REGULATORY MATTERS

RATE RELATED INFORMATION

The NCUC, PSCSC, FPSC, IURC, PUCO, TPUC and KPSC approve rates for retail electric and natural gas services within their states. The FERC approves rates for electric sales to wholesale customers served under cost-based rates (excluding Ohio and Indiana), as well as sales of transmission service. The FERC also regulates certification and siting of new interstate natural gas pipeline projects.

Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress

Ash Basin Closure Costs Deferral

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 were received in March 2017, and reply comments were filed on April 19, 2017. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Duke Energy Carolinas

William States Lee Combined Cycle Facility

On April 9, 2014, the PSCSC granted Duke Energy Carolinas and North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation (NCEMC) a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Convenience and Necessity (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. On March 24, 2017, the South Carolina Supreme Court denied the request for review, thus concluding the 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 Electric Company (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 decisions to incur 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. Duke Energy Carolinas is not required to build the nuclear reactors as a result of the COLs being issued.

On March 29, 2017, Westinghouse filed for voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. Duke Energy Carolinas is monitoring the bankruptcy proceedings to assess the impact it will have on the future construction of nuclear plants.

Duke Energy Progress

Storm Cost Deferral Filing

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. Duke Energy Progress proposed in the filing to true-up the total costs quarterly through August 2017. The current estimate of incremental operation and maintenance and capital costs is $116 million. On March 15, 2017, the Public Staff filed comments supporting deferral of a portion of Duke Energy Progress’ requested amount. Duke Energy Progress filed reply comments on April 12, 2017. Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Western Carolinas Modernization Plan

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

On March 28, 2016, the NCUC issued an order approving a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) for the new combined-cycle natural gas plants, but denying the CPCN for the contingent simple cycle unit without prejudice to Duke Energy Progress to refile for approval in the future. On March 28, 2017, Duke Energy Progress filed an annual progress report for the construction of the combined-cycle plants with the NCUC, with an estimated cost of $893 million. Site preparation activities for the combined-cycle plants are underway and construction of these plants is scheduled to begin in fall 2017, with an expected in-service date in late 2019. Duke Energy Progress plans to file for future approvals related to the proposed solar generation and pilot battery storage project.

The carrying value of the 376-MW Asheville coal-fired plant, including associated ash basin closure costs, of $471 million and $492 million are included in Generation facilities to be retired, net on Duke Energy Progress' Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively.

Duke Energy Florida

Hines Chiller Uprate Project

On February 2, 2017, 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. The Uprate Project was placed into service in March 2017 at a cost of approximately $150 million. The retail revenue requirement is approximately $19 million. On March 28, 2017, the FPSC issued an order approving the revenue requirement which were included in base rates for the first billing cycle of April 2017.

Levy Nuclear Project

On July 28, 2008, Duke Energy Florida applied to the NRC for COLs 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. Duke Energy Florida is not required to build the nuclear reactors as a result of the COLs being issued.

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. 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 Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Duke Energy Florida is allowed to recover reasonable and prudent EPC cancellation costs from its retail customers. On May 1, 2017, Duke Energy Florida filed a request with the FPSC to recover approximately $82 million of Levy Nuclear Project costs from retail customers in 2018. A hearing is scheduled in August 2017. Duke Energy Florida cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

On March 29, 2017, Westinghouse filed for voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. Duke Energy Florida is monitoring the bankruptcy proceedings to assess the impact it will have on the future construction of nuclear plants.

Duke Energy Ohio

Ohio Valley Electric Corporation

On March 31, 2017, Duke Energy Ohio filed for approval to adjust its existing price stabilization rider (Rider PSR) to pass through net costs related to its contractual entitlement to capacity and energy from the generating assets owned by OVEC. The PUCO approved Rider PSR, but set it at zero dollars in connection with the most recent electric security plan. The application seeks to adjust Rider PSR as of April 1, 2017. Duke Energy Ohio is seeking deferral authority for net costs incurred from April 1, 2017, until the new rates under Rider PSR are put into effect. See Note 12 for additional discussion of Duke Energy Ohio's ownership interest in OVEC. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding.

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 facility as a result of current and proposed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations. Duke Energy Kentucky estimated a total cost of approximately $93 million in the filing and expects in-service date in the fourth quarter of 2018. Duke Energy Kentucky expects the KPSC to issue an order in the second quarter of 2017.

Base Rate Case

Duke Energy Ohio filed with the PUCO an electric distribution base rate case application and supporting testimony in March 2017. Duke Energy Ohio has requested an estimated annual increase of approximately $15 million and a return on equity of 10.4 percent. The application also includes requests to continue certain current riders and establish new riders related to LED Outdoor Lighting Service and regulatory mandates. 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. On January 20, 2017, Duke Energy Ohio filed an amended application 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 before the 2019/2020 winter season. A public hearing is scheduled for June 15, 2017, and an adjudicatory hearing is scheduled to begin July 12, 2017. The proposed project involves the installation of a natural gas line and is estimated to cost between $86 million and $110 million, excluding AFUDC.

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 advanced metering infrastructure. Duke Energy Kentucky estimates the $49 million project, if approved, will take 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 to be replaced. Duke Energy Kentucky and the Kentucky Attorney General entered into a stipulation to settle matters related to the application. An evidentiary hearing on the application and stipulation 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 a rider mechanism (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. 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. The PUCO approved Duke Energy Ohio’s application, but found that Duke Energy Ohio was not permitted to use banked energy savings from previous years in order to calculate the amount of allowed incentive. This conclusion represented a change to the cost recovery mechanism that had been agreed upon by intervenors and approved by the PUCO in previous cases. The PUCO granted the applications for rehearing filed by Duke Energy Ohio and an intervenor. On January 6, 2016, Duke Energy Ohio and the PUCO Staff entered into a stipulation, pending the PUCO's approval, to resolve issues related to performance incentives and the PUCO Staff audit of 2013 costs, among other issues. In December 2015, based upon the stipulation, Duke Energy Ohio re-established approximately $20 million of the revenues that had been previously reversed. On October 26, 2016, the PUCO issued an order approving the stipulation without modification. Intervenors requested a rehearing of the PUCO decision. In December 2016, the PUCO granted a rehearing for the purpose of further review. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

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 manufactured gas plant (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 was heard on 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 $100 million and are recorded as Regulatory assets on Duke Energy Ohio's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2017. 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 Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (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.

Duke Energy Ohio had a recorded liability for its exit obligation and share of MTEP costs, excluding MVP, of $90 million at March 31, 2017, and December 31, 2016, recorded within Other in Current liabilities and Other in Other Noncurrent Liabilities on the Condensed 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 March 31, 2017, and December 31, 2016, Duke Energy Ohio had $71 million recorded in Regulatory assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

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 that 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, and Duke Energy Indiana filed a proposed order with the IURC on March 30, 2017. Duke Energy Indiana cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

FERC Transmission Return on Equity Complaints

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 complaints, among other things, claim that the current base rate of return on equity earned by MISO transmission owners should be reduced to 8.67 percent. On January 5, 2015, the FERC issued an order accepting the MISO transmission owners' adder of 0.50 percent 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. 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, but is subject to rehearing requests. 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. On April 14, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in Emera Maine v. FERC, reversed and remanded certain aspects of the methodology employed by FERC to establish rates of return on equity. This decision may affect the outcome of the complaints against Duke Energy Indiana. Duke Energy Indiana currently believes these matters will not have a material impact on its results of operations, cash flows and financial position.

Piedmont

North Carolina Integrity Management Rider Filings

In October 2016, Piedmont filed a petition with the NCUC under the integrity management rider (IMR) mechanism seeking authority to collect an additional $8 million in annual revenues, effective December 2016, based on the eligible capital investments closed to integrity and safety projects over the six-month period ending September 30, 2016. In November 2016, the NCUC approved the request.

On May 1, 2017, Piedmont filed a petition with the NCUC under the IMR mechanism to collect an additional $11.6 million in annual revenues, effective June 2017, based on the eligible capital investments closed to integrity and safety projects over the six-month period ending March 31, 2017. A ruling from the NCUC is pending.

Tennessee IMR Filings

In November 2016, Piedmont filed an annual report with the TPUC under the IMR mechanism seeking authority to collect an additional $1.7 million in annual revenues effective January 2017, based on the capital investments in integrity and safety projects over the 12-month period ending October 31, 2016. The TPUC approved the request at a hearing on April 10, 2017.

OTHER REGULATORY MATTERS

Atlantic Coast Pipeline

On September 2, 2014, Duke Energy, Dominion Resources (Dominion), Piedmont and Southern Company Gas announced the formation of Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC (ACP) to build and own the proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP pipeline), an approximately 600-mile interstate natural gas pipeline running from West Virginia to North Carolina. The ACP pipeline is designed to meet 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 and holds a leading ownership percentage in ACP of 48 percent. Duke Energy owns a 47 percent interest through its Gas Utilities and Infrastructure segment. Southern Company Gas maintains a 5 percent interest. See Note 12 for additional information related to Duke Energy's ownership interest.

Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Piedmont, among others, will be customers of the pipeline. Purchases will be made under several 20-year supply contracts, subject to state regulatory approval. On September 18, 2015, ACP filed an application with the FERC requesting a CPCN authorizing ACP to construct the pipeline. ACP executed a construction agreement in September 2016. ACP also requested approval of an open access tariff and the precedent agreements it entered into with future pipeline customers. In December 2016, FERC issued a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) indicating that the proposed pipeline would not cause significant harm to the environment or protected populations. The draft EIS comment period ended in April 2017, and ACP is working to resolve items identified through the comment process. The final EIS is expected in summer 2017. FERC approval of the application is expected within 90 days of the issuance of the final EIS. Construction is projected to begin in the second-half of 2017, with a targeted in-service date in the second half of 2019.

Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC 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 Enbridge Inc. (formerly 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. On September 7, 2016, FERC denied the intervenors' rehearing requests. On September 21, 2016, intervenors filed an appeal of FERC's CPCN orders to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Oral argument on the appeal was held on April 18, 2017, and a decision is expected in the summer of 2017. The Sabal Trail pipeline has received other required regulatory approvals and construction began in the summer of 2016, with an expected in-service date in mid-2017. See Note 12 for additional information related to Duke Energy's ownership interest.

Constitution Pipeline

Duke Energy owns a 24 percent ownership interest in Constitution Pipeline Company, LLC (Constitution). 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. On March 16, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed without prejudice Constitution’s claim that New York State permits were preempted by the federal permitting process. The ruling on oral arguments made in the U.S. Court of Appeals regarding NYSDEC's denial of the water quality certification is currently expected in mid-2017.

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 other-than-temporary impairments (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 Note 12 for additional information related to ownership interest and carrying value of the investment.

Potential Coal Plant Retirements

The Subsidiary Registrants periodically file Integrated Resource Plans (IRP) with their state regulatory commissions. The IRPs provide a view of forecasted energy needs over a long term (10 to 20 years) and options being considered to meet those needs. Recent IRPs filed by the Subsidiary Registrants included planning assumptions to potentially retire certain coal-fired generating facilities in North Carolina, Florida and Indiana earlier than their current estimated useful lives 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. Dollar amounts in the table below are included in Net property, plant and equipment on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of March 31, 2017, 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	$	167
Progress Energy and Duke Energy Florida
Crystal River Units 1 and 2^(b)	873	117
Duke Energy Indiana
Gallagher Units 2 and 4^(c)	280	135
Total Duke Energy	1,738	$	419


(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 Florida will likely retire these coal units by 2018 to comply with environmental regulations.


(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.

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