Regulatory Matters

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2016

Regulated Operations [Abstract]

Regulatory Matters

REGULATORY MATTERS

REGULATORY ASSETS AND LIABILITIES

The Duke Energy Registrants record regulatory assets and liabilities that result from the ratemaking process. See Note 1 for further information.

The following tables present the regulatory assets and liabilities recorded on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

	December 31, 2016
			Duke				Duke		Duke		Duke		Duke
	Duke		Energy		Progress		Energy		Energy		Energy		Energy
(in millions)	Energy		Carolinas		Energy		Progress		Florida		Ohio		Indiana
Regulatory Assets
AROs – coal ash	$	3,761	$	1,536	$	1,830	$	1,822	$	8	$	12	$	276
AROs – nuclear and other	684		9		569		275		294		—		—
Accrued pension and OPEB	2,387		481		882		423		458		135		222
Retired generation facilities	534		39		422		165		257		—		73
Debt fair value adjustment	1,313		—		—		—		—		—		—
Net regulatory asset related to income taxes	894		484		231		7		224		63		119
Storm cost deferrals	153		—		148		148		—		5		—
Nuclear asset securitized balance, net	1,193		—		1,193		—		1,193		—		—
Hedge costs and other deferrals	217		93		91		66		25		7		26
Derivatives – gas supply contracts	187		—		—		—		—		—		—
Demand side management (DSM)/Energy efficiency (EE)	407		122		278		263		15		6		—
Grid Modernization	65		—		—		—		—		65		—
Vacation accrual	196		76		38		38		—		4		10
Deferred fuel and purchased power	156		—		111		24		87		5		40
Nuclear deferral	226		92		134		38		96		—		—
Post-in-service carrying costs and deferred operating expenses	413		70		42		42		—		20		281
Gasification services agreement buyout	8		—		—		—		—		—		8
Transmission expansion obligation	71		—		—		—		—		71		—
Manufactured gas plant (MGP)	99		—		—		—		—		99		—
Advanced metering infrastructure	218		172		—		—		—		—		46
NCEMPA deferrals	51		—		51		51		—		—		—
East Bend deferrals	32		—		—		—		—		32		—
Other	636		223		103		69		36		33		121
Total regulatory assets	13,901		3,397		6,123		3,431		2,693		557		1,222
Less: current portion	1,023		238		401		188		213		37		149
Total noncurrent regulatory assets	$	12,878	$	3,159	$	5,722	$	3,243	$	2,480	$	520	$	1,073

	December 31, 2016
			Duke				Duke		Duke		Duke		Duke
	Duke		Energy		Progress		Energy		Energy		Energy		Energy
(in millions)	Energy		Carolinas		Energy		Progress		Florida		Ohio		Indiana
Regulatory Liabilities
Costs of removal	$	6,074	$	2,476	$	2,198	$	1,840	$	358	$	212	$	660
Amounts to be refunded to customers	45		—		—		—		—		—		45
Storm reserve	83		22		60		—		60		1		—
Accrued pension and OPEB	174		46		—		—		—		19		72
Deferred fuel and purchased power	192		105		81		64		17		6		—
Other	722		352		245		200		44		19		11
Total regulatory liabilities	7,290		3,001		2,584		2,104		479		257		788
Less: current portion	409		161		189		158		31		21		40
Total noncurrent regulatory liabilities	$	6,881	$	2,840	$	2,395	$	1,946	$	448	$	236	$	748

	December 31, 2015
			Duke				Duke		Duke		Duke		Duke
	Duke		Energy		Progress		Energy		Energy		Energy		Energy
(in millions)	Energy		Carolinas		Energy		Progress		Florida		Ohio		Indiana
Regulatory Assets
AROs – coal ash	$	2,555	$	1,120	$	1,394	$	1,386	$	8	$	4	$	37
AROs – nuclear and other	838		104		487		195		292		—		—
Accrued pension and OPEB	2,151		479		807		366		441		139		220
Retired generation facilities	509		49		409		179		230		—		51
Debt fair value adjustment	1,191		—		—		—		—		—		—
Net regulatory asset related to income taxes	1,075		564		318		106		212		55		120
Nuclear asset securitizable balance, net	1,237		—		1,237		—		1,237		—		—
Hedge costs and other deferrals	571		127		410		171		239		7		27
DSM/EE	340		80		250		237		13		10		—
Grid Modernization	68		—		—		—		—		68		—
Vacation accrual	192		79		38		38		—		5		10
Deferred fuel and purchased power	151		21		129		93		36		1		—
Nuclear deferral	245		107		138		62		76		—		—
Post-in-service carrying costs and deferred operating expenses	383		97		38		38		—		21		227
Gasification services agreement buyout	32		—		—		—		—		—		32
Transmission expansion obligation	72		—		—		—		—		72		—
MGP	104		—		—		—		—		104		—
NCEMPA deferrals	21		—		21		21		—		—		—
East Bend deferrals	16		—		—		—		—		16		—
Other	499		244		121		82		39		31		94
Total regulatory assets	12,250		3,071		5,797		2,974		2,823		533		818
Less: current portion	877		305		362		264		98		36		102
Total noncurrent regulatory assets	$	11,373	$	2,766	$	5,435	$	2,710	$	2,725	$	497	$	716

	December 31, 2015
			Duke				Duke		Duke		Duke		Duke
	Duke		Energy		Progress		Energy		Energy		Energy		Energy
(in millions)	Energy		Carolinas		Energy		Progress		Florida		Ohio		Indiana
Regulatory Liabilities
Costs of removal	$	5,329	$	2,413	$	2,078	$	1,725	$	353	$	222	$	616
Amounts to be refunded to customers	71		—		—		—		—		—		71
Storm reserve	150		24		125		—		125		1		—
Accrued pension and OPEB	288		68		51		25		26		21		83
Deferred fuel and purchased power	311		55		255		58		197		1		—
Other	506		281		164		155		8		12		46
Total regulatory liabilities	6,655		2,841		2,673		1,963		709		257		816
Less: current portion	400		39		286		85		200		12		62
Total noncurrent regulatory liabilities	$	6,255	$	2,802	$	2,387	$	1,878	$	509	$	245	$	754

Descriptions of regulatory assets and liabilities, summarized in the tables above, as well as their recovery and amortization periods follow. Items are excluded from rate base unless otherwise noted.

AROs – coal ash. Represents regulatory assets including deferred depreciation and accretion related to the legal obligation to close ash basins. The costs are deferred until recovery treatment has been determined. The recovery period for these costs has yet to be established. Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Ohio earn a debt return on their expenditures. See Notes 1 and 9 for additional information.

AROs – nuclear and other. Represents regulatory assets, including deferred depreciation and accretion, related to legal obligations associated with the future retirement of property, plant and equipment, excluding amounts related to coal ash. The AROs relate primarily to decommissioning nuclear power facilities. The amounts also include certain deferred gains on NDTF investments. The recovery period for costs related to nuclear facilities runs through the decommissioning period of each nuclear unit, the latest of which is currently estimated to be 2086. See Notes 1 and 9 for additional information.

Accrued pension and OPEB. Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit obligations (OPEB) represent regulatory assets and liabilities related to each of the Duke Energy Registrants’ respective shares of unrecognized actuarial gains and losses and unrecognized prior service cost and credit attributable to Duke Energy’s pension plans and OPEB plans. The regulatory asset or liability is amortized with the recognition of actuarial gains and losses and prior service cost and credit to net periodic benefit costs for pension and OPEB plans. The accrued pension and OPEB regulatory asset is expected to be recovered primarily over average remaining service periods of active employees covered by the benefit plans, which is approximately 9 years. See Note 21 for additional detail.

Retired generation facilities. Duke Energy Carolinas earns a return on the outstanding retail balance with recovery periods ranging from one to six years. Duke Energy Progress earns a return on the outstanding balance with recovery over a period of 10 years beginning in 2013 for retail purposes and over the longer of 10 years or the previously estimated planned retirement date for wholesale purposes. Duke Energy Indiana earns a return on the outstanding balances and the costs are included in rate base. Duke Energy Indiana’s recovery period will be determined in the next general rate case. Duke Energy Florida earns a full return on a portion of the regulatory asset related to the retired nuclear plant currently recovered in the nuclear cost recovery clause (NCRC), with the remaining portion earning a reduced return. Duke Energy Florida’s recovery period varies.

Debt fair value adjustment. Purchase accounting adjustments recorded to state the carrying value of Progress Energy and Piedmont at fair value in connection with the 2012 and 2016 mergers, respectively. Amount is amortized over the life of the related debt.

Net regulatory asset related to income taxes. Regulatory assets principally associated with the depreciation and recovery of AFUDC equity. Amounts have no impact on rate base as regulatory assets are offset by deferred tax liabilities. The recovery period is over the life of the associated assets. Amounts for all registrants include regulatory liabilities related to the gross up of federal ITCs. Amounts for Duke Energy, Duke Energy Carolinas, Progress Energy and Duke Energy Progress include regulatory liabilities related to the change in the North Carolina corporate tax rate discussed in Note 22.

Storm cost deferrals. Represents deferred incremental costs incurred related to extraordinary weather-related events, primarily damage resulting from Hurricane Matthew in the fourth quarter of 2016. The recovery period is unknown.

Nuclear asset securitizable balance, net.Represents the balance associated with Crystal River Unit 3 retirement approved for recovery by the FPSC on September 15, 2015, and the upfront financing costs securitized in 2016 with issuance of the associated bonds. The regulatory asset balance is net of the AFUDC equity portion. The recovery period is through 2036.

Hedge costs and other deferrals. Amounts relate to unrealized gains and losses on derivatives recorded as a regulatory asset or liability, respectively, until the contracts are settled. The recovery period varies for these costs and currently extends to 2048.

Derivatives – gas supply contracts held for utility operations. Represents costs for certain long-dated, fixed quantity forward gas supply contracts which are recoverable through Piedmont's PGA clauses.

DSM/EE. The recovery period varies for these costs, with some currently unknown. Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida are required to pay interest on the outstanding liability balance. Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida collect a return on DSM/EE investments.

Grid Modernization. Duke Energy Ohio amounts represent deferred depreciation and operating expenses as well as carrying costs on the portion of capital expenditures placed in service but not yet reflected in retail rates as plant in service. Recovery period is generally one year for depreciation and operating expenses. Recovery for post-in-service carrying costs is over the life of the assets. Duke Energy Ohio is earning a return on these costs.

Vacation accrual. Generally recovered within one year. Duke Energy Carolinas earns a return on the North Carolina balance.

Deferred fuel and purchased power. Represents certain energy-related costs that are recoverable or refundable as approved by the applicable regulatory body. Duke Energy Florida amount includes capacity costs. Duke Energy Florida earns a return on the retail portion of under-recovered costs. Duke Energy Ohio earns a return on under-recovered costs. Duke Energy Florida and Duke Energy Ohio pay interest on over-recovered costs. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress amounts include certain purchased power costs in both North Carolina and South Carolina and costs of distributed energy resource programs in South Carolina. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress pay interest on over-recovered costs in North Carolina. Recovery period is generally over one year. Duke Energy Indiana recovery period is quarterly.

Nuclear deferral. Includes (i) amounts related to levelizing nuclear plant outage costs at Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress in North Carolina and South Carolina, which allows for the recognition of nuclear outage expenses over the refueling cycle rather than when the outage occurs, resulting in the deferral of operations and maintenance costs associated with refueling and (ii) certain deferred preconstruction and carrying costs at Duke Energy Florida as approved by the FPSC, primarily associated with the Levy nuclear project (Levy), with a final true-up to be filed by May 2017.

Post-in-service carrying costs and deferred operating expenses. Represents deferred depreciation and operating expenses as well as carrying costs on the portion of capital expenditures placed in service but not yet reflected in retail rates as plant in service. Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana earn a return on the outstanding balance. For Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana, some amounts are included in rate base. Recovery is over various lives and the latest recovery period is 2083.

Gasification services agreement buyout. The IURC authorized Duke Energy Indiana to recover costs incurred to buyout a gasification services agreement, including carrying costs through 2017. Duke Energy Indiana earns a return on this balance.

Transmission expansion obligation. Represents transmission expansion obligations related to Duke Energy Ohio’s withdrawal from Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO).

MGP. Represents remediation costs incurred at former MGP sites and the deferral of costs to be incurred at the East End and West End sites through 2019. Costs incurred between 2008 and 2012 are recovered through an approved MGP rider. Recovery of costs incurred after 2012 has been requested but is pending approval from the PUCO. Duke Energy Ohio does not earn a return on these costs.

Advanced metering infrastructure (AMI). Duke Energy Carolinas amount represents deferred costs related to the installation of AMI meters and remaining net book value of non-AMI meters to be replaced. Duke Energy Carolinas earns a return on a portion of the costs and the recovery period varies. Duke Energy Indiana amount represents expected future recovery of net book value of electromechanical meters that have been replaced with AMI meters. Duke Energy Indiana expects to recover this asset over a six-year period and the meters will remain in rate base until the next general rate case.

NCEMPA deferrals. Represents retail allocated cost deferrals and returns associated with the additional ownership interest in assets acquired from NCEMPA discussed in Note 2. The North Carolina retail allocated costs are generally being recovered over a period of time between three years and the remaining life of the assets purchased through a rider that became effective on December 1, 2015. The South Carolina retail allocated costs will be amortized over an average of 24 years beginning January 2017 are earning a return.

East Bend deferrals. Represents both deferred operating expenses and deferred depreciation as well as carrying costs on the portion of East Bend Generating Station (East Bend) that was acquired from Dayton Power and Light and that had been previously operated as a jointly owned facility. Recovery will not commence until resolution of the next electric rate case in Kentucky. Duke Energy Ohio is earning a return on these deferred costs.

Costs of removal. Represents funds received from customers to cover the future removal of property, plant and equipment from retired or abandoned sites as property is retired. Also includes certain deferred gains on NDTF investments.

Amounts to be refunded to customers. Represents required rate reductions to retail customers by the applicable regulatory body. The period of refund for Duke Energy Indiana is through 2018.

Storm reserve. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Florida are allowed to petition the PSCSC and FPSC, respectively, to seek recovery of incremental or allowable costs incurred for named storms. Funds are used to offset future incurred costs.

RESTRICTIONS ON THE ABILITY OF CERTAIN SUBSIDIARIES TO MAKE DIVIDENDS, ADVANCES AND LOANS TO DUKE ENERGY

As a condition to the approval of merger transactions, the NCUC, PSCSC, PUCO, KPSC and IURC imposed conditions on the ability of Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Ohio, Duke Energy Kentucky, Duke Energy Indiana and Piedmont to transfer funds to Duke Energy through loans or advances, as well as restricted amounts available to pay dividends to Duke Energy. Certain subsidiaries may transfer funds to Duke Energy Corporation Holding Company (the parent) by obtaining approval of the respective state regulatory commissions. These conditions imposed restrictions on the ability of the public utility subsidiaries to pay cash dividends as discussed below.

Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida also have restrictions imposed by their first mortgage bond indentures and Articles of Incorporation which, in certain circumstances, limit their ability to make cash dividends or distributions on common stock. Amounts restricted as a result of these provisions were not material at December 31, 2016.

Additionally, certain other subsidiaries of Duke Energy have restrictions on their ability to dividend, loan or advance funds to Duke Energy due to specific legal or regulatory restrictions, including, but not limited to, minimum working capital and tangible net worth requirements.

The restrictions discussed below were less than 25 percent of Duke Energy's net assets at December 31, 2016.

Duke Energy Carolinas

Duke Energy Carolinas must limit cumulative distributions subsequent to mergers to (i) the amount of retained earnings on the day prior to the closing of the mergers, plus (ii) any future earnings recorded.

Duke Energy Progress

Duke Energy Progress must limit cumulative distributions subsequent to the mergers between Duke Energy and Progress Energy and Duke Energy and Piedmont to (i) the amount of retained earnings on the day prior to the closing of the respective mergers, plus (ii) any future earnings recorded.

Duke Energy Ohio

Duke Energy Ohio will not declare and pay dividends out of capital or unearned surplus without the prior authorization of the PUCO. Duke Energy Ohio received FERC and PUCO approval to pay dividends from its equity accounts that are reflective of the amount that it would have in its retained earnings account had push-down accounting for the Cinergy Corp. (Cinergy) merger not been applied to Duke Energy Ohio’s balance sheet. The conditions include a commitment from Duke Energy Ohio that equity, adjusted to remove the impacts of push-down accounting, will not fall below 30 percent of total capital.

Duke Energy Kentucky is required to pay dividends solely out of retained earnings and to maintain a minimum of 35 percent equity in its capital structure.

Duke Energy Indiana

Duke Energy Indiana must limit cumulative distributions subsequent to the merger between Duke Energy and Cinergy to (i) the amount of retained earnings on the day prior to the closing of the merger, plus (ii) any future earnings recorded. In addition, Duke Energy Indiana will not declare and pay dividends out of capital or unearned surplus without prior authorization of the IURC.

Piedmont

Piedmont must limit cumulative distributions subsequent to the acquisition of Piedmont by Duke Energy to (i) the amount of retained earnings on the day prior to the closing of the merger, plus (ii) any future earnings recorded.

RATE RELATED INFORMATION

The NCUC, PSCSC, FPSC, IURC, PUCO, TRA 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

Ash Basin Closure Costs Deferral

On July 13, 2016, in response to a joint petition of Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress, the PSCSC issued an accounting order for the deferment into a regulatory account of certain costs incurred in connection with federal and state environmental remediation requirements related to the permanent closure of ash basins and other ash storage units at coal-fired generating facilities that have provided or are providing generation to customers located in South Carolina. The decision allows for ash basin closure expenses to be partially offset with excess regulatory liability amounts from the deferral of nuclear decommissioning costs that are collected from South Carolina retail customers and for Duke Energy Progress to partially offset incurred ash basin closure costs with costs of removal amounts collected from customers. The PSCSC's ruling does not change retail rates or the tariff amounts and does not limit the ability of interested parties to challenge the reasonableness of expenditures in subsequent proceedings. In connection with Duke Energy Progress' base rate case filed in July 2016, in December 2016, the PSCSC approved recovery of coal ash costs incurred from January 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016, over a 15-year period and ongoing deferral of future ash basin closure costs incurred from July 1, 2016, until its next base rate case in South Carolina.

On December 30, 2016, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a joint petition with the NCUC seeking an accounting order authorizing deferral of certain costs incurred in connection with federal and state environmental remediation requirements related to the permanent closure of ash basins and other ash storage units at coal-fired generating facilities that have provided or are providing generation to customers located in North Carolina. Initial comments are due by March 1, 2017, and reply comments are due by March 29, 2017. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

FERC Transmission Return on Equity Complaints

On January 7, 2016, a group of transmission service customers filed a complaint with FERC that the rate of return on equity of 10.2 percent in Duke Energy Carolinas' transmission formula rates is excessive and should be reduced to no higher than 8.49 percent, effective upon the complaint date. On the same date, a similar complaint was filed with FERC claiming that the rate of return on equity of 10.8 percent in Duke Energy Progress' transmission formula rates is excessive and should be reduced to no higher than 8.49 percent, effective upon the complaint date. On April 21, 2016, FERC issued an order which consolidated the cases, set a refund effective date of January 7, 2016, and set the consolidated case for settlement and hearing. On June 14, 2016, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress reached a settlement agreement in principle to reduce the return on equity for both companies to 10 percent. On November 21, 2016, the FERC approved the settlement agreement resolving the complaints. The Impact on results of operations, cash flows and the financial position of Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress will not be material.

Duke Energy Carolinas

Advanced Metering Infrastructure Deferral

On July 12, 2016, the PSCSC issued an accounting order for Duke Energy Carolinas to defer the financial effects of depreciation expense incurred for the installation of AMI meters, the carrying costs on the investment at its weighted average cost of capital (WACC) and the carrying costs on the deferred costs at its WACC not to exceed $45 million. The decision also allows Duke Energy Carolinas to continue to depreciate the non-AMI meters to be replaced. Current retail rates will not change as a result of the decision and the ability of interested parties to challenge the reasonableness of expenditures in subsequent proceedings is not limited.

William States Lee Combined Cycle Facility

On April 9, 2014, the PSCSC granted Duke Energy Carolinas and North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation (NCEMC) a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Convenience and Necessity (CECPCN) for the construction and operation of a 750 MW combined-cycle natural gas-fired generating plant at Duke Energy Carolinas' existing William States Lee Generating Station in Anderson, South Carolina. Duke Energy Carolinas began construction in July 2015 and estimates a cost to build of $600 million for its share of the facility, including AFUDC. The project is expected to be commercially available in late 2017. NCEMC will own approximately 13 percent of the project. On July 3, 2014, the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League (SCCL) and Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) jointly filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeals of South Carolina (S.C. Court of Appeals) seeking the court's review of the PSCSC's decision, claiming the PSCSC did not properly consider a request related to a proposed solar facility prior to granting approval of the CECPCN. The S.C. Court of Appeals affirmed the PSCSC's decision on February 10, 2016, and on March 24, 2016, denied a request for rehearing filed by SCCL and SACE. On April 21, 2016, SCCL and SACE petitioned the South Carolina Supreme Court for review of the S.C. Court of Appeals decision. Duke Energy Carolinas filed its response on June 13, 2016, and SCCL and SACE filed a reply on June 23, 2016. On September 6, 2016, the Small Business Chamber of Commerce filed a motion for permission to file a brief supporting the environmental intervenors’ position. On September 22, 2016, the South Carolina Supreme Court granted permission for the brief and allowed Duke Energy Carolinas an opportunity to file a response, which was filed on October 3, 2016. Duke Energy Carolinas cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

William States Lee III Nuclear Station

In December 2007, Duke Energy Carolinas applied to the NRC for combined operating licenses (COLs) for two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors for the proposed William States Lee III Nuclear Station to be located at a site in Cherokee County, South Carolina. The NCUC and PSCSC have concurred with the prudency of Duke Energy Carolinas incurring certain project development and preconstruction costs through several separately issued orders, although full cost recovery is not guaranteed. In December 2016, the NRC issued a COL for each reactor. As of December 31, 2016, Duke Energy Carolinas has incurred approximately $520 million of costs, including AFUDC, related to the project. These project costs are included in Net property, plant and equipment on Duke Energy Carolinas’ Consolidated Balance Sheets. Duke Energy Carolinas is not required to build the nuclear reactors as result of the COLs being issued.

Duke Energy Progress

Storm Cost Deferral Filings

On December 16, 2016, Duke Energy Progress filed a petition with the NCUC requesting an accounting order to defer certain costs incurred in connection with response to Hurricane Matthew and other significant storms in 2016. Current estimated incremental operation and maintenance and capital costs total approximately $140 million. Additional costs could be incurred in 2017 related to storms in the fourth quarter of 2016. Duke Energy Progress proposes to true-up the total costs quarterly through August 2017. Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

On December 16, 2016, Duke Energy Progress filed a petition with the PSCSC requesting an accounting order to defer certain costs incurred related to repairs and restoration of service following Hurricane Matthew. Estimated total restoration costs are approximately $60 million. Actual total costs would be trued-up quarterly through 2017. In January 2017, the PSCSC approved the deferral request and issued an accounting order.

South Carolina Rate Case

On July 1, 2016, Duke Energy Progress filed an application with the PSCSC requesting an average 14.5 percent increase in retail revenues. The requested rate change would increase annual revenues by approximately $79 million, with a rate of return on equity of 10.75 percent. The increase is designed to recover the cost of investment in new generation infrastructure, environmental expenditures including allocated historical ash basin closure costs and increased nuclear operating costs. Duke Energy Progress has requested new rates to be effective January 1, 2017. On October 19, 2016, Duke Energy Progress, the ORS and intervenors entered into a settlement agreement that was filed with the PSCSC on the same day. Terms of the settlement agreement include an approximate $56 million increase in revenues over a two-year period. An increase of approximately $38 million in revenues was effective January 1, 2017, and an additional increase of approximately $18.5 million in revenues will be effective January 1, 2018. Duke Energy Progress will amortize approximately $18.5 million from the cost of removal reserve in 2017. Other settlement terms include a rate of return on equity of 10.1 percent, recovery of coal ash costs incurred from January 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016, over a 15-year period and ongoing deferral of allocated ash basin closure costs from July 1, 2016, until the next base rate case. The settlement also provides that Duke Energy Progress will not seek an increase in rates in South Carolina to occur prior to 2019, with limited exceptions. In December 2016, the PSCSC approved the settlement and issued an approval order.

Western Carolinas Modernization Plan

On November 4, 2015, in response to community feedback, Duke Energy Progress announced a revised Western Carolinas Modernization Plan with an estimated cost of $1.1 billion. The revised plan includes 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 revised plan includes upgrades to existing transmission lines and substations, but eliminates the need for a new transmission line and a new substation associated with the project in South Carolina. The revised plan has the same overall project cost as the original plan and the plans to install solar generation remain unchanged. Duke Energy Progress has also proposed to add a pilot battery storage project. These investments will be made within the next seven years. Duke Energy Progress is also working with the local natural gas distribution company to upgrade an existing natural gas pipeline to serve the natural gas plant. The plan requires various approvals including regulatory approvals in North Carolina.

Duke Energy Progress filed for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) with the NCUC for the new natural gas units on January 15, 2016. On March 28, 2016, the NCUC issued an order approving the CPCN for the new combined-cycle natural gas plants, but denying the CPCN for the contingent simple cycle unit without prejudice to Duke Energy Progress to refile for approval in the future. Site preparation activities are underway and construction of these plants is scheduled to begin in early 2017. The plants are expected to be in service by late 2019. Duke Energy Progress plans to file for future approvals related to the proposed solar generation and pilot battery storage project.

On May 27, 2016, N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network (NC WARN) and The Climate Times filed a notice of appeal from the CPCN order to the N.C. Court of Appeals. On May 31, 2016, Duke Energy Progress filed a motion to dismiss the notice of appeal with the NCUC due to NC WARN's and The Climate Times' failure to post a required appeal bond. After a series of filings, an NCUC order, petitions to the N.C. Court of Appeals and an evidentiary hearing, on July 8, 2016, the NCUC issued an order setting NC WARN's and The Climate Times' appeal bond at $98 million. On July 28, 2016, NC WARN and The Climate Times filed a notice of appeal and exceptions from the NCUC's July 8, 2016, appeal bond order. On August 2, 2016, the NCUC granted Duke Energy Progress' motion to dismiss NC WARN's and The Climate Times' notice of appeal from the CPCN order due to failure to post the requisite bond. On August 18, 2016, NC WARN and The Climate Times filed a petition with the N.C. Court of Appeals seeking appellate review of the NCUC’s CPCN order, the July 8, 2016, appeal bond order and the August 2, 2016, order dismissing their notice of appeal, which the N.C. Court of Appeals denied on September 6, 2016. On September 19, 2016, the NCUC granted Duke Energy Progress' motion to dismiss NC WARN's and The Climate Times' subsequent appeal of the second bond order dated July 28, 2016, and NC WARN's and The Climate Times' subsequent appeal of the CPCN order and dismissal order dated August 18, 2016. On October 17, 2016, NC WARN and The Climate Times filed another petition for review with the N.C. Court of Appeals asking the court to reverse the CPCN order, the second bond order and the dismissal of their first and second notices of appeal as to the CPCN order. On November 3, 2016, the N.C. Court of Appeals denied NC WARN's and The Climate Times' petition for review. All appeals have been concluded.

The carrying value of the 376 MW Asheville coal-fired plant, including associated ash basin closure costs, of $492 million and $548 million are included in Generation facilities to be retired, net on Duke Energy Progress' Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant Expansion

In 2006, Duke Energy Progress selected a site at Harris to evaluate for possible future nuclear expansion. On February 19, 2008, Duke Energy Progress filed its COL application with the NRC for two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors at Harris, which the NRC docketed for review. On May 2, 2013, Duke Energy Progress filed a letter with the NRC requesting the NRC to suspend its review activities associated with the COL at the Harris site. The NCUC and PSCSC have approved deferral for $48 million of retail costs which are recorded in Regulatory assets on Duke Energy Progress’ Consolidated Balance Sheets. On November 17, 2016, the FERC approved Duke Energy Progress’ rate recovery request filing for the wholesale ratepayers’ share of the abandonment costs, including a debt only return to be recovered through revised formula rates and amortized over a 15-year period beginning May 1, 2014.

Duke Energy Florida

Hines Chiller Uprate Project

On May 20, 2016, Duke Energy Florida filed a petition seeking approval to include in base rates the revenue requirement for a Chiller Uprate Project (Uprate Project) at the Hines Energy Complex (Hines). Duke Energy Florida proposed to complete the Uprate Project in two phases: Phase one to include work on Hines units 1-3 and common equipment, to be placed in service during October 2016; and Phase two work on Hines Unit 4 to be placed in service during January 2017. The final combined construction cost estimate for both phases of approximately $150 million is below the cost estimate provided during the need determination proceeding. Duke Energy Florida estimated an annual retail revenue requirement for Phase one and Phase two of approximately $17 million and $3 million, respectively. On August 29, 2016, the FPSC approved the Phase one revenue requirement to be effective in customer rates in November 2016. However, Duke Energy Florida made filings with the FPSC in October 2016 to remove the Uprate Project from customer rates because a portion of the common equipment required for either phase to be considered in service was not completed as expected. Duke Energy Florida filed for recovery of the costs associated with the Uprate Project in February 2017. Duke Energy Florida cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Citrus County Combined Cycle Facility

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

Purchase of Osprey Energy Center

In December 2014, Duke Energy Florida and Osprey Energy Center, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Calpine Corporation (Calpine), entered into an Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement for the purchase of a 599 MW combined-cycle natural gas plant in Auburndale, Florida (Osprey Plant acquisition) for approximately $166 million. On August 2, 2016, Duke Energy Florida filed a petition seeking approval to include in base rates the revenue requirements for the Osprey Plant acquisition to be included in customer bills beginning in February 2017. Duke Energy Florida estimated the retail revenue requirements for the Osprey acquisition to be approximately $48 million. On November 1, 2016, the FPSC approved the petition to include the revenue requirements in base rates. Closing of the acquisition occurred on January 3, 2017.

Duke Energy Florida received a Civil Investigative Demand from the Department of Justice (DOJ) related to alleged violation of the waiting period for the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976. The DOJ alleged Duke Energy Florida assumed operational control of the Osprey Plant before the waiting period expiration on February 27, 2015. On January 17, 2017, Duke Energy Florida entered into a stipulation agreement to settle with the DOJ for $600,000 without admission of liability. On January 18, 2017, the DOJ filed a complaint and the stipulation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The stipulation is subject to court approval. Duke Energy recorded a reserve in the fourth quarter of 2016.

FPSC Settlement Agreements

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

Crystal River Unit 3

In December 2014, the FPSC approved Duke Energy Florida's decision to construct an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) for the retired Crystal River Unit 3 nuclear plant and approved Duke Energy Florida's request to defer amortization of the ISFSI pending resolution of litigation against the federal government as a result of the Department of Energy's breach of its obligation to accept spent nuclear fuel. The return rate is based on the currently approved AFUDC rate with a return on equity of 7.35 percent, or 70 percent of the currently approved 10.5 percent. The return rate is subject to change if the return on equity changes in the future. In September 2016, the FPSC approved an amendment to the 2013 Settlement authorizing recovery of the ISFSI through the Capacity Cost Recovery Clause. Through December 31, 2016, Duke Energy Florida has deferred approximately $93 million for recovery associated with building the ISFSI.

The regulatory asset associated with the original Crystal River Unit 3 power uprate project will continue to be recovered through the NCRC over an estimated seven years period that began in 2013 with a remaining uncollected balance of $128 million at December 31, 2016.

Crystal River Unit 3 Regulatory Asset

On May 22, 2015, Duke Energy Florida petitioned the FPSC for approval to include in base rates the revenue requirement for the projected $1.298 billion Crystal River Unit 3 regulatory asset as authorized by the 2013 Revised and Restated Stipulation and Settlement Agreement (2013 Agreement). On September 15, 2015, the FPSC approved Duke Energy Florida's motion for approval of a settlement agreement with intervenors to reduce the value of the projected Crystal River Unit 3 regulatory asset to be recovered to $1.283 billion as of December 31, 2015. An impairment charge of $15 million was recognized in the third quarter of 2015 to adjust the regulatory asset balance.

In June 2015, the governor of Florida signed legislation to allow utilities to issue nuclear asset-recovery bonds to finance the recovery of certain retired nuclear generation assets, with approval of the FPSC. In November 2015, the FPSC issued a financing order approving Duke Energy Florida’s request to issue nuclear asset-recovery bonds to finance its unrecovered regulatory asset related to Crystal River Unit 3 through a wholly owned special purpose entity. Nuclear asset-recovery bonds replace the base rate recovery methodology authorized by the 2013 Agreement and result in a lower rate impact to customers with a recovery period of approximately 20 years.

Pursuant to provisions in Florida Statutes and the FPSC financing order, in 2016, Duke Energy Florida formed Duke Energy Florida Project Finance, LLC (DEFPF), a wholly owned, bankruptcy remote special purpose subsidiary for the purpose of issuing nuclear asset-recovery bonds. In June 2016, DEFPF issued $1,294 million aggregate principal amount of senior secured bonds (nuclear asset-recovery bonds) to finance the recovery of Duke Energy Florida's Crystal River 3 regulatory asset.

In connection with this financing, net proceeds to DEFPF of approximately $1,287 million, after underwriting costs, were used to acquire nuclear asset-recovery property from Duke Energy Florida and to pay transaction related expenses. The nuclear asset-recovery property includes the right to impose, bill, collect and adjust a non-bypassable nuclear asset-recovery charge, to be collected on a per kilowatt-hour basis, from all Duke Energy Florida retail customers until the bonds are paid in full. Duke Energy Florida began collecting the nuclear asset-recovery charge on behalf of DEFPF in customer rates in July 2016.

See Notes 6 and 17 for additional information.

Customer Rate Matters

Pursuant to the 2013 Settlement, Duke Energy Florida will maintain base rates at the current level through the last billing period of 2018, subject to the return on equity range of 9.5 percent to 11.5 percent, with exceptions for base rate increases for new generation through 2018, per the provisions of the 2013 Settlement. Duke Energy Florida is not required to file a depreciation study, fossil dismantlement study or nuclear decommissioning study until the earlier of the next rate case filing or March 31, 2019. The 2013 Settlement also provided for a $150 million increase in base revenue effective with the first billing cycle of January 2013. If Duke 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 monthly earnings surveillance report, it may petition the FPSC to amend its base rates during the term of the 2013 Settlement.

Levy Nuclear Project

On July 28, 2008, Duke Energy Florida applied to the NRC for a COL for two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors at Levy. In 2008, the FPSC granted Duke Energy Florida’s petition for an affirmative Determination of Need and related orders requesting cost recovery under Florida’s nuclear cost-recovery rule, together with the associated facilities, including transmission lines and substation facilities. In October 2016, the NRC issued COLs for the proposed Levy Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2.

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

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

On October 27, 2014, the FPSC approved Duke Energy Florida rates for 2015 for Levy as filed and consistent with those established in the 2013 Revised and Restated Settlement Agreement. Recovery of the remaining retail portion of the project costs may occur over 5 years from 2013 through 2017. Duke Energy Florida has an ongoing responsibility to demonstrate prudency related to the wind down of the Levy investment and the potential for salvage of Levy assets. As of December 31, 2016, Duke Energy Florida has a net uncollected investment in Levy of approximately $219 million, including AFUDC. Of this amount, $119 million related to land and the COL is included in Net, property, plant and equipment and will be recovered through base rates and $100 million is included in Regulatory assets within Regulatory Assets and Deferred Debits on the Consolidated Balance Sheets and will be recovered through the NCRC.

On April 16, 2015, the FPSC approved Duke Energy Florida’s petition to cease collection of the Levy Nuclear Project fixed charge beginning with the first billing cycle in May 2015. On August 18, 2015, the FPSC approved leaving the Levy Nuclear Project portion of the NCRC charge at zero dollars for 2016 and 2017, consistent with the 2013 Settlement. Duke Energy Florida will submit by May 2017 a true-up of Levy Nuclear Project costs or credits to be recovered no earlier than January 2018. To the extent costs become known after May 2017, Duke Energy Florida will petition for recovery at that time.

Crystal River 1 and 2 Coal Units

Duke Energy Florida has evaluated Crystal River 1 and 2 coal units for retirement in order to comply with certain environmental regulations. Based on this evaluation, those units will likely be retired by 2018. Once those units are retired Duke Energy Florida will continue recovery of existing annual depreciation expense through the end of 2020. Beginning in 2021, Duke Energy Florida will be allowed to recover any remaining net book value of the assets from retail customers through the Capacity Cost Recovery Clause. In April 2014, the FPSC approved Duke Energy Florida's petition to allow for the recovery of prudently incurred costs to comply with the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard through the Environmental Cost Recovery Clause.

Duke Energy Ohio

East Bend Coal Ash Basin Filing

On December 2, 2016, Duke Energy Kentucky filed with the KPSC a request for a CPCN for construction projects necessary to close and repurpose an ash basin at the East Bend necessitated by current and proposed EPA regulations. Duke Energy Kentucky is targeting a completion date in fourth quarter 2018 for these projects and estimates a total cost of approximately $93 million. Duke Energy Kentucky has requested an order to be issued by April 30, 2017.

Base Rate Case

In connection with Duke Energy Ohio’s deployment of SmartGrid network, consisting of investments in AMI and distribution automation, a rider was established to recover these investments and return expected savings to customers. A stipulation updating this rider was approved by the PUCO in 2012, whereby Duke Energy Ohio committed to filing a base electric distribution case within one year of full deployment of SmartGrid. On October 22, 2015, PUCO staff concluded that full deployment had occurred thereby, absent relief by the PUCO, Duke Energy Ohio would be required to file a base electric rate case. Pursuant to an order (PUCO order) authorizing a modification in the filing date, Duke Energy Ohio notified the PUCO of its intent to file an electric distribution rate case in Ohio. The base rate case application and supporting testimony will be filed March 2, 2017, and March 16, 2017, respectively. 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 in its Ohio service territory to increase system reliability and enable the retirement of older infrastructure. The proposed project involves the installation of a natural gas line and is estimated to cost between $86 million and $110 million, excluding AFUDC. On September 13, 2016, Duke Energy Ohio filed with the Ohio Power Siting Board for approval of one of two proposed routes. If approved, construction of the pipeline extension is expected to be completed by 2019.

Advanced Metering Infrastructure

On April 25, 2016, Duke Energy Kentucky filed with the KPSC an application for approval of a CPCN for the construction of AMI. Duke Energy Kentucky anticipates that the estimated $49 million project, if approved, will take about two years to complete. Duke Energy Kentucky also requested approval to establish a regulatory asset of approximately $10 million for the remaining book value of existing meter equipment and inventory that will be replaced. On July 20, 2016, the Kentucky Attorney General, the only intervenor in the proceeding, moved to dismiss the application. Duke Energy Kentucky filed its opposition to the Kentucky Attorney General's motion to dismiss on July 27, 2016. On September 28, 2016, the KPSC denied the Kentucky Attorney General's motion to dismiss and granted Duke Energy Kentucky's motion to file rebuttal testimony. Duke Energy Kentucky and the Kentucky Attorney General entered into a stipulation resolving the matters raised in the application. An evidentiary hearing was held on December 8, 2016. Duke Energy Kentucky cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Accelerated Natural Gas Service Line Replacement Rider

On January 20, 2015, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application for approval of an accelerated natural gas service line replacement program (ASRP). Under the ASRP, Duke Energy Ohio proposed to replace certain natural gas service lines on an accelerated basis over a 10-year period. Duke Energy Ohio also proposed to complete preliminary survey and investigation work related to natural gas service lines that are customer owned and for which it does not have valid records and, further, to relocate interior natural gas meters to suitable exterior locations where such relocation can be accomplished. Duke Energy Ohio's current projected total capital and operations and maintenance expenditures under the ASRP are approximately $240 million. The filing also sought approval of Rider ASRP to recover related expenditures. Duke Energy Ohio proposed to update Rider ASRP on an annual basis. Intervenors opposed the ASRP, primarily because they believe the program is neither required nor necessary under federal pipeline regulation. On October 26, 2016, the PUCO issued an order denying the proposed ASRP. The PUCO did, however, encourage Duke Energy Ohio to work with the PUCO Staff and intervenors to identify a reasonable solution for the risks attributed to service line leaks caused by corrosion. Duke Energy Ohio filed an application for rehearing of the PUCO decision. In December 2016, the PUCO granted the request for the purpose of further review. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

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. After a comment period, 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 to 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 July 8, 2015. On January 6, 2016, Duke Energy Ohio and PUCO Staff entered into a stipulation pending PUCO approval, resolving the issues related to, among other things, performance incentives and the PUCO Staff audit of 2013 costs. Based on the stipulation, in December 2015, Duke Energy Ohio re-established approximately $20 million of the revenues that had been reversed in the second quarter. On October 26, 2016, the PUCO issued an order approving the stipulation without modification. Intervenors requested rehearing of the PUCO decision and, in December 2016, the PUCO granted rehearing for the purpose of further review. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

2014 Electric Security Plan

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

During May and November 2016, Duke Energy Ohio completed two competitive bidding processes with results approved by the PUCO to procure a portion of the supply for its SSO load for the term of the ESP. In 2016, Duke Energy Ohio also issued requests for proposal (RFP) to serve a portion of the load attributed to its customers on the state’s percentage of income payment plan. This RFP was issued consistent with state law enacted in 2016.

2012 Natural Gas Rate Case/Manufactured Gas Plant Cost Recovery

On November 13, 2013, the PUCO issued an order approving a settlement of Duke Energy Ohio’s natural gas base rate case and authorizing the recovery of costs incurred between 2008 and 2012 for environmental investigation and remediation of two former MGP sites. The PUCO order also authorized Duke Energy Ohio to continue deferring MGP environmental investigation and remediation costs incurred subsequent to 2012 and to submit annual filings to adjust the MGP rider for future costs. Intervening parties appealed this decision to the Ohio Supreme Court and that appeal remains pending. Oral argument is scheduled for February 28, 2017. Incurred and projected investigation and remediation expenses at these MGP sites that have not been collected through the MGP rider are approximately $99 million and are recorded as Regulatory assets on Duke Energy Ohio's Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2016. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

The PUCO order also contained deadlines for completing the MGP environmental investigation and remediation costs at the MGP sites. For the property known as the East End site, the PUCO order established a deadline of December 31, 2016. The PUCO order authorized Duke Energy Ohio to seek to extend these deadlines due to certain circumstances. On May 16, 2016, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application to extend the deadline for cost recovery applicable to the East End site. In December 2016, the PUCO approved the request, extending the deadline to complete the remediation work until December 31, 2019. In January 2017, intervening parties filed for rehearing of the PUCO's decision. On February 8, 2017, the PUCO denied the rehearing request. As of December 31, 2016, $46 million of the regulatory asset represents future remediation cost expected to be incurred at the East End site. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Regional Transmission Organization Realignment

Duke Energy Ohio, including Duke Energy Kentucky, transferred control of its transmission assets from MISO to PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM), effective December 31, 2011. The PUCO approved a settlement related to Duke Energy Ohio’s recovery of certain costs of the Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) realignment via a non-bypassable rider. Duke Energy Ohio is allowed to recover all MISO Transmission Expansion Planning (MTEP) costs, including but not limited to Multi Value Project (MVP) costs, directly or indirectly charged to Ohio customers. Duke Energy Ohio also agreed to vigorously defend against any charges for MVP projects from MISO. The KPSC also approved a request to effect the RTO realignment, subject to a commitment not to seek double recovery in a future rate case of the transmission expansion fees that may be charged by MISO and PJM in the same period or overlapping periods.

The following table provides a reconciliation of the beginning and ending balance of Duke Energy Ohio’s recorded liability for its exit obligation and share of MTEP costs, excluding MVP, recorded within Other in Current liabilities and Other in Deferred credits and other liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. The retail portions of MTEP costs billed by MISO are recovered by Duke Energy Ohio through a non-bypassable rider. As of December 31, 2016 and 2015, $71 million and $72 million are recorded in Regulatory assets on Duke Energy Ohio's Consolidated Balance Sheets, respectively.

			Provisions/		Cash
(in millions)	December 31, 2015		Adjustments		Reductions			December 31, 2016
Duke Energy Ohio	$	92	$	3	$	(5	)	$	90

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

On December 29, 2011, MISO filed a tariff with the FERC providing for the allocation of MVP costs to a withdrawing owner based on monthly energy usage. The FERC set for hearing (i) whether MISO’s proposed cost allocation methodology to transmission owners who withdrew from MISO prior to January 1, 2012, is consistent with the tariff at the time of their withdrawal from MISO and, (ii) if not, what the amount of and methodology for calculating any MVP cost responsibility should be. In 2012, MISO estimated Duke Energy Ohio’s MVP obligation over the period from 2012 to 2071 at $2.7 billion, on an undiscounted basis. On July 16, 2013, a FERC Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an initial decision. Under this initial decision, Duke Energy Ohio would be liable for MVP costs. Duke Energy Ohio filed exceptions to the initial decision, requesting FERC to overturn the ALJ’s decision.

On October 29, 2015, the FERC issued an order reversing the ALJ's decision. The FERC ruled the cost allocation methodology is not consistent with the MISO tariff and that Duke Energy Ohio has no liability for MVP costs after its withdrawal from MISO. On May 19, 2016, the FERC denied the request for rehearing filed by MISO and the MISO Transmission Owners. On July 15, 2016, the MISO Transmission Owners filed a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Duke Energy Indiana

Coal Combustion Residual Plan

On March 17, 2016, Duke Energy Indiana filed with the IURC a request for approval of its first group of federally mandated Coal Combustion Residual (CCR) rule compliance projects (Phase I CCR Compliance Projects) to comply with the EPA's CCR rule. The projects in this Phase I filing are CCR compliance projects, including the conversion of Cayuga and Gibson Stations to dry bottom ash handling and related water treatment. Duke Energy Indiana has requested timely recovery of approximately $380 million in retail capital costs and incremental operating and maintenance costs, including AFUDC, under a federal mandate tracker which provides for timely recovery of 80 percent of such costs and deferral with carrying costs of 20 percent of such costs for recovery in a subsequent retail base rate case. On January 24, 2017, Duke Energy Indiana and various Intervenors filed a settlement agreement with the IURC. Terms of the settlement include recovery of 60 percent of the estimated CCR compliance construction project capital costs through existing rider mechanisms and deferral of 40 percent of these costs until Duke Energy Indiana's next general retail rate case. The deferred costs will earn a return based on Duke Energy Indiana's long-term debt rate of 4.73 percent until costs are included in retail rates, at which time the deferred costs will earn a full return. Costs are to be capped at $365 million, plus actual AFUDC. Costs above the cap may be recoverable in the next rate case. Terms of the settlement agreement also require Duke Energy Indiana to perform certain reporting and groundwater monitoring. The settlement is subject to approval by the IURC. An evidentiary hearing was held on February 23, 2017. Duke Energy Indiana cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Edwardsport Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Plant

Costs for the Edwardsport Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) Plant are recovered from retail electric customers via a tracking mechanism (IGCC rider) with updates filed by Duke Energy Indiana. The IGCC Plant was placed into commercial operation in June 2013.

Duke Energy Indiana and several intervenors agreed upon a settlement (IGCC settlement) in 2015 to resolve disputes related to five IGCC riders (the 11th through 15th) and a subdocket to Duke Energy Indiana's fuel adjustment clause. The settlement agreement resolved disputes related to the determination on whether the IGCC plant was properly declared in-service for ratemaking purposes in June 2013, as well as the operational performance of the plant. The IGCC settlement resulted in customers not being billed for previously incurred plant operating costs of $87.5 million and payments and commitments from Duke Energy Indiana of $5.5 million for attorneys’ fees and consumer programs funding. Duke Energy Indiana recognized pretax impairment and related charges of $93 million in 2015. Additionally, under the IGCC settlement, the recovery of operating and maintenance expenses and ongoing maintenance capital at the plant are subject to certain caps during the years of 2016 and 2017. The IGCC settlement also includes a commitment to either retire or stop burning coal by December 31, 2022, at the Gallagher Station. Pursuant to the IGCC settlement, the in-service date used for accounting and ratemaking will remain as June 2013. Remaining deferred costs will be recovered over eight years and not earn a carrying cost. On August 24, 2016, the IURC approved the settlement in full with no changes or conditions. The order was not appealed and the proceeding is concluded. As of December 31, 2016, deferred costs related to the project are approximately $161 million. Under the IGCC settlement, future IGCC riders will be filed annually, rather than every six months, with the next filing scheduled for first quarter 2017.

The ninth semi-annual IGCC rider order was appealed by various intervenors and the matter was remanded to the IURC for further proceedings and additional findings on a tax in-service issue. On February 2, 2017, the IURC issued an order upholding the original decision, finding that an estimate of impact on customer rates due to the federal income tax in-service determination was reasonable. The intervenors could appeal this order.

FERC Transmission Return on Equity Complaint

Customer groups have filed with the FERC complaints against MISO and its transmission-owning members, including Duke Energy Indiana, alleging, among other things, that the current base rate of return on equity earned by MISO transmission owners of 12.38 percent is unjust and unreasonable. The latest complaint, filed on February 12, 2015, claims the base rate of return on equity should be reduced to 8.67 percent and requests a consolidation of complaints. The motion to consolidate complaints was denied. On January 5, 2015, the FERC issued an order accepting the MISO transmission owners 0.50 percent adder to the base rate of return on equity based on participation in an RTO subject to it being applied to a return on equity that is shown to be just and reasonable in the pending return on equity complaints. A hearing in the base return on equity proceeding was held in August 2015. On December 22, 2015, the presiding FERC ALJ in the first complaint issued an Initial Decision in which the base rate of return on equity was set at 10.32 percent. On September 28, 2016, the Initial Decision in the first complaint was affirmed by FERC. On June 30, 2016, the presiding FERC ALJ in the second complaint issued an Initial Decision setting the base rate of return on equity at 9.70 percent. The Initial Decision in the second complaint is pending FERC review. Duke Energy Indiana currently believes these matters will not have a material impact on its results of operations, cash flows and financial position.

Grid Infrastructure Improvement Plan

On August 29, 2014, pursuant to a new statute, Duke Energy Indiana filed a seven-year grid infrastructure improvement plan with the IURC with an estimated cost of $1.9 billion, focusing on the reliability, integrity and modernization of the transmission and distribution system. The plan also provided for cost recovery through a transmission and distribution rider (T&D Rider). In May 2015, the IURC denied the original proposal due to an insufficient level of detailed projects and cost estimates in the plan. On December 7, 2015, Duke Energy Indiana filed a revised infrastructure improvement plan with an estimated cost of $1.8 billion in response to guidance from IURC orders and the Indiana Court of Appeals decisions related to this new statute. The revised plan uses a combination of advanced technology and infrastructure upgrades to improve service to customers and provide them with better information about their energy use. It also provides for cost recovery through a T&D Rider. In March 2016, Duke Energy Indiana entered into a settlement with all parties to the proceeding except the Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc. The settlement agreement decreased the capital expenditures eligible for timely recovery of costs in the seven-year plan to approximately $1.4 billion, including the removal of an AMI project. Under the settlement, the return on equity to be used in the T&D Rider is 10 percent. The IURC approved the settlement and issued a final order on June 29, 2016. The order was not appealed and the proceeding is concluded.

The settlement also provided for deferral accounting for depreciation and post-in-service carrying costs for AMI projects outside the seven-year plan. Duke Energy Indiana withdrew its request for a regulatory asset for current meters and will retain any savings associated with future AMI installation until the next retail base rate case, which is required to be filed prior to the end of the seven-year plan. In 2016, Duke Energy Indiana decided to implement the AMI project. This decision resulted in a pretax impairment charge related to existing or non-AMI meters of approximately $8 million, based in part on Duke Energy Indiana's intent to file a base rate case in 2022 under the approved T&D Rider plan. At December 31, 2016, Duke Energy Indiana's remaining net book value of non-AMI meters is approximately $46 million which will be depreciated through 2022. In the event that Duke Energy Indiana was to file a base rate case earlier than 2022, it may incur additional impairment charges.

Other Regulatory Matters

Atlantic Coast Pipeline

On September 2, 2014, Duke Energy, Dominion Resources (Dominion), Piedmont and Southern Company Gas, formerly AGL Resources Inc., announced the formation of 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 the needs identified in RFPs by Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Piedmont. The ACP pipeline development costs are estimated between $5.0 billion to $5.5 billion. Dominion will build and operate the ACP pipeline. Originally, Dominion held a 45 percent membership interest in ACP, Duke Energy held a 40 percent interest, Piedmont held a 10 percent interest and Southern Company Gas held a 5 percent interest. On October 3, 2016, Duke Energy and Piedmont completed a merger transaction that resulted in Piedmont becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of Duke Energy. In connection with this transaction, and pursuant to terms of the ACP partnership agreement, Piedmont transferred 3 percent of its membership interest in ACP to Dominion in exchange for approximately $14 million. As a result of this transfer, Dominion maintains a leading ownership percentage in ACP of 48 percent and Duke Energy owns a 47 percent interest through its Gas Utilities and Infrastructure segment. Southern Company Gas maintains a 5 percent interest. See Note 2 for additional information related to Duke Energy's acquisition of Piedmont.

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 October 2014, the NCUC and PSCSC approved the Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress requests to enter into certain affiliate agreements, pay compensation to ACP and to grant a waiver of certain Code of Conduct provisions relating to contractual and jurisdictional matters. On September 18, 2015, ACP filed an application with the FERC requesting a CPCN authorizing ACP to construct the pipeline. In December 2016, FERC issued a preliminary Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) indicating that the proposed pipeline would not cause significant harm to the environment or protected populations. The final EIS is expected by June 30, 2017. FERC approval of the application is expected within 90 days of the issuance of the final EIS. Construction is projected to begin once FERC approval is received with a targeted in-service date in the second half of 2019. ACP executed a construction agreement in September 2016 and is working with various agencies to develop the final pipeline route. ACP also requested approval of an open access tariff and the precedent agreements it entered into with future pipeline customers, including Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress. See Notes 12 and 17 for additional information.

Sabal Trail Transmission Pipeline

On May 4, 2015, Duke Energy acquired a 7.5 percent ownership interest in Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC (Sabal Trail) from Spectra Energy Partners, LP, a master limited partnership, formed by Spectra Energy Corp. Spectra Energy Partners, LP holds a 50 percent ownership interest in Sabal Trail and NextEra Energy has a 42.5 percent ownership interest. Sabal Trail is a joint venture that is constructing a 515-mile natural gas pipeline (Sabal Trail pipeline) to transport natural gas to Florida. Total estimated project costs are approximately $3.2 billion. The Sabal Trail pipeline will traverse Alabama, Georgia and Florida. The primary customers of the Sabal Trail pipeline, Duke Energy Florida and Florida Power & Light Company (FP&L), have each contracted to buy pipeline capacity for 25-year initial terms. On February 3, 2016, the FERC issued an order granting the request for a CPCN to construct and operate the pipeline. The Sabal Trail pipeline has received regulatory approvals and initiated construction of the pipeline with an expected in-service date in mid-2017. See Notes 12 and 17 for additional information.

Constitution Pipeline

Duke Energy owns a 24 percent ownership interest in Constitution Pipeline Company, LLC (Constitution) through a wholly owned subsidiary of Piedmont. Constitution is 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 will be constructed and operated by Williams Partners L.P. which has a 41 percent ownership share. The remaining interest is held by Cabot Oil and Gas Corporation and WGL Holdings, Inc.

On April 22, 2016, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) denied Constitution’s application for a necessary water quality certification for the New York portion of the Constitution pipeline. Constitution filed legal actions in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York and in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (U.S. Court of Appeals) challenging the legality and appropriateness of the NYSDEC’s decision. Both courts granted Constitution's motions to expedite the schedules for the legal actions. On November 16, 2016, oral arguments were heard in the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Constitution remains steadfastly committed to pursuing the project and intends to pursue all available options to challenge the NYSDEC's decision. In light of the denial of the certification, Constitution revised its target in-service date of the project to be as early as the second half of 2018, assuming that the challenge process is satisfactorily and promptly concluded.

In July 2016, Constitution requested and the FERC approved an extension of the construction period and in-service deadline of the project to December 2018. Also in July, the FERC denied the New York Attorney General's (NYAG) complaint and request for a stay of the certificate order authorizing the project on the grounds that Constitution had improperly cut trees along the proposed route. The FERC found the complaint procedurally deficient and that there was no justification for a stay; it did find the filing constituted a valid request for investigation and thus referred the matter to FERC staff for further examination as may be appropriate. On November 22, 2016, the FERC denied the NYAG's request for reconsideration of this order.

Since April 2016, with the actions of the NYSDEC, Constitution stopped construction and discontinued capitalization of future development costs until the project's uncertainty is resolved. As a result, Duke Energy evaluated the investment in the Constitution project for OTTIs. At this time, no OTTI has been determined and therefore no impairment charge to reduce the carrying value of the investment has been recorded. However, to the extent that the legal and regulatory proceedings have unfavorable outcomes, or if Constitution concludes that the project is not viable or does not go forward as legal and regulatory actions progress, the conclusions with respect to OTTIs could change and may require that an impairment charge of up to the recorded investment in the project, net of any cash and working capital returned, be recorded. Duke Energy will continue to monitor and update the OTTI analysis as required. Different assumptions could affect the timing and amount of any charge recorded in a period.

Pending the outcome of the matters described above, and when construction proceeds, Duke Energy remains committed to fund an amount in proportion to its ownership interest for the development and construction of the new pipeline. Duke Energy's total anticipated contributions are approximately $229 million. See Notes 12 and 17 for additional information.

Progress Energy Merger FERC Mitigation

In June 2012, the FERC approved the merger with Progress Energy, including Duke Energy and Progress Energy’s revised market power mitigation plan, the Joint Dispatch Agreement (JDA) and the joint Open Access Transmission Tariff. The revised market power mitigation plan provided for the acceleration of one transmission project and the completion of seven other transmission projects (Long-Term FERC Mitigation) and interim firm power sale agreements during the completion of the transmission projects (Interim FERC Mitigation). The Long-Term FERC Mitigation was expected to increase power imported into the Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress service areas and enhance competitive power supply options in the service areas. All of these projects were completed in or before 2014. On May 30, 2014, the Independent Monitor filed with FERC a final report stating that the Long-Term FERC Mitigation is complete. In 2014, Duke Energy Progress recorded an $18 million partial reversal of an impairment recorded in 2012. This reversal adjusts the initial disallowance from the Long-Term FERC mitigation and reflects updated information on the construction costs and in-service dates of the transmission projects.

Following the closing of the merger, outside counsel reviewed Duke Energy’s mitigation plan and discovered a technical error in the calculations. On December 6, 2013, Duke Energy submitted a filing to the FERC disclosing the error and arguing that no additional mitigation is necessary. The city of New Bern filed a protest and requested that FERC order additional mitigation. On October 29, 2014, the FERC ordered that the amount of the stub mitigation be increased from 25 MW to 129 MW. The stub mitigation is Duke Energy’s commitment to set aside for third parties a certain quantity of firm transmission capacity from Duke Energy Carolinas to Duke Energy Progress during summer off-peak hours. The FERC also ordered that Duke Energy operate certain phase shifters to create additional import capability and that such operation be monitored by an independent monitor. The costs to comply with this order are not material. The FERC also referred Duke Energy’s failure to expressly designate the phase shifter reactivation as a mitigation project in the original mitigation plan filing in March 2012 to the FERC Office of Enforcement for further inquiry. In response, and since December 2014, the FERC Office of Enforcement has been conducting a nonpublic investigation of Duke Energy's market power analyses included in the Progress merger filings submitted to FERC. Duke Energy cannot predict the outcome of this investigation.

Potential Coal Plant Retirements

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

The table below contains the net carrying value of generating facilities planned for retirement or included in recent IRPs as evaluated for potential retirement due to a lack of requisite environmental control equipment. Dollar amounts in the table below are included in Net property, plant and equipment on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2016 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	$	168
Progress Energy and Duke Energy Florida
Crystal River Units 1 and 2	873	120
Duke Energy Indiana(b)
Gallagher Units 2 and 4(c)	280	136
Total Duke Energy	1,738	$	424

(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 retired Wabash River Units 2 through 6 in 2016.

(c) 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 settlement of Edwardsport IGCC matters.

On October 23, 2015, the EPA published in the Federal Register the final Clean Power Plan (CPP) rule regulating carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired electric generating units (EGUs). The CPP establishes CO2 emission rates and mass cap goals that apply to existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs. Petitions challenging the final CPP have been filed by several groups and on February 9, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay of the final CPP rule, halting implementation until legal challenges are resolved. States in which the Duke Energy Registrants operate have suspended work on CPP compliance plans as a result of the stay. The court is expected to decide the case in early 2017. Compliance with CPP could cause the industry to replace coal-fired generation with natural gas and renewables, especially in states that have significant CO2 reduction targets under the rule. Costs to operate coal-fired generation plants continue to grow due to increasing environmental compliance requirements, including ash management costs unrelated to CPP, which may result in the retirement of coal-fired generation plants earlier than the current end of useful lives. Duke Energy continues to evaluate the need to retire generating facilities and plans to seek regulatory recovery, where appropriate, for amounts that have not been recovered upon asset retirements. However, recovery is subject to future regulatory approval, including the recovery of carrying costs on remaining book values, and therefore cannot be assured.

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