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

Cliffside Unit 6. On March 21, 2007, the NCUC issued an order allowing Duke Energy Carolinas to build an 800 MW coal-fired unit. Following final equipment selection and the completion of detailed engineering, Cliffside Unit 6 is expected to have a net output of 825 MW. On January 31, 2008, Duke Energy Carolinas filed its updated cost estimate of $1.8 billion (excluding AFUDC of $600 million) for Cliffside Unit 6. In March 2010, Duke Energy Carolinas filed an update to the cost estimate of $1.8 billion (excluding AFUDC) with the NCUC where it reduced the estimated AFUDC financing costs to $400 million as a result of the December 2009 rate case settlement with the NCUC that allowed the inclusion of construction work in progress in rate base prospectively. Duke Energy Carolinas believes that the overall cost of Cliffside Unit 6 will be further reduced by $125 million in federal advanced clean coal tax credits, as discussed in Note 5. Cliffside Unit 6 is expected to begin commercial operation by the end of 2012.

Dan River Combined Cycle Facility. In June 2008, the NCUC issued its order approving the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) applications to construct a 620 MW combined cycle natural gas fired generating facility at Duke Energy Carolinas' existing Dan River Steam Station. The Division of Air Quality (DAQ) issued a final air permit authorizing construction of the Dan River combined cycle natural gas-fired generating unit in August 2009. The Dan River project is expected to begin operation by the end of 2012. Based on the most updated cost estimates, total costs (including AFUDC) for the Dan River project are estimated to be $715 million.

William States Lee III Nuclear Station. In December 2007, Duke Energy Carolinas filed an application with the NRC, which has been docketed for review, for a combined Construction and Operating License (COL) for two Westinghouse AP1000 (advanced passive) reactors for the proposed William States Lee III Nuclear Station (Lee Nuclear Station) at a site in Cherokee County, South Carolina. Each reactor is capable of producing 1,117 MW. Submitting the COL application does not commit Duke Energy Carolinas to build nuclear units. Through several separate orders, the NCUC and PSCSC have concurred with the prudency of Duke Energy incurring project development and pre-construction costs.

V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Letter of Intent. In July 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas signed a letter of intent with Santee Cooper related to the potential acquisition by Duke Energy Carolinas of a 5% to 10% ownership interest in the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station being developed by Santee Cooper and SCE&G near Jenkinsville, South Carolina. The letter of intent provides a path for Duke Energy Carolinas to conduct the necessary due diligence to determine if future participation in this project is beneficial for its customers.

2011 North Carolina Rate Case. On January 27, 2012, the NCUC approved a settlement agreement between Duke Energy Carolinas and the North Carolina Utilities Public Staff (Public Staff). The terms of the agreement include an average 7.2% increase in retail revenues, or approximately $309 million annually beginning in February 2012. The agreement includes a 10.5% return on equity and a capital structure of 53% equity and 47% long-term debt.

On March 28, 2012, the North Carolina Attorney General filed a notice of appeal with the NCUC challenging the rate of return approved in the agreement. On April 17, 2012, the NCUC denied Duke Energy Carolinas' request to dismiss the notice of appeal. Briefs were filed on August 22, 2012 by the North Carolina Attorney General and the AARP with the North Carolina Supreme Court, which is hearing the appeal. Duke Energy Carolinas filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on August 31, 2012 and the North Carolina Attorney General filed a response to that motion on September 13, 2012. Briefs by the appellees, Duke Energy Carolinas and the Public Staff, were filed on September 21, 2012. The North Carolina Supreme Court denied Duke Energy Carolinas' motion to dismiss on procedural grounds and set the matter for oral arguments on November 13, 2012.

2011 South Carolina Rate Case. On January 25, 2012, the PSCSC approved a settlement agreement between Duke Energy Carolinas and the ORS, Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, and Sam's East, Inc. The Commission of Public Works for the city of Spartanburg, South Carolina and the Spartanburg Sanitary Sewer District were not parties to the agreement; however, they did not object to the agreement. The terms of the agreement include an average 5.98% increase in retail and commercial revenues, or approximately $93 million annually beginning February 6, 2012. The agreement includes a 10.5% return on equity, a capital structure of 53% equity and 47% long-term debt.

2012 North Carolina Rate Case. On October 12, 2012, Progress Energy Carolinas filed an application with the NCUC for an increase in base rates of approximately $387 million, or an average 12% increase in revenues. The request for increase is based upon an 11.25% return on equity and a capital structure of 55% equity and 45% long-term debt. The rate increase is designed primarily to recover the cost of plant modernization and other capital investments in generation, transmission and distribution systems, as well as increased expenditures for nuclear plants and personnel, vegetation management and other operating costs. The rate case includes a corresponding decrease in Progress Energy Carolinas' energy efficiency and demand side management rider, resulting in a net requested increase of $359 million, or 11% increase in revenues.

Progress Energy Carolinas expects revised rates, if approved, to go into effect in the second or third quarter of 2013.

HF Lee and L.V. Sutton Combined Cycle Facilities. Progress Energy Carolinas is in the process of constructing two new generating facilities, which consist of an approximately 920 MW combined cycle natural gas-fired generating facility at the HF Lee Energy Complex (Lee) in Wayne County, N.C., and an approximately 625 MW natural gas-fired generating facility at its existing L.V. Sutton Steam Station (Sutton) in New Hanover County, N.C. Lee has an expected in-service date of December 2012 and Sutton has an expected in-service date of December 2013. Based on updated cost estimates, total costs (including AFUDC) for the Lee and Sutton projects are estimated to be approximately $750 million and $600 million, respectively.

Harris Nuclear Station Expansion. In 2006, Progress Energy Carolinas selected a site at its existing Harris Nuclear Station (Harris) to evaluate for possible future nuclear expansion. On February 19, 2008, Progress Energy Carolinas filed its COL application with the NRC for two Westinghouse Electric AP1000 reactors at Harris, which the NRC docketed on April 17, 2008. No petitions to intervene have been admitted in the Harris COL application.

2012 FPSC Settlement Agreement. On February 22, 2012, the FPSC approved a comprehensive settlement agreement among Progress Energy Florida, the Florida Office of Public Counsel and other consumer advocates. The 2012 FPSC Settlement Agreement will continue through the last billing cycle of December 2016. The agreement addresses three principal matters: (i) Progress Energy Florida's proposed Levy Nuclear Project cost recovery, (ii) the Crystal River Nuclear Station – Unit 3 (Crystal River Unit 3) delamination prudence review then pending before the FPSC, and (iii) certain base rate issues. Refer to each of these respective sections for further discussion.

Crystal River Nuclear Station - Unit 3 (Crystal River Unit 3). In September 2009, Crystal River Unit 3 began an outage for normal refueling and maintenance as well as an uprate project to increase its generating capability and to replace two steam generators. During preparations to replace the steam generators, workers discovered a delamination (or separation) within the concrete at the periphery of the containment building, which resulted in an extension of the outage. After analysis, it was determined that the concrete delamination at Crystal River Unit 3 was caused by redistribution of stresses in the containment wall that occurred when an opening was created to accommodate the replacement of the unit's steam generators. In March 2011, the work to return the plant to service was suspended after monitoring equipment identified a new delamination that occurred in a different section of the outer wall after the repair work was completed and during the late stages of retensioning the containment building. Crystal River Unit 3 has remained out of service while Progress Energy Florida conducted an engineering analysis and review of the new delamination and evaluates possible repair options.

Subsequent to March 2011, monitoring equipment has detected additional changes and further damage in the partially tensioned containment building and additional cracking or delaminations could occur.

Progress Energy Florida worked with two potential vendors for repair work and received repair proposals from both vendors. After analyzing those proposals, Progress Energy Florida selected a single vendor that would be engaged to complete the repair of Crystal River Unit 3 should the choice to repair be made. See discussion below regarding Crystal River Unit 3 cost recovery and other provisions, as a result of a 2012 settlement agreement with the FPSC.

Based on an analysis of possible repair options performed by outside engineering consultants, Progress Energy Florida selected an option, which would entail systematically removing and replacing concrete in substantial portions of the containment structure walls. The preliminary cost estimate of $900 million to $1.3 billion is currently under review and could change following completion of further detailed engineering studies, vendor negotiations and final risk assessments. These engineering studies and risk assessments include analyses by independent entities currently in progress. The risk assessment process includes analysis of events that, although currently deemed unlikely, could have a significant impact on the cost estimate or feasibility of repair. This preliminary cost estimate and project scope are under review, as described further below, however, the cost estimate is trending upward.

In March 2012, Duke Energy commissioned an independent review team led by Zapata Incorporated (Zapata) to review and assess the Progress Energy Florida Crystal River Unit 3 repair plan, including the repair scope, risks, costs and schedule. In its final report, Zapata found that the current repair scope appears to be technically feasible, but there are significant risks that need to be addressed regarding the approach, construction methodology, scheduling and licensing. Zapata performed four separate analyses of the estimated project cost and schedule to repair Crystal River Unit 3, including; (i) an independent review of the current repair scope (without existing assumptions or data), of which Zapata estimated costs of $1.49 billion with a project duration of 35 months; (ii) a review of Progress Energy Florida's previous bid information, which included cost estimate data from Progress Energy Florida, of which Zapata estimated costs of $1.55 billion with a project duration of 31 months; (iii) an expanded scope of work scenario, that included the Progress Energy Florida scope plus the replacement of the containment building dome and the removal and replacement of concrete in the lower building elevations, of which Zapata estimated costs of approximately $2.44 billion with a project duration of 60 months, and; (iv) a “worst case” scenario, assuming Progress Energy Florida performed the more limited scope of work, and at the conclusion of that work, additional damage occurred in the dome and in the lower elevations, which forced replacement of each, of which Zapata estimated costs of $3.43 billion with a project duration of 96 months. The principal difference between Zapata's estimate and Progress Energy Florida's previous estimate appears to be due to the respective levels of contingencies included by each party, including higher project risk and longer project duration. Progress Energy Florida has filed a copy of the Zapata report with the FPSC and with the NRC. The FPSC held a status conference on October 30, 2012 to discuss Duke Energy's analysis of the Zapata report.

Progress Energy Florida continues to analyze the various aspects of the repair option as well as the option of early retirement. This analysis includes the evaluation of the potential implications to scope, cost estimate and schedule from the project risks identified in the Zapata report. A number of factors could affect the decision to repair, the return-to-service date and repair costs incurred, including, but not limited to, state regulatory and NRC reviews, insurance recoveries from Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (NEIL), the ability to obtain builder's risk insurance with appropriate coverage, final engineering designs, vendor contract negotiations, the ultimate work scope completion, performance testing, weather and the impact of new information discovered during additional testing and analysis. Duke Energy will proceed with the repair option only if there is a high degree of confidence that the repair can be successfully completed and licensed within the final estimated costs and schedule, and it is in the best interests of Duke Energy's customers, joint owners and investors.

Progress Energy Florida maintains insurance coverage against incremental costs of replacement power resulting from prolonged accidental outages at Crystal River Unit 3 through NEIL. NEIL provides insurance coverage for repair costs for covered events, as well as the cost of replacement power of up to $490 million per event when the unit is out of service as a result of these events. Actual replacement power costs have exceeded the insurance coverage. Progress Energy Florida also maintains insurance coverage through NEIL's accidental property damage program, which provides insurance coverage up to $2.25 billion with a $10 million deductible per claim.

Progress Energy Florida is continuing to work with NEIL for recovery of applicable repair costs and associated replacement power costs. NEIL has made payments on the first delamination; however, NEIL has withheld payment of approximately $70 million of replacement power cost claims and repair cost claims related to the first delamination event. NEIL has unresolved concerns and has not made any payments on the second delamination and has not provided a written coverage decision for either delamination. In addition, no replacement power reimbursements have been received from NEIL since May 2011. These considerations led Progress Energy Florida to conclude that it was not probable that NEIL will voluntarily pay the full coverage amounts that Progress Energy Florida believes them to owe under the applicable insurance policies. Consistent with the terms and procedures under the insurance coverage with NEIL, Progress Energy Florida has agreed to mediation prior to commencing any formal dispute resolution. Progress Energy Florida is in the process of providing information as requested by NEIL and currently have scheduled the mediation to commence in November 2012. Given the circumstances, accounting standards require full recovery to be probable to recognize an insurance receivable. As of the merger date and September 30, 2012, Progress Energy Florida has no insurance receivables from NEIL related to either the first or second delamination. Progress Energy Florida continues to believe that all applicable costs associated with bringing Crystal River Unit 3 back into service are covered under all insurance policies.

The following table summarizes the Crystal River Unit 3 replacement power and repair costs and recovery, as discussed above, through September 30, 2012:

As a result of the 2012 FPSC Settlement Agreement, Progress Energy Florida will be permitted to recover prudently incurred fuel and purchased power costs through its fuel clause without regard for the absence of Crystal River Unit 3 for the period from the beginning of the Crystal River Unit 3 outage through the earlier of the return of Crystal River Unit 3 to commercial service or December 31, 2016. If Progress Energy Florida does not begin repairs of Crystal River Unit 3 prior to the end of 2012, Progress Energy Florida will refund replacement power costs on a pro rata basis based on the in-service date of up to $40 million in 2015 and $60 million in 2016.

As a result of the ongoing analysis of repair options, including scope, schedule, cost estimate and project risks, Progress Energy Florida has determined that it is unlikely to be in a position to begin the repair of Crystal River Unit 3 prior to December 31, 2012. Consistent with the 2012 Settlement Agreement regarding the timing of commencement of repairs, Progress Energy Florida recorded a Regulatory liability of $100 million related to replacement power obligations. This amount is reflected as part of the purchase price allocation of the merger with Progress Energy in Duke Energy's condensed consolidated financial statements.

In the event that repair activities continue beyond December 31, 2016, the parties are not prohibited from contesting Progress Energy Florida's right to recover replacement power costs incurred after 2016. The parties to the agreement maintain the right to challenge the prudence and reasonableness of Progress Energy Florida's fuel acquisition and power purchases, and other fuel prudence issues unrelated to the Crystal River Unit 3 outage. All prudence issues from the steam generator project inception through the date of settlement approval by the FPSC are resolved.

To the extent that Progress Energy Florida pursues the repair of Crystal River Unit 3, Progress Energy Florida will establish an estimated cost and repair schedule with ongoing consultation with the parties to the agreement. The established cost, to be approved by Duke Energy's Board of Directors, will be the basis for project measurement. If costs exceed the board-approved estimate, overruns will be split evenly between Duke Energy shareholders and Progress Energy Florida customers up to $400 million. The parties to the agreement agree to discuss the method of recovery of any overruns in excess of $400 million, with final decision by the FPSC if resolution cannot be reached. If the repairs begin prior to the end of 2012, the parties to the agreement waive their rights to challenge Progress Energy Florida's decision to repair and the repair plan chosen by Progress Energy Florida. In addition, there will be limited rights to challenge recovery of the repair execution costs incurred prior to the final resolution on NEIL coverage. The parties to the agreement will discuss the treatment of any potential gap between NEIL repair coverage and the estimated cost, with final decision by the FPSC if resolution cannot be reached. If the repairs do not begin prior to the end of 2012, the parties to the agreement reserve the right to challenge the prudence of Progress Energy Florida's repair decision, plan and implementation.

Progress Energy Florida also retains sole discretion and flexibility to retire the unit without challenge from the parties to the agreement. If Progress Energy Florida decides to retire Crystal River Unit 3, Progress Energy Florida is allowed to recover all remaining Crystal River Unit 3 investments and to earn a return on the Crystal River Unit 3 investments set at its current authorized overall cost of capital, adjusted to reflect a return on equity set at 70 percent of the current FPSC-authorized return on equity, no earlier than the first billing cycle of January 2017. The wholesale portion of Crystal River Unit 3 investments, which are not covered by the 2012 FSPC Settlement Agreement, totals approximately $130 million as of September 30, 2012. The recoverability of the wholesale portion of Crystal River Unit 3 will continue to be evaluated as decisions are made regarding repair or retirement. Recovery of the wholesale portion of Crystal River Unit 3 under the retirement option is at risk based on prior treatment of early retired plants in wholesale rates. Any NEIL proceeds received after the settlement will be applied first to replacement power costs incurred after December 31, 2012, with the remainder used to write down the remaining Crystal River Unit 3 investments. Retirement of the plant could impact funding obligations associated with Progress Energy Florida's nuclear decommissioning trust fund.

Progress Energy Florida believes the actions taken and costs incurred in response to the Crystal River 3 delamination have been prudent and, accordingly, considers replacement power and capital costs not recoverable through insurance to be recoverable through its fuel cost-recovery clause or base rates. Additional replacement power costs and repair and maintenance costs incurred until Crystal River 3 is returned to service could be material. Additionally, Progress Energy Florida cannot be assured that Crystal River 3 can be repaired and brought back to service until full engineering and other analyses are completed.

Progress Energy Florida is a party to a master participation agreement and other related agreements with the joint owners of Crystal River Unit 3 which convey certain rights and obligations on Progress Energy Florida and the joint owners. Progress Energy Florida is meeting with the joint owners on a regular basis to discuss the parties' mutual obligations under these agreements and to better understand their views and positions on these issues. Progress Energy Florida cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Base Rate Matters. As a result of the 2012 FPSC Settlement Agreement, Progress Energy Florida will maintain base rates at the current levels through the last billing cycle of December 2016, except as described as follows. The agreement provides for a $150 million increase in revenue requirements effective with the first billing cycle of January 2013, while maintaining the current return on equity range of 9.5 percent to 11.5 percent. Additionally, costs associated with Crystal River Unit 3 investments will be removed from retail rate base effective with the first billing cycle of January 2013. Progress Energy Florida will accrue, for future rate-setting purposes, a carrying charge on the Crystal River Unit 3 investment until Crystal River Unit 3 is returned to service and placed back into retail rate base. Upon return of Crystal River Unit 3 to commercial service, Progress Energy Florida will be authorized to increase its base rates for the annual revenue requirements of all Crystal River Unit 3 investments. In the month following Crystal River Unit 3's return to commercial service, Progress Energy Florida's return on equity range will increase to between 9.7 percent and 11.7 percent. If Progress Energy Florida's retail base rate earnings fall below the return on equity range, as reported on a FPSC-adjusted or pro-forma basis on a Progress Energy Florida monthly earnings surveillance report, Progress Energy Florida may petition the FPSC to amend its base rates during the term of the agreement. Refer to the discussion above regarding recovery of Crystal River Unit 3 investments if the plant is retired.

Progress Energy Florida will refund $288 million to customers through its fuel clause. Progress Energy Florida will refund $129 million in each of 2013 and 2014, and an additional $10 million annually to residential and small commercial customers in 2014, 2015 and 2016. A regulatory liability for this refund is reflected in Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2012.

Levy Nuclear Station. On July 30, 2008, Progress Energy Florida filed its COL application with the NRC for two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors at its proposed Levy Nuclear Station (Levy), which the NRC docketed on October 6, 2008. Various parties filed a joint petition to intervene in the Levy COL application. In 2008, the FPSC granted Progress Energy Florida's petition for an affirmative Determination of Need and related orders requesting cost recovery under Florida's nuclear cost-recovery rule for Levy, together with the associated facilities, including transmission lines and substation facilities.

On April 30, 2012, as part of its annual nuclear cost recovery filing, Progress Energy Florida updated the Levy project schedule and cost. Due to lower-than-projected customer demand, the lingering economic slowdown, uncertainty regarding potential carbon regulation and current low natural gas prices, Progress Energy Florida has shifted the in-service date for the first Levy unit to 2024, with the second unit following 18 months later. The revised schedule is consistent with the recovery approach included in the 2012 FPSC Settlement Agreement. Although the scope and overnight cost for Levy, including land acquisition, related transmission work and other required investments, remain essentially unchanged, the shift in schedule will increase escalation and carrying costs and raise the total estimated project cost to between $19 billion and $24 billion.

Along with the FPSC's annual prudence reviews, Progress Energy Florida will continue to evaluate the project on an ongoing basis based on certain criteria, including, but not limited to, cost; potential carbon regulation; fossil fuel prices; the benefits of fuel diversification; public, regulatory and political support; adequate financial cost-recovery mechanisms; appropriate levels of joint owner participation; customer rate impacts; project feasibility; DSM and EE programs; and availability and terms of capital financing. Taking into account these criteria, Levy is considered to be Progress Energy Florida's preferred baseload generation option.

Under the terms of the 2012 FSPC Settlement Agreement, Progress Energy Florida will begin residential cost-recovery of its proposed Levy Nuclear Station effective in the first billing cycle of January 2013 at the fixed rates contained in the settlement and continuing for a five-year period. Progress Energy Florida will not recover any additional Levy costs from customers through the term of the agreement, or file for any additional recovery before March 1, 2017, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties to the agreement. This amount is intended to recover the estimated retail project costs to date plus costs necessary to obtain the COL and any engineering, procurement and construction cancellation costs, if Progress Energy Florida ultimately chooses to cancel that contract. In addition, the consumer parties will not oppose Progress Energy Florida continuing to pursue a COL for Levy. Progress Energy Florida will true up any actual costs not recovered during the five year period. The 2012 FSPC Settlement Agreement also provides that Progress Energy Florida will treat the allocated wholesale cost of Levy (approximately $60 million) as a retail regulatory asset and include this asset as a component of rate base and amortization expense for regulatory reporting. Progress Energy Florida will have the discretion to accelerate and/or suspend such amortization in full or in part provided that it amortizes all of the regulatory asset by December 31, 2016.

Cost of Removal Reserve. The 2012 and 2010 FPSC settlement agreements provide Progress Energy Florida the discretion to reduce cost of removal amortization expense by up to the balance in the cost of removal reserve until the earlier of (a) its applicable cost of removal reserve reaches zero, or (b) the expiration of the 2012 FPSC settlement agreement at the end of 2016. Progress Energy Florida may not reduce amortization expense if the reduction would cause it to exceed the appropriate high point of the return on equity range, as established in the settlement agreements. Pursuant to the settlement agreements, Progress Energy Florida recognized a reduction in amortization expense of $60 million three months ended September 30, 2012. Progress Energy Florida had eligible cost of removal reserves of $169 million remaining at September 30, 2012, which is impacted by accruals in accordance with its latest depreciation study, removal costs expended and reductions in amortization expense as permitted by the settlement agreements.

Anclote Units 1 and 2. On March 29, 2012, Progress Energy Florida announced plans to convert the 1,010-MW Anclote Units 1 and 2 (Anclote) from oil and natural gas fired to 100 percent natural gas fired and requested that the FPSC permit recovery of the estimated $79 million conversion cost through the Environmental Cost Recovery Clause (ECRC). Progress Energy Florida believes this conversion is the most cost-effective alternative for Anclote to achieve and maintain compliance with applicable environmental regulations. On September 13, 2012, the FPSC approved Progress Energy Florida's request to seek cost recovery through the ECRC. Progress Energy Florida anticipates that both converted units will be placed in service by the end of 2013.

Edwardsport IGCC Plant. On September 7, 2006, Duke Energy Indiana and Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company d/b/a Vectren Energy Delivery of Indiana (Vectren) filed a joint petition with the IURC seeking a CPCN for the construction of a 618 MW IGCC power plant at Duke Energy Indiana's Edwardsport Generating Station in Knox County, Indiana. The facility was initially estimated to cost approximately $1.985 billion (including $120 million of AFUDC). In August 2007, Vectren formally withdrew its participation in the IGCC plant and a hearing was conducted on the CPCN petition based on Duke Energy Indiana owning 100% of the project. On November 20, 2007, the IURC issued an order granting Duke Energy Indiana a CPCN for the proposed IGCC project, approved the cost estimate of $1.985 billion and approved the timely recovery of costs related to the project. On January 25, 2008, Duke Energy Indiana received the final air permit from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. The Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc. (CAC), Sierra Club, Inc., Save the Valley, Inc., and Valley Watch, Inc., all intervenors in the CPCN proceeding, have appealed the air permit.

On May 1, 2008, Duke Energy Indiana filed its first semi-annual IGCC rider and ongoing review proceeding with the IURC as required under the CPCN order issued by the IURC. In its filing, Duke Energy Indiana requested approval of a new cost estimate for the IGCC project of $2.35 billion (including $125 million of AFUDC) and for approval of plans to study carbon capture as required by the IURC's CPCN order. On January 7, 2009, the IURC approved Duke Energy Indiana's request, including the new cost estimate of $2.35 billion, and cost recovery associated with a study on carbon capture. On November 3, 2008 and May 1, 2009, Duke Energy Indiana filed its second and third semi-annual IGCC riders, respectively, both of which were approved by the IURC in full.

On November 24, 2009, Duke Energy Indiana filed a petition for its fourth semi-annual IGCC rider and ongoing review proceeding with the IURC. As Duke Energy Indiana experienced design modifications, quantity increases and scope growth above what was anticipated from the preliminary engineering design, capital costs to the IGCC project were anticipated to increase. Duke Energy Indiana forecasted that the additional capital cost items would use the remaining contingency and escalation amounts in the current $2.35 billion cost estimate and add $150 million, excluding the impact associated with the need to add more contingency. Duke Energy Indiana did not request approval of an increased cost estimate in the fourth semi-annual update proceeding; rather, Duke Energy Indiana requested, and the IURC approved, a subdocket proceeding in which Duke Energy Indiana would present additional evidence regarding an updated estimated cost for the IGCC project and in which a more comprehensive review of the IGCC project could occur. The evidentiary hearing for the fourth semi-annual update proceeding was held April 6, 2010, and an interim order was received on July 28, 2010. The order approves the implementation of an updated IGCC rider to recover costs incurred through September 30, 2009, effective immediately. The approvals are on an interim basis pending the outcome of the sub-docket proceeding involving the revised cost estimate as discussed further below.

On April 16, 2010, Duke Energy Indiana filed a revised cost estimate for the IGCC project reflecting an estimated cost increase of $530 million. Duke Energy Indiana requested approval of the revised cost estimate of $2.88 billion (including $160 million of AFUDC), and for continuation of the existing cost recovery treatment. A major driver of the cost increase included quantity increases and design changes, which impacted the scope, productivity and schedule of the IGCC project. On September 17, 2010, an agreement was reached with the Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor (OUCC), Duke Energy Indiana Industrial Group and Nucor Steel Indiana to increase the authorized cost estimate of $2.35 billion to $2.76 billion, and to cap the project's costs that could be passed on to customers at $2.975 billion. Any construction cost amounts above $2.76 billion would be subject to a prudence review similar to most other rate base investments in Duke Energy Indiana's next general rate increase request before the IURC. Duke Energy Indiana agreed to accept a 150 basis point reduction in the equity return for any project construction costs greater than $2.35 billion. Additionally, Duke Energy Indiana agreed not to file for a general rate case increase before March 2012. Duke Energy Indiana also agreed to reduce depreciation rates earlier than would otherwise be required and to forego a deferred tax incentive related to the IGCC project. As a result of the settlement, Duke Energy Indiana recorded a pre-tax charge to earnings of approximately $44 million in the third quarter of 2010 to reflect the impact of the reduction in the return on equity. The charge is recorded in Impairment charges on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. The IURC convened a technical conference on November 3, 2010, related to the continuing need for the Edwardsport IGCC facility. On December 9, 2010, the parties to the settlement withdrew the settlement agreement to provide an opportunity to assess whether and to what extent the settlement agreement remained a reasonable allocation of risks and rewards and whether modifications to the settlement agreement were appropriate. Management determined that the approximate $44 million charge discussed above was not impacted by the withdrawal of the settlement agreement.

During 2010, Duke Energy Indiana filed petitions for its fifth and sixth semi-annual IGCC riders. Evidentiary hearings were held on April 24, 2012 and April 25, 2012.

The CAC, Sierra Club, Inc., Save the Valley, Inc., and Valley Watch, Inc. filed motions for two subdocket proceedings alleging improper communications, undue influence, fraud, concealment and gross mismanagement, and a request for field hearing in this proceeding. Duke Energy Indiana opposed the requests. On February 25, 2011, the IURC issued an order which denied the request for a subdocket to investigate the allegations of improper communications and undue influence at this time, finding there were other agencies better suited for such investigation. The IURC also found that allegations of fraud, concealment and gross mismanagement related to the IGCC project should be heard in a Phase II proceeding of the cost estimate subdocket and set evidentiary hearings on both Phase I (cost estimate increase) and Phase II beginning in August 2011. After procedural delays, hearings began on Phase I on October 26, 2011 and on Phase II on November 21, 2011.

On March 10, 2011, Duke Energy Indiana filed testimony with the IURC proposing a framework designed to mitigate customer rate impacts associated with the Edwardsport IGCC project. Duke Energy Indiana's filing proposed a cap on the project's construction costs, (excluding financing costs), which can be recovered through rates at $2.72 billion. It also proposed rate-related adjustments that will lower the overall customer rate increase related to the project from an average of 19% to approximately 16%.

On June 27, 2011, Duke Energy Indiana filed testimony with the IURC in connection with its seventh semi-annual rider request which included an update on the current cost forecast of the Edwardsport IGCC project. The updated forecast excluding AFUDC increased from $2.72 billion to $2.82 billion, not including any contingency for unexpected start-up events. On June 30, 2011, the OUCC and intervenors filed testimony in Phase I recommending that Duke Energy Indiana be disallowed cost recovery of any of the additional cost estimate increase above the previously approved cost estimate of $2.35 billion. Duke Energy Indiana filed rebuttal testimony on August 3, 2011.

In the subdocket proceeding, on July 14, 2011, the OUCC and certain intervenors filed testimony in Phase II alleging that Duke Energy Indiana concealed information and grossly mismanaged the project, and therefore Duke Energy Indiana should only be permitted to recover from customers $1.985 billion, the original IGCC project cost estimate approved by the IURC. Other intervenors recommended that Duke Energy Indiana not be able to rely on any cost recovery granted under the CPCN or the first cost increase order. Duke Energy Indiana believes it has diligently and prudently managed the project. On September 9, 2011, Duke Energy defended against the allegations in its responsive testimony. The OUCC and intervenors filed their final rebuttal testimony in Phase II on or before October 7, 2011, making similar claims of fraud, concealment and gross mismanagement and recommending the same outcome of limiting Duke Energy Indiana's recovery to the $1.985 billion initial cost estimate. Additionally, the CAC recommended that recovery be limited to the costs incurred on the IGCC project as of November 30, 2009, with further IURC proceedings to be held to determine the financial consequences of this recommendation. As of November 30, 2009, Duke Energy Indiana estimates it had committed costs of $1.6 billion.

On October 19, 2011, Duke Energy Indiana revised its project cost estimate from approximately $2.82 billion, excluding financing costs, to approximately $2.98 billion, excluding financing costs. The revised estimate reflects additional cost pressures resulting from quantity increases and the resulting impact on the scope, productivity and schedule of the IGCC project. Duke Energy Indiana previously proposed to the IURC a cost cap of approximately $2.72 billion, plus the actual AFUDC that accrues on that amount. As a result, Duke Energy Indiana recorded a pre-tax impairment charge of approximately $222 million in the third quarter of 2011 related to costs expected to be incurred above the cost cap. This charge is in addition to the previous pre-tax impairment charge related to the Edwardsport project discussed above and is recorded in Impairment charges on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. The cost cap, if approved by the IURC, limits the amount of project construction costs that may be incorporated into customer rates in Indiana. As a result of the proposed cost cap, recovery of these cost increases is not considered probable. Additional updates to the cost estimate could occur through the completion of the plant in 2013.

On November 30, 2011, Duke Energy Indiana filed a petition with the IURC in connection with its eighth semi-annual rider request for the Edwardsport IGCC project. Evidentiary hearings for the seventh and eighth semi-annual rider requests were held for August 6, 2012 and August 7, 2012.

Phase I and Phase II hearings concluded on January 24, 2012. The CAC has filed repeated requests for the IURC to consider issues of ethics, undue influence, due process violations and appearance of impropriety. The IURC denied the most recent motion in March 2012. In April 2012, the CAC filed a motion requesting the IURC to certify questions of law for appeal regarding allegations of fraud on the commission and due process violations. This motion was denied.

On April 30, 2012, Duke Energy Indiana entered into a settlement agreement with the OUCC, the Duke Energy Indiana Industrial Group and Nucor Steel-Indiana on the cost increase for construction of the Edwardsport IGCC plant, including both Phase I and Phase II of the sub docket. Pursuant to the agreement, there would be a cap on costs to be reflected in customer rates of $2.595 billion, including estimated financing costs through June 30, 2012. Pursuant to the agreement, Duke Energy Indiana would be able to recover additional financing costs until November 30, 2012, and 85% of financing costs that accrue thereafter. Duke Energy Indiana also agrees not to request a retail electric base rate increase prior to March 2013, with rates in effect no earlier than April 1, 2014. The agreement is subject to approval by the IURC. As a result of the agreement, Duke Energy Indiana recorded pre-tax impairment and other charges of approximately $420 million in the first quarter of 2012. Approximately $400 million is recorded in Impairment charges and the remaining approximately $20 million is recorded in Operation, maintenance and other on Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations and in Duke Energy Indiana's Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income. The $20 million recorded in Operation, maintenance and other, is attributed to legal fees Duke Energy Indiana will be responsible for on behalf of certain intervenors, as well as funding for low income energy assistance, as required by the settlement agreement. These charges are in addition to previous pre-tax impairment charges related to the Edwardsport project as discussed above.

The CAC, Sierra Club Indiana chapter, Save the Valley and Valley Watch, filed testimony in opposition to the April 30, 2012 settlement agreement contending the agreement should not be approved, and that the amount of costs recovered from customers should be less than what the settlement agreement provides, potentially even zero. In addition to reiterating their prior concerns with the Edwardsport IGCC project, the intervenors noted above also contend new settlement terms should be added to mitigate carbon emissions, conditions should be added prior to the plant being declared in-service and the IURC should consider their allegations of undue influence. Duke Energy Indiana, the Industrial Group and the OUCC, filed rebuttal testimony supporting the settlement as reasonable and in the public interest. An evidentiary hearing on the settlement agreement concluded on July 19, 2012. Post-hearing briefing has been completed.

On June 8, 2012, Duke Energy Indiana filed a petition with the IURC in connection with its ninth semi-annual rider request for the Edwardsport IGCC project. Evidentiary hearings for the ninth semi-annual rider requests are scheduled for January 14, 2013 and January 15, 2013.

On October 30, 2012, Duke Energy Indiana revised its project cost estimate from approximately $2.98 billion, excluding financing costs, to approximately $3.154 billion, excluding financing costs, and revised the projected in-service date from the first quarter of 2013 to the second quarter of 2013. The revised estimate is due primarily to lower than projected revenues from test output and delays due to more extensive testing conditions. As a result, Duke Energy Indiana recorded a pre-tax impairment charge of approximately $180 million in the third quarter of 2012 related to costs expected to be incurred above the cost cap proposed in the settlement agreement filed in April 2012. This amount is in addition to previous pre-tax impairment charges related to the Edwardsport project and is recorded in Impairment charges on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

Duke Energy is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of the various regulatory proceedings described above. In the event the IURC disallows a portion of the remaining plant costs, including financing costs, or if cost estimates for the plant increase, additional charges to expense, which could be material, could occur.

Phase 2 Environmental Compliance Proceeding. On June 28, 2012, Duke Energy Indiana filed with the IURC a plan for the addition of certain environmental pollution control projects on several of its coal-fired generating units in order to comply with existing and proposed environmental rules and regulations. The plan calls for a combination of selective catalytic reduction systems, dry sorbent injection systems for SO3 mitigation, activated carbon injection systems and/or mercury re-emission chemical injection systems. The capital costs are estimated at $450 million (excluding AFUDC). Duke Energy Indiana also indicated that it preliminarily anticipates the retirement of Wabash River Units 2 through 5 in 2015 and is still evaluating future equipment additions or retirement of Wabash River Unit 6. An evidentiary hearing is scheduled in December 2012, with an order expected in the second quarter of 2013.

Capacity Rider Filing. On August 29, 2012, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application with the PUCO for the establishment of a charge, pursuant to Ohio's state compensation mechanism, for capacity provided consistent with its obligations as a Fixed Resource Requirement (FRR) entity. The application included a request for deferral authority and for a new tariff to implement the charge. The deferral being sought is the difference between its costs and market-based prices for capacity. The requested tariff would implement a charge to be collected via a rider through which such deferred balances will subsequently be recovered. 24 parties moved to intervene. Additionally, the PUCO has issued a procedural schedule that includes deadlines for the submission of comments and testimony leading up to a hearing currently scheduled on April 2, 2013. Duke Energy Ohio has moved to vacate this procedural schedule and to seek a schedule that will enable an opinion and order on its filings by March 1, 2013. On October 4, 2012, various customer groups filed a motion to dismiss the application. On October 19, 2012, Duke Energy Ohio made a filing opposing the motion to dismiss. Under the current procedural schedule, Duke Energy Ohio expects an order in 2013.

2012 Electric Rate Case. On July 9, 2012, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application with the PUCO for an increase in electric distribution rates of approximately $87 million. On average, total electric rates would increase approximately 5.1% under the filing. The rate increase is designed to recover the cost of investments in projects to improve reliability for customers and upgrades to the distribution system. Pursuant to a stipulation in another case, Duke Energy Ohio will continue recovering its costs associated with grid modernization in a separate rider.

Duke Energy Ohio expects revised rates, if approved, to go into effect in the first half of 2013.

2012 Natural Gas Rate Case. On July 9, 2012, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application with the PUCO for an increase in natural gas distribution rates of approximately $45 million. On average, total natural gas rates would increase approximately 6.6% under the filing. The rate increase is designed to recover the cost of upgrades to the distribution system, as well as environmental cleanup of manufactured gas plant sites. In addition to the recovery of costs associated with the manufactured gas plants, the rate request includes a proposal for an accelerated service line replacement program and a new rider to recover the associated incremental cost. The filing also requests that the PUCO renew the rider recovery of Duke Energy Ohio's accelerated main replacement program and grid modernization program.

Duke Energy Ohio expects revised rates, if approved, to go into effect in the first half of 2013.

Generation Asset Transfer. On April 2, 2012, Duke Energy Ohio and various affiliated entities filed an Application for Authorization for Disposition of Jurisdictional Facilities with FERC. The application seeks to transfer, from Duke Energy Ohio's rate-regulated Ohio utility company, the legacy coal-fired and combustion gas turbine assets to a non-regulated affiliate, consistent with ESP stipulation approved on November 22, 2011. The application outlines a potential additional step in the reorganization that would result in a transfer of all of Duke Energy Ohio's Commercial Power business to an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Duke Energy. The process of determining the optimal corporate structure is an ongoing evaluation of factors, such as tax considerations, that may change between now and the transfer date. In conjunction with the transfer, Duke Energy Ohio's capital structure will be restructured to reflect appropriate debt and equity ratios for its regulated Franchised Electric and Gas operations. The transfer could instead be accomplished within a wholly owned non-regulated subsidiary of Duke Energy Ohio depending on final tax structuring analysis. On June 22, 2012, Duke Energy Ohio amended its Application to include several small additional generation units to be transferred. The FERC approved the application on September 5, 2012.

Standard Service Offer (SSO). The PUCO approved Duke Energy Ohio's current Electric Security Plan (ESP) on November 22, 2011. The ESP effectively separates the generation of electricity from Duke Energy Ohio's retail load obligation and requires Duke Energy Ohio to transfer its generation assets to a non-regulated affiliate on or before December 31, 2014. The ESP includes competitive auctions for electricity supply whereby the energy price is recovered from retail customers. As a result, Duke Energy Ohio now earns retail margin on the transmission and distribution of electricity only and not on the cost of the underlying energy. New rates for Duke Energy Ohio went into effect for SSO customers on January 1, 2012. The ESP also includes a provision for a non-bypassable stability charge of $110 million per year to be collected from January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2014.

On January 18, 2012, the PUCO denied a request for rehearing of its decision on Duke Energy Ohio's ESP filed by Columbus Southern Power and Ohio Power Company.

Regional Transmission Organization Realignment. Duke Energy Ohio, which includes its wholly owned subsidiary Duke Energy Kentucky, transferred control of its transmission assets to effect a Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) realignment from MISO to PJM, effective December 31, 2011.

On December 16, 2010, the FERC issued an order related to MISO's cost allocation methodology surrounding Multi-Value Projects (MVP), a type of MISO Transmission Expansion Planning (MTEP) project cost. MISO expects that MVP will fund the costs of large transmission projects designed to bring renewable generation from the upper Midwest to load centers in the eastern portion of the MISO footprint. MISO approved MVP proposals with estimated project costs of approximately $5.2 billion prior to the date of Duke Energy Ohio's exit from MISO on December 31, 2011. These projects are expected to be undertaken by the constructing transmission owners from 2012 through 2020 with costs recovered through MISO over the useful life of the projects. The FERC order did not clearly and expressly approve MISO's apparent interpretation that a withdrawing transmission owner is obligated to pay its share of costs of all MVP projects approved by MISO up to the date of the withdrawing transmission owners' exit from MISO. Duke Energy Ohio, has historically represented approximately five-percent of the MISO system. The impact of this order is not fully known, but could result in a substantial increase in MISO transmission expansion costs allocated to Duke Energy Ohio subsequent to a withdrawal from MISO. Duke Energy Ohio, among other parties, sought rehearing of the FERC MVP order. On October 21, 2011, the FERC issued an order on rehearing in this matter largely affirming its original MVP order and conditionally accepting MISO's compliance filing as well as determining that the MVP allocation methodology is consistent with cost causation principles and FERC precedent. The FERC also reiterated that it will not prejudge any settlement agreement between an RTO and a withdrawing transmission owner for fees that a withdrawing transmission owner owes to the RTO. The order further states that any such fees that a withdrawing transmission owner owes to an RTO are a matter for those parties to negotiate, subject to review by the FERC. The FERC also ruled that Duke Energy Ohio's challenge of MISO's ability to allocate MVP costs to a withdrawing transmission owner is beyond the scope of the proceeding. The order further stated that MISO's tariff withdrawal language establishes that once cost responsibility for transmission upgrades is determined, withdrawing transmission owners retain any costs incurred prior to the withdrawal date. In order to preserve its rights, Duke Energy Ohio filed an appeal of the FERC order in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The case was consolidated with appeals of the FERC order by other parties in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

On October 14, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application with the FERC to establish new wholesale customer rates for transmission service under PJM's Open Access Transmission Tariff. In this filing, Duke Energy Ohio sought recovery of its legacy MTEP costs, including MVP costs, and submitted an analysis showing that the benefits of the RTO realignment outweigh the costs to the customers. The new rates went into effect, subject to refund, on January 1, 2012. Protests were filed by certain transmission customers. On April 24, 2012, FERC issued an order in which it, among other things, denied recovery of legacy MTEP costs without prejudice to the right of Duke Energy Ohio to make another filing including a more comprehensive cost-benefit analysis to support such recovery. Settlement discussions are underway with the relevant intervening parties that address matters raised in the initial October 14, 2011 filing.

On December 29, 2011, MISO filed with FERC a Schedule 39 to MISO's tariff. Schedule 39 provides for the allocation of MVP costs to a withdrawing owner based on the owner's actual transmission load after the owner's withdrawal from MISO, or, if the owner fails to report such load, based on the owner's historical usage in MISO assuming annual load growth. On January 19, 2012, Duke Energy Ohio filed with FERC a protest of the allocation of MVP costs to them under Schedule 39. On February 27, 2012, the FERC accepted Schedule 39 as a just and reasonable basis for MISO to charge for MVP costs, a transmission owner that withdraws from MISO after January 1, 2012. The FERC set for hearing whether MISO's proposal to use the methodology in Schedule 39 to calculate the obligation of transmission owners who withdrew from MISO prior to January 1, 2012 (such as Duke Energy Ohio) to pay for MVP costs is consistent with the MVP-related withdrawal obligations in the tariff at the time that they withdrew from MISO, and, if not, what amount of, and methodology for calculating, any MVP cost responsibility should be. On March 28, 2012, Duke Energy Ohio filed a request for rehearing of FERC's order on MISO's Schedule 39. This hearing has been scheduled for April 2013.

On December 31, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio recorded a liability for its MISO exit obligation and share of MTEP costs, excluding MVP, of approximately $110 million. This liability was recorded within Other in Current liabilities and Other in Deferred credits and other liabilities on Duke Energy Ohio's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets upon exit from MISO on December 31, 2011. Approximately $74 million of this amount was recorded as a regulatory asset while $36 million was recorded to Operation, maintenance and other in Duke Energy Ohio's Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income. In addition to the above amounts, Duke Energy Ohio may also be responsible for costs associated with MISO MVP projects. Duke Energy Ohio is contesting its obligation to pay for such costs. However, depending on the final outcome of this matter, Duke Energy Ohio could incur material costs associated with MVP projects, which are not reasonably estimable at this time. Regulatory accounting treatment will be pursued for any costs incurred in connection with the resolution of this matter.

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

Progress Energy Merger NCUC and North Carolina Department of Justice (NCDOJ) Investigations. On July 6, 2012, the NCUC issued an order initiating investigation and scheduling hearings addressing the timing of the Duke Energy board of directors' decision on July 2, 2012, to replace William D. Johnson with James E. Rogers as President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Duke Energy, as well as other related matters.

Pursuant to the merger agreement, William D. Johnson, Chairman, President and CEO of Progress Energy became President and CEO of Duke Energy and James E. Rogers, Chairman, President and CEO of Duke Energy became Executive Chairman of Duke Energy upon close of the merger. Mr. Johnson subsequently resigned as the President and CEO of Duke Energy, effective July 3, 2012 and Mr. Rogers was appointed to be CEO.

Pursuant to the NCUC's July 6, 2012 order, Mr. Rogers appeared before the NCUC on July 10, 2012, and provided testimony regarding the approval and closing of the merger and his replacement of Mr. Johnson as the President and CEO of Duke Energy. On July 19, 2012, Mr. Johnson, as well as E. Marie McKee and James B. Hyler, Jr., both former members of the Progress Energy board of directors and current members of the post-merger Duke Energy board of directors, appeared before the NCUC. Ann M. Gray and Michael G. Browning, both members of the pre-merger and post-merger Duke Energy board of directors, appeared before the NCUC on July 20, 2012. All provided testimony on the timing of the decision to replace Mr. Johnson with Mr. Rogers, as well as other related matters.

The NCUC's order also requests that Duke Energy provide certain documents related to the issue for its review. Duke Energy also received an Investigative Demand issued by the NCDOJ on July 6, 2012, requesting the production of certain documents related to the issues which are also the subject of the NCUC Investigation. Duke Energy's responses to these requests were submitted on August 7, 2012. On August 1, 2012, the NCUC engaged the law firm of Jenner & Block to conduct an investigation of these matters. That investigation is underway and to date has involved the production of more documents to the NCUC and a series of informal interviews by Jenner & Block of a number of persons with knowledge of these matters, including executive officers of Duke Energy. This process is ongoing and will also involve interviews of the members of the legacy Duke Energy Board of Directors.

Duke Energy has also been contacted by the SEC to explain the circumstances surrounding the NCUC Investigation and shareholder lawsuits in connection with the closing of the merger with Progress Energy. A meeting was held with the SEC staff in late October. Duke Energy intends to continue to assist the SEC staff, as they request.

Joint Dispatch Agreement (JDA). On June 29, 2012, and July 2, 2012, the NCUC and the PSCSC, respectively, approved the JDA between Duke Energy Carolinas and Progress Energy Carolinas. The JDA provides for joint dispatch of the generating facilities of both Duke Energy Carolinas and Progress Energy Carolinas for the purpose of reducing the cost of serving the native loads of both companies. As set forth in the JDA, Duke Energy Carolinas will act as the joint dispatcher, on behalf of both Duke Energy Carolinas and Progress Energy Carolinas. As joint dispatcher, Duke Energy Carolinas will direct the dispatch of both Duke Energy Carolinas' and Progress Energy Carolinas' power supply resources, determine payments between the parties for the purchase and sale of energy between Duke Energy Carolinas and Progress Energy Carolinas as a result of the JDA, and calculate and allocate the fuel cost savings to the parties as a result of the JDA.

The Subsidiary Registrants periodically file Integrated Resource Plans (IRP) with their state regulatory commissions. The IRPs provide a view of forecasted energy needs over a long term (15-20 years), and options being considered to meet those needs. The IRP's filed by the Subsidiary Registrants in 2012, 2011 and 2010 included planning assumptions to potentially retire by 2015, certain coal-fired generating facilities in North Carolina, South Carolina, Indiana and Ohio that do not have the requisite emission control equipment, primarily to meet Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations that are not yet effective. Additionally, management is considering the impact pending environmental regulations might have on certain coal-fired generating facilities in Florida.

The Duke Energy Registrants classify generating facilities that are still operating but are expected to be retired significantly before the end of their previously estimated useful lives as Generation facilities to be retired, net, on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Amounts are reclassified from the cost and accumulated depreciation of Property, plant and equipment when it becomes probable the plant will be retired. Duke Energy continues to depreciate these generating facilities based on current depreciable lives. When such facilities are removed from service, the remaining net carrying value, if any, is then reclassified to regulatory assets, in accordance with the expected ratemaking treatment.

The table below contains the net carrying value of generating facilities being evaluated for potential retirement included in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

		September 30, 2012
			Duke Energy		Duke Energy Carolinas^(b)(e)		Progress Energy Carolinas^(c)(e)		Progress Energy Florida^(d)		Duke Energy Ohio^(f)		Duke Energy Indiana^(g)
Capacity (in MW)			4,642		910		1,166		873		1,025		668
Remaining net book value (in millions)^(a)		$	583	$	117	$	164	$	155	$	13	$	134

(a)	Included in Property, plant and equipment, net as of September 30, 2012, on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets, unless otherwise noted.
(b)	Includes Riverbend Units 4 through 7, Lee Units 1 and 2 and Buck Units 5 and 6. Duke Energy Carolinas has committed to retire 1,667 MW in conjunction with a Cliffside air permit settlement, of which 587 MW have already been retired as of September 30, 2012. Excludes 170 MW Lee Unit 3 that is expected to be converted to gas in 2014. The Lee Unit 3 conversion will be considered a retirement towards meeting the 1,667 MW retirement commitment.
(c)	Includes Cape Fear, Robinson and six combustion turbine units, which were retired on October 1, 2012, and Sutton, which is expected to be retired by the end of 2013.
(d)	Includes Crystal River Units 1 and 2.
(e)	Net book value of Duke Energy Carolinas' Buck Units 5 and 6 of $68 million, and Progress Energy Carolinas' Cape Fear, Robinson, Sutton and six combustion turbine units of $164 million is included in Generation facilities to be retired, net, on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at September 30, 2012.
(f)	Includes Beckjord Station and Miami Fort Unit 6. Beckjord has no remaining book value.
(g)	Includes Wabash River Units 2 through 6.

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