8-K

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 8-K

CURRENT REPORT

Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): April 22, 2014

Commission file number	Registrant, State of Incorporation or Organization, Address of Principal Executive Offices, and Telephone Number	IRS Employer Identification No.
1-32853	DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION	20-2777218
	(a Delaware corporation) 550 South Tryon Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28202-1803 704-382-6200
1-04928	DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC	56-0205520
	(a North Carolina limited liability company) (a North Carolina corporation) 410 South Wilmington Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1748

Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:

o Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)

o Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)

o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))

o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240. 13e-4(c))

Item 8.01.  Other Events.

On April 22, 2014, Paul Newton, the North Carolina State President of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (the “Company”) testified before the North Carolina Joint Environmental Review Commission on the Company’s response to the Dan River coal ash release that occurred on February 2, 2014, and its near-term actions to address coal ash at five of the Company’s sites across North Carolina.  He also discussed the Company’s preparations to begin a comprehensive, longer-term ash basin strategy that involves a site-specific, fact based approach at each of its coal plant sites to be completed by the end of 2014.

Attached as Exhibit 99.1 to this Form 8-K is a chart comparing the estimated costs of several possible approaches to ash management at our North Carolina ash basin sites.  The attached estimates assume that coal ash will retain a non-hazardous designation by the Environmental Protection Agency and exclude financing, inflation and increased operations and maintenance costs.

A copy of this chart has also been posted on Duke Energy Corporation’s (“Duke Energy”) ash management website at http://www.duke-energy.com/ash-management/.

Item 9.01.  Financial Statements and Exhibits.

(d)Exhibits.

99.1  North Carolina Coal Ash Plan Cost Estimate Comparisons

2

SIGNATURE

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

	DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION
Date: April 22, 2014	By:	/s/ Julie S. Janson
	Name:	Julia S. Janson
	Title:	Executive Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary

3

EXHIBIT INDEX

Exhibit	Description
99.1	North Carolina Coal Ash Plan Cost Estimate Comparisons

4

EX-99.1

Exhibit 99.1

$0.0 $1.0 $2.0 $3.0 $4.0 $5.0 $6.0 $7.0 $8.0 $9.0 $10.0 ~$0.5B ~$0.5B $1.0B - $1.5B $4.0B - $5.5B $6.0B - $8.0B The comprehensive, long-term closure strategy to be developed for remaining sites by the end of 2014 will be a site-specific, fact-based approach. $7.0B - $10.0B $2.0B - $2.5B Hybrid cap in place closure at 10 sites not specifically addressed in March 12 Governor's Letter Additional costs associated with Duke's proposal in the March 12 Governor's Letter (Move three sites to new, lined structural fills or landfills; continue Asheville structural fill; convert remaining units to dry fly ash) Dry bottom ash handling & fly ash reliability improvements Increment to excavate to landfills (versus hybrid cap in place) at 10 remaining sites (timeframe 20 to 30 years), pending sitespecific analysis Increment to all-dry pneumatic bottom ash handling systems and thermally-driven evaporation of other process water North Carolina Coal Ash Plan Cost Estimate Comparisons (1) Assumes non-hazardous designation by the US EPA (2) All costs expressed are rough order of magnitude estimates. These are subject to detailed engineering studies and do not include financing, inflation and increased operations and maintenance costs. Duke Energy supports a prudent, environmentally sound, and cost effective solution along this spectrum that addresses both active and retired sites. 1, 2 Baseline Assumption $1.0B - $2.0B $B Full Excavation All-Dry Systems

140047-Q4-Earnings-PPT-insidebackground.jpgTerms and Background Fly ash – A fine material similar to the consistency of talcum powder. Fly ash accounts for about 78 percent of the coal ash generated annually in the United States. When many early coal plants were built, fly ash was emitted through smokestacks; later, emissions equipment captured it, and it has been managed since in either ash basins or in landfills. Bottom ash – A courser material collected from the bottom of coal-fired boilers. Dry fly ash handling – This involves converting from fly-ash storage in basins to dry fly-ash handling systems with disposal in permitted lined landfills. Current regulations require landfills to have synthetic liners, as well as drainage collection systems and groundwater monitoring wells. Hybrid cap in place – This includes excavating some ash to consolidate it on site and installing synthetic barriers to keep the ash dry and protect groundwater. Synthetic barriers are expected to have a design life of several hundred years. Excavate and relocate – These estimates represent moving basin ash from plant sites to new lined structural fills or lined landfills. This is being considered where necessary and is determined by site-specific conditions. Our closure approach at these sites will be comprehensive; if our analyses show we need to excavate and relocate other ash stored outside of basins in addition to ash in basins, we’ll take those steps as well. Bottom ash handling options – Currently bottom ash at six of our seven operating North Carolina plants is transported by water to an active ash basin. To stop water flows to active basins so they can be dewatered and closed, we need to convert plants to another form of bottom ash storage. In our baseline assumptions, we were planning for a form of dry bottom ash handling that still transports it with water, since that water is valuable in the treatment of other plant water streams. If we were required to convert to entirely dry bottom ash, that involves a much more expensive pneumatic system and also requires advanced thermal treatment systems, which would use part of the energy produced at each station to evaporate all remaining water. Wastewater treatment options – Once we are no longer sending wet ash to basins, there are still other water sources from plant operations that would need to be stopped or rerouted. We would need to treat these remaining water streams before discharging them into the receiving water body. Treatment could range from filtration to advanced thermal treatment systems.