease resulting from the Tax Act of $17 million to reflect the change in ongoing tax expense, primarily the reduction in the federal income tax rate from 35% to 21%. The request also included $10 million to return EDIT resulting from the federal tax rate change and deferred revenues since January 2018 related to the change (EDIT Rider) and a $12 million increase due to the expiration of EDITs related to reductions in North Carolina state income taxes allocable to South Carolina.

Duke Energy Progress also requested approval of its proposed GIP, approval of a Prepaid Advantage Program and a variety of accounting orders related to ongoing costs for environmental compliance, including recovery over a five-year period of $51 million of deferred coal ash related compliance costs, AMI deployment, grid investments between rate changes and regulatory asset treatment related to the retirement of a generating plant located in Asheville, North Carolina. Finally, Duke Energy Progress sought approval to establish a reserve and accrual for end-of-life nuclear costs for materials and supplies and nuclear fuel. On March 8, 2019, the ORS moved to establish a new and separate hearing docket to review and consider the GIP proposed by Duke Energy Progress. Subsequently, on March 12, 2019, the ORS and Duke Energy Carolinas executed a Stipulation resolving the ORS’s motion, and Duke Energy Progress agreed to the Stipulation, as did other parties in the rate case. The Stipulation provided that costs incurred for the GIP after January 1, 2019, would be deferred with a return, with all costs subject to evaluation in a future rate proceeding, and that Duke Energy Progress would refile for consideration of the GIP in a new docket for resolution by January 1, 2020. The Stipulation was approved by the PSCSC on June 19, 2019. On December 16, 2019, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Carolinas filed a Joint Petition to Establish an Informational Docket for Review and Consideration of Grid Improvement Plans through which Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Carolinas would provide interested stakeholders information on the companies' grid activities. The PSCSC requested parties comment on procedural matters by January 31, 2020; accordingly, various groups filed comments, none of which opposed an informational docket. Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

After hearings in April 2019, the PSCSC issued an order on May 21, 2019, which included a return on equity of 9.5% and a capital structure of 53% equity and 47% debt. The order also included the following material components:

• Approval of recovery of $4 million of coal ash costs over a five-year period with a return at Duke Energy Progress' WACC;

• Denial of recovery of $65 million of certain coal ash costs deemed to be related to the Coal Ash Act and incremental to the federal CCR rule;

• Approval of a $17 million decrease to base rates to reflect the change in ongoing tax expense, primarily the reduction in the federal income tax rate from 35% to 21%;

• Approval of a $12 million decrease through the EDIT Tax Savings Rider resulting from the federal tax rate change and deferred revenues since January 2018 related to the change, to be returned in accordance with ARAM for protected EDIT, over a 20-year period for unprotected EDIT associated with Property, Plant and Equipment, over a five-year period for unprotected EDIT not associated with Property, Plant and Equipment and over a three-year period for the deferred revenues; and

• Approval of a $12 million increase due to the expiration of EDIT related to reductions in the North Carolina state income tax rate from 6.9% to 2.5%.

As a result of the order, revised customer rates were effective June 1, 2019. On May 31, 2019, Duke Energy Progress filed a Petition for Rehearing or Reconsideration of that order contending substantial rights of Duke Energy Progress were prejudiced by unlawful, arbitrary and capricious rulings by the commission on certain issues presented in the proceeding. On June 19, 2019, the PSCSC issued a Directive denying Duke Energy Progress' request to rehear or reconsider the commission's rulings on certain issues presented in the proceeding including coal ash remediation and disposal costs, return on equity and the recovery of a return on deferred operation and maintenance expenses, but allowing additional litigation-related costs. As a result of the Directive allowing litigation-related costs, customer rates were revised effective July 1, 2019. An order detailing the commission's decision in the Directive was issued on October 18, 2019. Duke Energy Progress filed a notice of appeal on November 15, 2019, with the Supreme Court of South Carolina. The ORS filed a Notice of Cross Appeal on November 20, 2019. On February 12, 2020, Duke Energy Progress and the ORS filed a joint motion to extend briefing schedule deadlines, which was approved by the Supreme Court of South Carolina on February 20, 2020. On March 10, 2020, the ORS filed a consent motion requesting withdrawal of their appeal. Initial briefs were filed on April 21, 2020. Response briefs and reply briefs are due July 6, 2020, and August 11, 2020, respectively. Based on legal analysis and the filing of the appeal, Duke Energy Progress has not recorded an adjustment for its deferred coal ash costs. Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Western Carolinas Modernization Plan

On November 4, 2015, Duke Energy Progress announced a Western Carolinas Modernization Plan, which included retirement of the existing Asheville coal-fired plant, the construction of two 280‑MW combined-cycle natural gas plants having dual-fuel capability, with the option to build a third natural gas simple cycle unit in 2023 based upon the outcome of initiatives to reduce the region's power demand. The plan also included upgrades to existing transmission lines and substations, installation of solar generation and a pilot battery storage project.

Duke Energy Progress retired the 376-MW Asheville coal-fired plant on January 29, 2020, at which time the net book value, including associated ash basin closure costs, of $214 million was transferred from Generation facilities to be retired, net to Regulatory assets within Current Assets and Other Noncurrent Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

On March 28, 2016, the NCUC issued an order approving a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) for the new combined-cycle natural gas plants with an estimated cost of $893 million, but required Duke Energy Progress to refile for CPCN approval for the contingent simple cycle unit.

On December 27, 2019, Asheville Combined Cycle Power Block 1 and the common systems that serve both combined cycle units went into commercial operation. Power Block 1 consists of the Unit 5 Combustion Turbine and Unit 6 Steam Turbine Generator (which together form the first combined cycle unit approved in the CPCN Order). Power Block 2 consists of the Unit 7 Combustion Turbine and Unit 8 Steam Turbine Generator (which together form the second combined cycle unit approved in the CPCN Order). Duke Energy Progress placed the Unit 7 Combustion Turbine portion of Power Block 2 into commercial operation in simple-cycle mode on January 15, 2020. The Unit 8 Steam Turbine Generator went into commercial operation on April 5, 2020.

On October 8, 2018, Duke Energy Progress filed an application with the NCUC for a CPCN to construct the Hot Springs Microgrid Solar and Battery Storage Facility. On March 22, 2019, Duke Energy Progress and the Public Staff filed a Joint Proposed Order. On May 10, 2019, the NCUC issued an Order Granting Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity with Conditions. On November 19, 2019, Duke Energy Progress filed a semiannual progress report for its Hot Springs Microgrid Solar and Battery Storage Facility. As required by an NCUC order issued December 6, 2019, an updated progress report was filed on January 15, 2020. An evidentiary hearing was held on March 5, 2020. Construction is expected to begin in the second quarter of 2020 with commercial operation expected to begin in December 2020.

Duke Energy Florida

COVID-19 Filings

On March 1, 2020, Governor Ron DeSantis issued Executive Order No. 20-51 directing the State Health Officer of Florida to declare a public health emergency in Florida related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The governor then issued a second Executive Order No. 20-52 on March 9, 2020, in which he declared a state of emergency in Florida and directed the Director of the Division of Emergency Management to implement the state’s Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. The governor issued additional Executive Orders – Nos. 2020-68, 2020-69, 2020-71, 2020-72 and 2020-83 – in response to the ongoing health care emergency that, among other things, suspended the in-person public meeting requirements for state agencies and local governments and directed the state surgeon general to issue public health advisories to limit potential exposure to COVID-19, advising against gatherings of 10 or more persons. On March 19, 2020, Duke Energy Florida filed a request to modify its tariff to allow it to waive late fees for customers, and on April 6, 2020, the FPSC issued an order approving the request. Duke Energy Florida had already voluntarily waived reconnect fees and credit card fees, and is not disconnecting customers for nonpayment. On April 2, 2020, Duke Energy Florida filed a petition with the FPSC to accelerate a $78 million fuel cost refund to customers in the month of May 2020. Typically, the refund would be made over the course of 2021. The FPSC approved the petition on April 28, 2020.

Storm Restoration Cost Recovery

In October 2018, Duke Energy Florida’s service territory suffered damage when Hurricane Michael made landfall as a Category 5 hurricane with maximum sustained winds of 160 mph. The storm caused catastrophic damage from wind and storm surge, particularly from Panama City Beach to Mexico Beach, resulting in widespread outages and significant damage to transmission and distribution facilities across the central Florida Panhandle. In response to Hurricane Michael, Duke Energy Florida restored service to approximately 72,000 customers. Total estimated incremental operation and maintenance and capital costs are $311 million. Approximately $106 million and $107 million of the costs are included in Net property, plant and equipment on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of March 31, 2020, and December 31, 2019, respectively. Approximately $205 million and $204 million of costs are included in Regulatory assets within Current Assets and Other Noncurrent Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of March 31, 2020, and December 31, 2019, respectively, representing recoverable costs under the FPSC’s storm rule and Duke Energy Florida's OATT formula rates.

Duke Energy Florida filed a petition with the FPSC on April 30, 2019, to recover the retail portion of estimated incremental storm restoration costs for Hurricane Michael. On June 11, 2019, the FPSC approved the petition for recovery of estimated incremental storm restoration costs related to Hurricane Michael. The FPSC also approved the stipulation Duke Energy Florida filed, which will allow Duke Energy Florida to use the tax savings resulting from the Tax Act to recover these storm costs in lieu of implementing a storm surcharge. Approved storm costs are currently expected to be fully recovered by approximately year-end 2021. On November 22, 2019, Duke Energy Florida filed a petition for approval of actual retail recoverable storm restoration costs related to Hurricane Michael in the amount of $191 million plus interest. An Order Establishing Procedure was issued on January 30, 2020, and hearings are scheduled to begin September 15, 2020. Duke Energy Florida cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Hurricane Dorian

In September 2019, Duke Energy Florida’s service territory was threatened by Hurricane Dorian with landfall as a possible Category 5 hurricane. For several days, various forecasts and models predicted significant impact to Duke Energy Florida’s service territory; accordingly, Duke Energy Florida incurred costs to secure necessary resources to be prepared for that potential impact. Although Hurricane Dorian never made landfall in Florida, its effects were still felt, and outages did occur. Preparations were required so that, if Hurricane Dorian had made landfall and impacts had been more severe, Duke Energy Florida would have been prepared to restore its customers’ power in a timely fashion.

On December 19, 2019, Duke Energy Florida filed a petition with the FPSC to recover $169 million, the estimated retail portion of these costs, consistent with the provisions in the 2017 Settlement. On February 24, 2020, the commission approved the request for recovery over a 12-month period with rates effective in March 2020 and subject to true up. The final actual amount will be filed later in 2020 and the FPSC will hold a hearing to determine the final amount of incremental costs. Duke Energy Florida cannot predict the outcome of this matter. Approximately $147 million and $167 million of these costs are included in Regulatory assets within Current Assets and Other Noncurrent Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of March 31, 2020, and December 31, 2019, respectively, representing recoverable costs under the FPSC’s storm rule and Duke Energy Florida's OATT formula rates.

Solar Base Rate Adjustment

On July 31, 2018, Duke Energy Florida petitioned the FPSC to include in base rates the revenue requirements for its first two solar generation projects, the Hamilton Project and the Columbia Project, as authorized by the 2017 Settlement. The Hamilton Project, which was placed into service on December 22, 2018, had an annual retail revenue requirement of $15 million. At its October 30, 2018, Agenda Conference, the FPSC approved the rate increase related to the Hamilton Project to go into effect beginning with the first billing cycle in January 2019 under its file and suspend authority, and revised customer rates became effective in January 2019. On April 2, 2019, the commission approved both solar projects as filed. The Columbia Project, which has a projected annual revenue requirement of $14 million, was placed in service in March 2020 and revised customer rates became effective in April 2020.

On March 25, 2019, Duke Energy Florida petitioned the FPSC to include in base rates the revenue requirements for its next wave of solar generation projects, the Trenton, Lake Placid and DeBary Solar Projects, as authorized by the 2017 Settlement. The annual retail revenue requirement for the Trenton and Lake Placid Projects was $13 million and $8 million, respectively, and they were placed into service in December 2019 with rates taking effect in January 2020. The DeBary Project has a projected annual revenue requirement of $11 million and a projected in-service date in the second quarter of 2020. The associated rate increase would take place with the first month’s billing cycle after each solar generation project goes into service. On July 22, 2019, the FPSC issued an order approving Duke Energy Florida's request.

Crystal River Unit 3 Accelerated Decommissioning Filing

On May 29, 2019, Duke Energy Florida entered into a Decommissioning Services Agreement for the accelerated decommissioning of the Crystal River Unit 3 nuclear power station located in Citrus County, Florida, with ADP CR3, LLC and ADP SF1, LLC, each of which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Accelerated Decommissioning Partners, LLC, a joint venture between NorthStar Group Services, Inc. and Orano USA LLC. Closing of this agreement is contingent upon the approval of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and FPSC. If approved, the decommissioning will be accelerated starting in 2020 and continuing through 2027, rather than the expected time frame under SAFSTOR of starting in 2067 and ending in 2074. Duke Energy Florida expects that the assets of the Nuclear Decommissioning Trust Fund will be sufficient to cover the contract price. On July 10, 2019, Duke Energy Florida petitioned the FPSC for approval of the agreement. On April 1, 2020, the NRC issued an order approving the license transfer application. Following the NRC order, on April 15, 2020, the FPSC issued its Second Order Modifying Order Establishing Procedure in which hearings are scheduled to begin July 7, 2020. Duke Energy Florida cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Duke Energy Ohio

Duke Energy Ohio COVID-19 Filing

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, on March 9, 2020, Governor Mike DeWine issued Executive Order No. 2020-01D declaring a state of emergency in the State of Ohio. The PUCO issued an order directing utilities to cease disconnections for nonpayment and waive late payment and reconnection fees and to minimize direct customer contact. The PUCO also directed utilities to maintain flexible payment plans and tariff interpretations to assist customers during this crisis and to seek any regulatory waivers, if necessary. In response, Duke Energy Ohio has ceased all disconnections except for safety-related concerns and is waiving late payment and reconnection fees. On March 19, 2020, Duke Energy Ohio filed its compliance plan with the PUCO and sought waiver of several regulations to minimize direct customer contact.

On April 16, 2020, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application for a Reasonable Arrangement to temporarily lower the minimum bill for demand-metered commercial and industrial customers. The proposal is conditioned on full recovery via Duke Energy Ohio's existing Economic Competitiveness Fund Rider (Rider ECF), which has been used by Duke Energy Ohio in the past for other reasonable arrangements with customers. On April 24, 2020, the Staff of the PUCO filed its recommendation finding Duke Energy Ohio’s application is reasonable and that the PUCO should approve it. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

On May 11, 2020, Duke Energy Ohio filed with the PUCO a request seeking deferral of incremental costs incurred, as well as specific miscellaneous lost revenues. The request seeks to use existing bad debts and uncollectible riders already in place for both electric and natural gas operations. Duke Energy Ohio would subsequently file for rider recovery at a later date. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Duke Energy Kentucky COVID-19

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, on March 6, 2020, Governor Andy Beshear issued Executive Order No. 2020-215 declaring a state of emergency in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The KPSC issued an order directing utilities to cease disconnections for nonpayment and waive late payment and reconnection fees. The KPSC also directed utilities to maintain flexible payment plans and tariff interpretations to assist customers during this crisis and to seek any regulatory waivers if necessary. Duke Energy Kentucky had already voluntarily ceased all disconnections except for safety-related concerns and was waiving late payment and reconnection fees.

2017 Electric Security Plan Filing

On June 1, 2017, Duke Energy Ohio filed with the PUCO a request for a standard service offer in the form of an ESP. On February 15, 2018, the procedural schedule was suspended to facilitate ongoing settlement discussions. On April 13, 2018, Duke Energy Ohio filed a Motion to consolidate this proceeding with several other cases pending before the PUCO, including, but not limited to, its Electric Base Rate Case. Additionally, on April 13, 2018, Duke Energy Ohio, along with certain intervenors, filed a Stipulation and Recommendation (Stipulation) with the PUCO resolving certain issues in this proceeding. The term of the ESP would be from June 1, 2018, to May 31, 2025, and included continuation of market-based customer rates through competitive procurement processes for generation, continuation and expansion of existing rider mechanisms and proposed new rider mechanisms relating to regulatory mandates, costs incurred to enhance the customer experience and transform the grid and a service reliability rider for vegetation management. The Stipulation established a regulatory model for the next seven years via the approval of the ESP and continued the current model for procuring supply for non-shopping customers, including recovery mechanisms. On December 19, 2018, the PUCO approved the Stipulation without material modification. Several parties, including the Office of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel (OCC), filed applications for rehearing. On February 6, 2019, the PUCO granted the parties rehearing. The PUCO issued its Second Entry on Rehearing on July 17, 2019, upholding its December 19, 2018 order and denying all assignments of error raised by the non-stipulating parties. On October 11, 2019, the OCC filed its Third Application for Rehearing arguing the PUCO erred in finding OCC’s Second Application for Rehearing as improper. Duke Energy Ohio filed its Memorandum Contra on October 21, 2019. The PUCO denied OCC's Third Application for Rehearing as a matter of law. On September 13, 2019, Interstate Gas Supply/Retail Supply Association filed appeals to the Supreme Court of Ohio claiming the PUCO’s order was in error because it approved unsupported charges to competitive suppliers and cost subsidies shopping customers pay for non-shopping customers. On September 16, 2019, the OCC filed an appeal challenging the PUCO’s approval of OVEC recovery through Duke Energy Ohio's Price Stability Rider (Rider PSR) alleging the FPA pre-empts the commission’s jurisdiction and that the record does not support finding that Rider PSR results in a limitation on shopping. Appellant briefs were filed on January 6, 2020. Appellee briefs were scheduled to be filed on March 16, 2020. On March 13, 2020, the Supreme Court of Ohio granted OCC's motion to withdraw its appeal related to OVEC recovery. On April 22, 2020, the Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed all remaining appeals of PUCO's December 19, 2018 order approving the stipulation. The case has been resolved.

Electric Base Rate Case

Duke Energy Ohio filed with the PUCO an electric distribution base rate case application and supporting testimony in March 2017. Duke Energy Ohio requested an estimated annual increase of approximately $15 million and a return on equity of 10.4%. The application also included requests to continue certain current riders and establish new riders. On September 26, 2017, the PUCO staff filed a report recommending a revenue decrease between approximately $18 million and $29 million and a return on equity between 9.22% and 10.24%. On April 13, 2018, Duke Energy Ohio filed a Motion to consolidate this proceeding with several other cases pending before the PUCO. On April 13, 2018, Duke Energy Ohio, along with certain intervenors, filed the Stipulation with the PUCO resolving numerous issues including those in this base rate proceeding. Major components of the Stipulation related to the base distribution rate case included a $19 million decrease in annual base distribution revenue with a return on equity unchanged from the current rate of 9.84% based upon a capital structure of 50.75% equity and 49.25% debt. Upon approval of new rates, Duke Energy Ohio's rider for recovering its initial SmartGrid implementation ended as these costs would be recovered through base rates. The Stipulation also renewed 14 existing riders, some of which were included in the company's ESP, and added two new riders including the Enhanced Service Reliability Rider to recover vegetation management costs not included in base rates, up to $10 million per year (operation and maintenance only) and the PowerForward Rider to recover costs incurred to enhance the customer experience and further transform the grid (operation and maintenance and capital). In addition to the changes in revenue attributable to the Stipulation, Duke Energy Ohio’s capital-related riders, including the Distribution Capital Investments Rider, began to reflect the lower federal income tax rate associated with the Tax Act with updates to customers’ bills beginning April 1, 2018. This change reduced electric revenue by approximately $20 million on an annualized basis. On December 19, 2018, the PUCO approved the Stipulation without material modification. New base rates were implemented effective January 2, 2019. Several parties, including the OCC, filed applications for rehearing. On February 6, 2019, the PUCO granted the parties rehearing. The PUCO issued its Second Entry on Rehearing on July 17, 2019, upholding its December 19, 2018 order and denying all assignments of error raised by the non-stipulating parties. On October 11, 2019, the OCC filed its Third Application for Rehearing arguing the PUCO erred in finding OCC’s Second Application for Rehearing as improper. Duke Energy Ohio filed its Memorandum Contra on October 21, 2019. The PUCO denied OCC's Third Application for Rehearing as a matter of law. On September 13, 2019, Interstate Gas Supply/Retail Supply Association filed appeals to the Supreme Court of Ohio claiming the PUCO’s order was in error because it approved unsupported charges to competitive suppliers and cost subsidies shopping customers pay for non-shopping customers. On September 16, 2019, the OCC filed an appeal challenging the PUCO’s approval of OVEC recovery through Rider PSR alleging the FPA pre-empts the commission’s jurisdiction and that the record does not support finding that Rider PSR results in a limitation on shopping. Appellant briefs were filed on January 6, 2020. Appellee briefs were scheduled to be filed on March 16, 2020. On March 13, 2020, the Supreme Court of Ohio granted OCC's motion to withdraw its appeal related to OVEC recovery. On April 22, 2020, the Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed all remaining appeals of PUCO's December 19, 2018 order approving the stipulation. The case has been resolved.

Ohio Valley Electric Corporation

On March 31, 2017, Duke Energy Ohio filed for approval to adjust its existing Rider PSR to pass through net costs related to its contractual entitlement to capacity and energy from the generating assets owned by OVEC. Duke Energy Ohio sought deferral authority for net costs incurred from April 1, 2017, until the new rates under Rider PSR were put into effect. On April 13, 2018, Duke Energy Ohio filed a Motion to consolidate this proceeding with several other cases currently pending before the PUCO. Also, on April 13, 2018, Duke Energy Ohio, along with certain intervenors, filed a Stipulation with the PUCO resolving numerous issues including those related to Rider PSR. The Stipulation activated Rider PSR for recovery of net costs incurred from January 1, 2018, through May 2025. On December 19, 2018, the PUCO approved the Stipulation without material modification. The PSR rider became effective April 1, 2019. Several parties, including the OCC, filed applications for rehearing. On February 6, 2019, the PUCO granted the parties rehearing. The PUCO issued its Second Entry on Rehearing on July 17, 2019, upholding its December 19, 2018 order and denying all assignments of error raised by the non-stipulating parties. On October 11, 2019, the OCC filed its Third Application for Rehearing arguing the PUCO erred in finding OCC’s Second Application for Rehearing as improper. Duke Energy Ohio filed its Memorandum Contra on October 21, 2019. The PUCO denied OCC's Third Application for Rehearing as a matter of law. On September 13, 2019, Interstate Gas Supply/Retail Supply Association filed appeals to the Supreme Court of Ohio claiming the PUCO’s order was in error because it approved unsupported charges to competitive suppliers and cost subsidies shopping customers pay for non-shopping customers. On September 16, 2019, the OCC filed an appeal challenging the PUCO’s approval of OVEC recovery through Rider PSR alleging the FPA pre-empts the commission’s jurisdiction and that the record does not support finding that Rider PSR results in a limitation on shopping. Appellant briefs were filed on January 6, 2020. Appellee briefs were scheduled to be filed on March 16, 2020. On March 13, 2020, the Supreme Court of Ohio granted OCC's motion to withdraw its appeal related to OVEC recovery. On April 22, 2020, the Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed all remaining appeals of PUCO's December 19, 2018 order approving the stipulation. The case has been resolved.

On July 23, 2019, an Ohio bill was signed into law that became effective January 1, 2020. Among other things, the bill allows for recovery of prudently incurred costs, net of any revenues, for Ohio investor-owned utilities that are participants under the OVEC power agreement. The recovery shall be through a non-bypassable rider that is to replace any existing recovery mechanism approved by the PUCO and will remain in place through 2030. The amounts recoverable from customers will be subject to an annual cap, with incremental costs that exceed such cap eligible for deferral and recovery subject to review. See Note 13 for additional discussion of Duke Energy Ohio's ownership interest in OVEC.

Energy Efficiency Cost Recovery

On March 28, 2014, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application for recovery of program costs, lost distribution revenue and performance incentives related to its energy efficiency and peak demand reduction programs. These programs are undertaken to comply with environmental mandates set forth in Ohio law. The PUCO approved Duke Energy Ohio’s application but found that Duke Energy Ohio was not permitted to use banked energy savings from previous years in order to calculate the amount of allowed incentive. This conclusion represented a change to the cost recovery mechanism that had been agreed upon by intervenors and approved by the PUCO in previous cases. The PUCO granted the applications for rehearing filed by Duke Energy Ohio and an intervenor. On January 6, 2016, Duke Energy Ohio and the PUCO Staff entered into a stipulation, pending the PUCO's approval, to resolve issues related to performance incentives and the PUCO Staff audit of 2013 costs, among other issues. In December 2015, based upon the stipulation, Duke Energy Ohio re-established approximately $20 million of the revenues that had been previously reversed. On October 26, 2016, the PUCO issued an order approving the stipulation without modification. In December 2016, the PUCO granted the intervenors request for rehearing for the purpose of further review. On April 10, 2019, the PUCO issued an Entry on Rehearing denying the rehearing applications. On February 26, 2020, the PUCO issued an order directing utilities to wind down their demand-side management programs by September 30, 2020, and to terminate the programs by December 31, 2020, in response to changes in Ohio law that eliminated Ohio's energy efficiency mandates. On March 27, 2020, Duke Energy Ohio filed an Application for Rehearing seeking clarification on the final true-up and reconciliation process after 2020. On April 22, 2020, the PUCO granted rehearing for further consideration.

On June 15, 2016, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application for approval of a three-year energy efficiency and peak demand reduction portfolio of programs. A stipulation and modified stipulation were filed on December 22, 2016, and January 27, 2017, respectively. Under the terms of the stipulations, which included support for deferral authority of all costs and a cap on shared savings incentives, Duke Energy Ohio has offered its energy efficiency and peak demand reduction programs throughout 2017. On February 3, 2017, Duke Energy Ohio filed for deferral authority of its costs incurred in 2017 in respect of its proposed energy efficiency and peak demand reduction portfolio. On September 27, 2017, the PUCO issued an order approving a modified stipulation. The modifications impose an annual cap of approximately $38 million on program costs and shared savings incentives combined, but allowed for Duke Energy Ohio to file for a waiver of costs in excess of the cap in 2017. The PUCO approved the waiver request for 2017 up to a total cost of $56 million. On November 21, 2017, the PUCO granted Duke Energy Ohio's and intervenor's applications for rehearing of the September 27, 2017, order. On January 10, 2018, the PUCO denied the OCC's application for rehearing of the PUCO order granting Duke Energy Ohio's waiver request; however, a decision on Duke Energy Ohio's application for rehearing remains pending. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Natural Gas Pipeline Extension

Duke Energy Ohio is proposing to install a new natural gas pipeline (the Central Corridor Project) in its Ohio service territory to increase system reliability and enable the retirement of older infrastructure. Duke Energy Ohio currently estimates the pipeline development costs and construction activities will range from $163 million to $245 million in direct costs (excluding overheads and AFUDC). On January 20, 2017, Duke Energy Ohio filed an amended application with the Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) for approval of one of two proposed routes. A public hearing was held on June 15, 2017. In April 2018, Duke Energy Ohio filed a motion with OPSB to establish a procedural schedule and filed supplemental information supporting its application. On December 18, 2018, the OPSB established a procedural schedule that included a local public hearing on March 21, 2019. An evidentiary hearing began on April 9, 2019, and concluded on April 11, 2019. Briefs were filed on May 13, 2019, and reply briefs were filed on June 10, 2019. On November 21, 2019, the OPSB approved Duke Energy Ohio's application subject to 41 conditions on construction. Applications for rehearing were filed by several stakeholders on December 23, 2019, arguing that the OPSB approval was incorrect. Duke Energy Ohio filed a memorandum contra on January 2, 2020. On February 20, 2020, the OPSB denied the rehearing requests. Construction of the pipeline extension is expected to be completed before the 2021/2022 winter season. On April 15, 2020, Joint Appellants filed a notice of appeal at the Supreme Court of Ohio of the OPSB’s decision approving Duke Energy Ohio’s Central Corridor application. On April 16, 2020, several of the Joint Appellants filed a motion for a Stay asking the court to suspend the OPSB’s order. On April 27, 2020, Duke Energy Ohio and the OPSB each filed a motion in opposition to the Stay. If the Stay is granted, Duke Energy Ohio cannot continue working during the appeal process. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

2012 Natural Gas Rate Case/MGP Cost Recovery

As part of its 2012 natural gas base rate case, Duke Energy Ohio has approval to defer and recover costs related to environmental remediation at two sites (East End and West End) that housed former MGP operations. Duke Energy Ohio has made annual applications for recovery of these deferred costs. Duke Energy Ohio has collected approximately $55 million in environmental remediation costs between 2009 through 2012 through a separate rider, Rider MGP, which is currently suspended. Duke Energy Ohio has made annual applications with the PUCO to recover its incremental remediation costs consistent with the PUCO’s directive in Duke Energy Ohio’s 2012 natural gas rate case. To date, the PUCO has not ruled on Duke Energy Ohio’s annual applications for the calendar years 2013 through 2017. On September 28, 2018, the staff of the PUCO issued a report recommending a disallowance of approximately $12 million of the $26 million in MGP remediation costs incurred between 2013 through 2017 that staff believes are not eligible for recovery. Staff interprets the PUCO’s 2012 Order granting Duke Energy Ohio recovery of MGP remediation as limiting the recovery to work directly on the East End and West End sites. On October 30, 2018, Duke Energy Ohio filed reply comments objecting to the staff’s recommendations and explaining, among other things, the obligation Duke Energy Ohio has under Ohio law to remediate all areas impacted by the former MGPs and not just physical property that housed the former plants and equipment. To date, the PUCO has not ruled on Duke Energy Ohio’s applications. On March 29, 2019, Duke Energy Ohio filed its annual application to recover incremental remediation expense for the calendar year 2018 seeking recovery of approximately $20 million in remediation costs. On July 12, 2019, the staff recommended a disallowance of approximately $11 million for work that staff believes occurred in areas not authorized for recovery. Additionally, staff recommended that any discussion pertaining to Duke Energy Ohio's recovery of ongoing MGP costs should be directly tied to or netted against insurance proceeds collected by Duke Energy Ohio. An evidentiary hearing began on November 18, 2019, and concluded on November 21, 2019. Initial briefs were filed on January 17, 2020, and reply briefs were filed on February 14, 2020. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

On March 31, 2020, Duke Energy Ohio filed its annual application to recover incremental remediation expense for the calendar year 2019 seeking recovery of approximately $39 million in remediation costs incurred during 2019. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

The 2012 PUCO order also contained conditional deadlines for completing the MGP environmental investigation and remediation costs at the MGP sites. Subsequent to the order, the deadline was extended to December 31, 2019. On May 10, 2019, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application requesting a continuation of its existing deferral authority for MGP remediation and investigation that must occur after December 31, 2019. On September 13, 2019, intervenor comments were filed opposing Duke Energy Ohio's request for continuation of existing deferral authority and on October 2, 2019, Duke Energy Ohio filed reply comments. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Duke Energy Kentucky Electric Base Rate Case

On September 3, 2019, Duke Energy Kentucky filed a rate case with the KPSC requesting an increase in electric base rates of approximately $46 million, which represents an approximate 12.5% increase across all customer classes. The request for rate increase is driven by increased investment in utility plant since the last electric base rate case in 2017. Duke Energy Kentucky seeks to implement a Storm Deferral Mechanism that will enable Duke Energy Kentucky to defer actual costs incurred for major storms that are over or under amounts in base rates. In response to large customers’ desire to have access to renewable resources, Duke Energy Kentucky is proposing a Green Source Advantage tariff designed for those large customers that wish to invest in renewable energy resources to meet sustainability goals. Duke Energy Kentucky is proposing an electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure pilot and modest incentives to assist customers in investing in EV technologies. Additionally, Duke Energy Kentucky is proposing to build an approximate 3.4-MW distribution battery energy storage system to be attached to Duke Energy Kentucky’s distribution system providing frequency regulation and enhanced reliability to Kentucky customers. The commission issued a procedural schedule with two rounds of discovery and opportunities for intervenor and rebuttal testimony. The Kentucky Attorney General filed its testimony recommending an increase of approximately $26 million. On January 31, 2020, Duke Energy Kentucky filed rebuttal testimony updating its rate increase calculations to approximately $44 million. Hearings were held on February 19-20, 2020, with briefing completed March 20, 2020. On April 27, 2020, the KPSC issued its decision approving a $24 million increase for Duke Energy Kentucky with a 9.25% return on equity. The KPSC denied Duke Energy Kentucky’s major storm deferral mechanism and EV and battery storage pilots. The KPSC approved Duke Energy Kentucky’s Green Source Advantage tariff. New customer rates were effective on May 1, 2020. Duke Energy Kentucky is evaluating the order and whether to seek rehearing. Duke Energy Kentucky cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Duke Energy Indiana

COVID-19

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, on March 6, 2020, Governor Eric Holcomb issued Executive Order No. 20-02, which by law expired in 30 days unless extended, declaring a public health disaster emergency in the state of Indiana. On April 3, 2020, the governor then issued Executive Order No. 20-17 which renewed the public health disaster emergency declaration for an additional 30 days to May 5, 2020. On May 1, 2020, Executive Order No, 20-25 further renewed the public health disaster emergency an additional 30 days to June 4, 2020. All other Executive Orders issued since March 6, 2020, (Nos. 20-04 – 20-16) were renewed for the same 30-day period, provided they were supplements to Executive Order No. 20-02. Executive Order No. 20-05 was issued on March 19, 2020, requiring utilities in the state to suspend disconnections of utility service. Duke Energy Indiana had already voluntarily suspended all disconnections and is waiving late payment fees and check return fees. The utility is also waiving credit card fees for residential customers.

On May 8, 2020, Duke Energy Indiana, along with other Indiana utilities, filed a request with the IURC for approval of deferral treatment for costs and revenue reductions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. The utilities requested initial deferral approval in July 2020, with individual subdockets for each utility to be established for consideration of utility-specific cost and revenue impacts, cost recovery timing and customer payment plans. The same day, the Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor filed a petition asking the IURC to continue to suspend disconnections, allow the utilities accounting deferrals and require tacking of cost savings. Duke Energy Indiana cannot predict the outcome of thIs matter.

2019 Indiana Rate Case

On July 2, 2019, Duke Energy Indiana filed a general rate case with the IURC, its first general rate case in 16 years, for a rate increase for retail customers of approximately $395 million. The request for rate increase is driven by strategic investments to generate cleaner electricity, improve reliability and serve a growing customer base. The request is premised upon a Duke Energy Indiana rate base of $10.2 billion as of December 31, 2018, and adjusted for projected changes through December 31, 2020. On September 9, 2019, Duke Energy Indiana revised its revenue request from $395 million to $393 million and filed updated testimony for the Retail Rate Case. The updated filing reflects a clarification in the presentation of Utility Receipts Tax, a $2 million reduction in the revenue requirement for revenues that will remain in riders and changes to allocation of revenue requirements within rate classes. The Utility Receipts Tax is currently embedded in base rates and rider rates. The proposed treatment is to include the Utility Receipts Tax as a line item on the customer bill rather than included in rates. The request is an approximate 15% increase in retail revenues and approximately 17% when including estimated Utility Receipts Tax. The rebuttal case, filed on December 4, 2019, updated the requested revenue requirement to result in a 15.6% or $396 million average retail rate increase, including the impacts of the Utility Receipts Tax. Hearings concluded on February 7, 2020, and rates are expected to be effective mid-2020. Duke Energy Indiana cannot predict the outcome of these matters.

The IURC determined to take two issues out of the rate case and place them in separate subdocket proceedings due to the complexity of the rate case. The commission moved the request for approval of an electric transportation pilot and future coal ash recovery issues to separate subdockets. Coal ash expenditures prior to 2019 are still included in the rate case. Duke Energy Indiana filed testimony on April 15, 2020, in the coal ash subdocket requesting recovery for the post-2018 coal ash basin closure costs for plans that have been approved by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management as well as continuing deferral, with carrying costs, on the balance. An evidentiary hearing is scheduled to begin on September 14, 2020, and an order is expected in the first quarter of 2021. Duke Energy Indiana cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Piedmont

COVID-19 Filings

North Carolina

On March 10, 2020, Governor Roy Cooper issued Executive Order No. 116 declaring a state of emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In an effort to help mitigate the financial impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on their customers, on March 19, 2020, Piedmont filed a request with the NCUC seeking authorization to waive: (1) any late payment charges incurred by a residential or nonresidential customer, effective March 21, 2020; (2) the application of fees for checks returned for insufficient funds for residential and nonresidential customers; (3) the reconnection charge when a residential or nonresidential customer seeks to have service restored for those customers whose service was recently disconnected for nonpayment and to work with customers regarding the other requirements to restore service, including re-establishment of credit; and (4) the fees and charges associated with the use of credit cards or debit cards to pay residential electric utility bills, effective March 21, 2020. The NCUC granted Piedmont’s request on March 20, 2020.

On March 31, 2020, the governor issued Executive Order No. 124, which, in addition to requiring the steps in the NCUC order noted above, stated that nothing in Executive Order No. 124 shall relieve a customer of its obligation to pay bills for receipt of utility services provided. Executive Order No. 124 remains in effect for 60 days unless otherwise rescinded or replaced with a superseding Executive Order.

South Carolina

On March 13, 2020, Governor Henry McMaster issued Executive Order No. 2020-08 declaring a state of emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The governor also issued a letter on March 14, 2020, to the ORS Executive Director regarding the suspension of disconnection of essential utility services for nonpayment. On March 16, 2020, citing the governor’s letter, the ORS filed a request asking the PSCSC to grant waivers so that utilities could suspend disconnections of utility services for nonpayment. Piedmont supported such motion. On March 18, 2020, the PSCSC issued an order approving such waivers, and also approved waivers for regulations related to late fees and reconnect fees. The PSCSC's order also required utilities to track the financial impacts of actions taken pursuant to such waivers for possible reporting to the PSCSC.

On April 30, 2020, the ORS requested the PSCSC grant a waiver of the applicable regulations to allow customers the flexibility to obtain deferred payment plans longer than 6 months for past-due amounts. On May 5, 2020, Piedmont filed responsive comments stating that while utility bills will remain due, Piedmont does not plan to immediately reinstitute disconnection upon the expiration of the state of emergency and intends to work through a potential grace period as economic recovery begins. Piedmont also concurred with the observation of the ORS that reduced usage is impacting the fixed cost recovery and revenue assumptions included in rates. Those costs include not only ongoing operational and financing costs necessary to serve customers, but also the borrowings necessary to support extended payment arrangements that will be an important part of emerging from the COVID-19 pandemic. Piedmont will continue to track such costs, lost revenues and potential cost savings for future evaluation by the PSCSC.

Additionally, on May 8, 2020, the ORS filed a motion for the PSCSC to solicit comments from utilities and interested stakeholders regarding measures to be taken to mitigate impacts of COVID-19 on utility customers and require recordkeeping. In a detailed motion, the ORS specifically asked the PSCSC to: (1) solicit input from utilities regarding the temporary mitigation measures to address COVID-19; (2) request utilities to inform the PSCSC of the plans utilities have to return to normalized operations; (3) require utilities to track revenue impacts, incremental costs and savings related to COVID-19 and file the findings with the PSCSC on a quarterly basis; and (4) include any other matters that the PSCSC believes should be addressed. The ORS requests that such comments be filed within 30 days of a PSCSC order approving the motion. Piedmont cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Tennessee

On March 12, 2020, Governor Bill Lee issued Executive Order No. 14 declaring a state of emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In an effort to help mitigate the financial impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on their customers, on March 20, 2020, Piedmont filed a request with the TPUC seeking authorization to waive, effective March 21, 2020: (1) any late payment charges incurred by a residential or nonresidential customer; (2) the application of fees for checks returned for insufficient funds for residential and nonresidential customers; and (3) the reconnection charge when a residential or nonresidential customer seeks to have service restored for those customers whose service was recently disconnected for nonpayment and to work with customers regarding the other requirements to restore service, including re-establishment of credit. The TPUC granted Piedmont’s request by Order issued March 31,2020. The Order also stated that customers were not relieved of their obligation to pay for utility services received.

North Carolina Integrity Management Rider Filing

In April 2020, Piedmont filed a petition with the NCUC under the IMR mechanism to collect an additional $15 million in annual revenues, effective June 2020, based on the eligible capital investments closed to integrity and safety projects over the six-month period ending March 31, 2020. Piedmont cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Tennessee Integrity Management Rider Filing

In November 2019, Piedmont filed a petition with the TPUC under the IMR mechanism to collect an additional $2 million in annual revenues, effective January 2020, based on the eligible capital investments closed to integrity and safety projects over the 12-month period ending October 31, 2019. An evidentiary hearing occurred on May 11, 2020. Upon approval from the TPUC, the revenue adjustment will be implemented, retroactive to January 2020. Piedmont cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

OTHER REGULATORY MATTERS

Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC

On September 2, 2014, Duke Energy, Dominion Energy, Inc. (Dominion), Piedmont and Southern Company Gas announced the formation of Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC (ACP) to build and own the proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP pipeline), an approximately 600-mile interstate natural gas pipeline running from West Virginia to North Carolina. The ACP pipeline is designed to meet, in part, the needs identified by Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Piedmont. Dominion will be responsible for building and operating the ACP pipeline and holds a leading ownership percentage in ACP of 53%, following the purchase in March 2020 of Southern Company Gas' 5% ownership interest. Duke Energy owns a 47% interest, which is accounted for as an equity method investment through its Gas Utilities and Infrastructure segment. See Note 11 for additional information related to Duke Energy's ownership interest. Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Piedmont, among others, will be customers of the pipeline. Purchases will be made under several 20-year supply contracts, subject to state regulatory approval.

In 2018, the FERC issued a series of Notices to Proceed, which authorized the project to begin certain construction-related activities along the pipeline route, including supply header and compressors. On May 11, 2018, and October 19, 2018, FERC issued Notices to Proceed allowing full construction activities in all areas of West Virginia except in the Monongahela National Forest. On July 24, 2018, FERC issued a Notice to Proceed allowing full construction activities along the project route in North Carolina. On October 19, 2018, the conditions to effectiveness of the Virginia 401 water quality certification were satisfied and, following receipt of the Virginia 401 certification, ACP filed a request for FERC to issue a Notice to Proceed with full construction activities in Virginia. Due to legal challenges not directly related to the request for a Notice to Proceed in Virginia, this request is still pending.

ACP is the subject of challenges in state and federal courts and agencies, including, among others, challenges of the project’s biological opinion (BiOp) and incidental take statement (ITS), crossings of the Blue Ridge Parkway, the Appalachian Trail, and the Monongahela and George Washington National Forests, the project’s U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 404 permit, the project's air permit for a compressor station at Buckingham, Virginia, the FERC Environmental Impact Statement order and the FERC order approving the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. Each of these challenges alleges non-compliance on the part of federal and state permitting authorities and adverse ecological consequences if the project is permitted to proceed. Since December 2018, notable developments in these challenges include a stay in December 2018 issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Fourth Circuit) and the same court's July 26, 2019, vacatur of the project's BiOp and ITS (which stay and subsequent vacatur halted most project construction activity), a Fourth Circuit decision vacating the project's permits to cross the Monongahela and George Washington National Forests and the Appalachian Trail, the Fourth Circuit's remand to USACE of ACP's Huntington District 404 verification, the Fourth Circuit’s remand to the National Park Service of ACP’s Blue Ridge Parkway right-of-way and the most recent vacatur of the air permit for a compressor station at Buckingham, Virginia. ACP is vigorously defending these challenges and coordinating with the federal and state authorities which are the direct parties to the challenges. The Solicitor General of the United States and ACP filed petitions for certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States on June 25, 2019, regarding the Appalachian Trail crossing and certiorari was granted on October 4, 2019. The Supreme Court hearing took place on February 24, 2020, and a ruling is expected in the second quarter of 2020.

In anticipation of the Fourth Circuit's vacatur of the BiOp and ITS, ACP and the FWS commenced work in mid-May of 2019 to set the basis for a reissued BiOp and ITS. On February 10, 2020, the FERC issued a letter to FWS requesting the re-initiation of formal consultation in support of reissuing the BiOp and ITS, and on April 14, 2020, ACP submitted the Biological Assessment, which may form the foundation for FWS' BiOp. ACP continues coordinating and working with FWS and other parties in preparation for a reissuance of the BiOp and ITS.

ACP triggered the Adverse Government Actions (AGA) clause of its agreements with its customers in December 2019. Formal negotiations have resulted in agreement on material terms, such as updated pricing and construction milestones. The modified customer agreements are expected to be executed by the third quarter of 2020.

On April 15, 2020, the United States District Court for the District of Montana granted partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in Northern Plains Resource Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Northern Plains), vacating USACE’s Nationwide Permit 12 (NWP 12) and remanding it to USACE for consultation under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. In Northern Plains, the court ruled that NWP 12 was unlawful because USACE did not consult under the ESA with the FWS and/or National Marine Fisheries Service prior to NWP 12’s reissuance in 2017. Because NWP 12 has been vacated and its application enjoined, USACE currently has suspended verification of any new or pending applications under NWP 12 until further court action clarifies the situation. ACP is reviewing the potential impact of this ruling to its own reliance on NWP 12 for small water body crossings along the pipeline route, as well as potential mitigation measures.

Given the legal challenges and ongoing discussions with customers, ACP expects the project to enter full in-service in the first half of 2022.

The delays resulting from the legal challenges described above have also impacted the cost for the project. Project cost is approximately $8 billion, excluding financing costs. This estimate is based on the current facts available around construction costs and timelines, and is subject to future changes as those facts develop. Abnormal weather, work delays (including delays due to judicial or regulatory action or COVID-19 social distancing) and other conditions may result in cost or schedule modifications, a suspension of AFUDC for ACP and/or impairment charges potentially material to Duke Energy's cash flows, financial position and results of operations.

Duke Energy’s investment in ACP was $1.2 billion at March 31, 2020. Duke Energy evaluated this investment for impairment at March 31, 2020, and December 31, 2019, and determined that fair value approximated carrying value and therefore no impairment was necessary. Duke Energy also has a guarantee agreement supporting its share of the ACP revolving credit facility. Duke Energy’s maximum exposure to loss under the terms of the guarantee is $845 million, which represents 47% of the outstanding borrowings under the credit facility as of March 31, 2020. See Note 13 for additional information.

Constitution Pipeline Company, LLC

Duke Energy owned a 24% ownership interest in Constitution, which was accounted for as an equity method investment. Constitution was a natural gas pipeline project slated to transport natural gas supplies from the Marcellus supply region in northern Pennsylvania to major northeastern markets. The pipeline was to be constructed and operated by Williams Partners L.P., which had a 41% ownership share. The remaining interest was held by Cabot Oil and Gas Corporation and WGL Holdings, Inc. In December 2014, Constitution received approval from the FERC to construct and operate the proposed pipeline. However, since April 2016, Constitution had stopped construction and discontinued capitalization of future development costs due to permitting delays and adverse rulings by regulatory agencies and courts.

In late 2019, Constitution determined that its principal shipper would not agree to an amended precedent agreement. Without such an amendment, the project would no longer be viable and, as of February 5, 2020, the Constitution partners formally resolved to initiate the dissolution of Constitution, and to terminate the Constitution Pipeline project. See Note 11 for additional information related to ownership interest and carrying value of the investment. Williams Partners L.P., as project Operator, is currently working to liquidate the project's assets.

Potential Coal Plant Retirements

The Subsidiary Registrants periodically file IRPs 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. IRPs filed by the Subsidiary Registrants included planning assumptions to potentially retire certain coal-fired generating facilities in North Carolina and Indiana earlier than their current estimated useful lives. 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.

The table below contains the net carrying value of generating facilities planned for retirement or included in recent IRPs as evaluated for potential retirement. Dollar amounts in the table below are included in Net property, plant and equipment on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of March 31, 2020, and exclude capitalized asset retirement costs.

		Remaining Net
	Capacity	Book Value
	(in MW)	(in millions)
Duke Energy Carolinas
Allen Steam Station Units 1-3(a)	585	$	149
Duke Energy Indiana
Gallagher Units 2 and 4(b)	280	118
Gibson Units 1-5(c)	3,132	1,708
Cayuga Units 1-2(c)	1,005	964
Total Duke Energy	5,002	$	2,939

(a) Duke Energy Carolinas will retire Allen Steam Station Units 1 through 3 by December 31, 2024, as part of the resolution of a lawsuit involving alleged New Source Review violations.

(b) Duke Energy Indiana committed to either retire or stop burning coal at Gallagher Units 2 and 4 by December 31, 2022, as part of the 2016 settlement of Edwardsport IGCC matters.

(c) On July 1, 2019, Duke Energy Indiana filed its 2018 IRP with the IURC. The 2018 IRP included scenarios evaluating the potential retirement of coal-fired generating units at Gibson and Cayuga. The rate case filed July 2, 2019, includes proposed depreciation rates reflecting retirement dates from 2026 to 2038.

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 approvals and therefore cannot be assured.

Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress are evaluating the potential for coal-fired generating unit retirements with a net carrying value of approximately $707 million and $1.2 billion, respectively, included in Net property, plant and equipment on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of March 31, 2020.