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. The NCUC has consolidated Duke Energy Carolinas' and Duke Energy Progress’ coal ash deferral requests into their respective general rate case dockets for decision. See "2017 North Carolina Rate Case" sections below for additional discussion. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Duke Energy Carolinas

2017 North Carolina Rate Case

On August 25, 2017, Duke Energy Carolinas filed an application with the NCUC for a rate increase for retail customers of approximately $647 million, which represents an approximate 13.6 percent increase in annual base revenues. The rate increase is driven by capital investments subsequent to the previous base rate case, including grid improvement projects, investments in customer service technologies, costs of complying with coal combustion residuals (CCR) regulations and the North Carolina Coal Ash Management Act of 2014 (Coal Ash Act) and recovery of costs related to licensing and development of the William States Lee III Nuclear Station (Lee Nuclear Station) discussed below. An evidentiary hearing is scheduled to begin on February 19, 2018. Duke Energy Carolinas cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Lincoln County Combustion Turbine Addition

On June 12, 2017, Duke Energy Carolinas filed an application with the NCUC for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) to construct and operate a new 402-megawatt (MW) simple cycle advanced combustion turbine natural gas-fueled electric generating unit at its existing Lincoln County site. The request also included construction of related transmission and natural gas pipeline interconnection facilities. If approved, construction would begin in 2018 with an extended commissioning and validation period from 2020-2024 and an estimated commercial operation date in 2024. An evidentiary hearing was held in August 2017. Briefs and proposed orders were filed on October 9, 2017. A decision is expected by the end of 2017. Duke Energy Carolinas cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

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 allowance for funds used during construction (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.

Lee 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 Lee Nuclear Station to be located at a site in Cherokee County, South Carolina. The NCUC and PSCSC concurred with the prudency of Duke Energy Carolinas decisions to incur certain project development and preconstruction costs through several separately issued orders through 2011, 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. On May 15, 2017, the NCUC issued an order requiring Duke Energy Carolinas to provide information regarding potential impacts of the Westinghouse bankruptcy on the Lee Nuclear Station, as well as Duke Energy Carolinas' plans for cost recovery and additional financial information regarding the project. As part of its 2017 North Carolina Rate Case discussed above, Duke Energy Carolinas is seeking NCUC approval to cancel the development of the Lee Nuclear Station project due to the Westinghouse bankruptcy filing and other market activity and is requesting recovery of incurred licensing and development costs. Duke Energy Carolinas will maintain the license issued by the NRC in December 2016. Duke Energy Carolinas cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Duke Energy Progress

2017 North Carolina Rate Case

On June 1, 2017, Duke Energy Progress filed an application with the NCUC for a rate increase for retail customers of approximately $477 million, which represents an approximate 14.9 percent increase in annual base revenues. The rate increase is driven by capital investments subsequent to the previous base rate case, costs of complying with CCR regulations and the Coal Ash Act, costs relating to storm recovery, investments in customer service technologies and recovery of costs associated with renewable purchased power. Intervenors in the case filed testimony in October 2017 and Duke Energy Progress' responses are due November 6, 2017. An evidentiary hearing is scheduled to begin November 20, 2017. Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

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. The final estimate of incremental operation and maintenance and capital costs of $116 million was filed with the NCUC in September 2017. On March 15, 2017, the NCUC 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. On July 10, 2017, the NCUC consolidated Duke Energy Progress' storm deferral request into the Duke Energy Progress rate case docket for decision. See "2017 North Carolina Rate Case" for additional discussion. 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 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 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 $405 million and $492 million is included in Generation facilities to be retired, net on Duke Energy Progress' Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2017, and December 31, 2016, respectively.

Duke Energy Florida

Hurricane Irma Storm Damage

In September 2017, all of Duke Energy Florida’s service territory was impacted by Hurricane Irma, which caused significant damage, resulting in approximately 1.3 million customers experiencing outages. Total storm restoration costs, including capital, are currently estimated at approximately $500 million. These estimates could change as Duke Energy Florida receives additional information on actual costs. After depleting any existing storm reserves, which were approximately $60 million before Hurricane Irma, Duke Energy Florida is permitted to petition the FPSC for recovery of additional incremental operation and maintenance costs resulting from the storm and to replenish the storm reserve to approximately $132 million for retail customers. Duke Energy Florida plans to make this petition by the end of 2017. At September 30, 2017, Duke Energy Florida's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets included approximately $400 million of recoverable costs under the FPSC's storm rule in Regulatory assets within Other Noncurrent Assets related to deferred Hurricane Irma storm costs. This amount is in addition to the storm reserve replenishment discussed above as part of Duke Energy Florida's petition to the FPSC.

2017 Second Revised and Restated Settlement Agreement

On October 25, 2017, the FPSC approved a 2017 Second Revised and Restated Settlement Agreement (2017 Settlement) filed by Duke Energy Florida. The 2017 Settlement replaces and supplants the Revised and Restated Stipulation and Settlement Agreement approved in November 2013 (2013 Settlement). The 2017 Settlement extends the base rate case stay-out provision from the 2013 Settlement through the end of 2021 unless actual or projected return on equity falls below 9.5 percent; however, Duke Energy Florida is allowed a multiyear increase to its base rates of $67 million per year in 2019, 2020 and 2021, as well as base rate increases for solar generation. In addition to carrying forward the provisions contained in the 2013 Settlement related to the Crystal River 1 and 2 coal units and future generation needs in Florida, the 2017 Settlement contains provisions related to future investments in solar and renewable energy technology, future investments in AMI technology as well as recovery of existing meters, impacts of potential tax reform, an electric vehicle charging station pilot program, as well as the termination of the proposed Levy Nuclear Project discussed below. As part of the 2017 Settlement, Duke Energy Florida will not move forward with building the Levy nuclear plant and recorded an pretax impairment charge of approximately $135 million in third quarter 2017 to write off all unrecovered Levy Nuclear Project costs, including the COL.

The 2017 Settlement includes provisions to recover 2017 under-recovered fuel costs of approximately $196 million over a 24-month period beginning in January 2018. On September 1, 2017, Duke Energy Florida submitted Alternate 2018 Fuel and Capacity clause projection filings consistent with the terms of the 2017 Settlement. The updated capacity filing reflects the removal of all Levy costs. The FPSC approved Duke Energy Florida's 2018 Alternate projection filings on October 25, 2017. A final order is expected by the end of 2017.

Levy Nuclear Project

On July 28, 2008, Duke Energy Florida applied to the NRC for COLs for two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors at Levy (Levy Nuclear Project). 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 Other Noncurrent 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. As part of the 2017 Settlement discussed above, Duke Energy Florida is no longer seeking recovery of costs related to the Levy Nuclear Project and the ongoing Westinghouse litigation discussed in Note 5. All remaining Levy Nuclear Project issues have been resolved.

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 annual retail revenue requirement is approximately $19 million. On March 28, 2017, the FPSC issued an order approving the revenue requirement, which was included in base rates for the first billing cycle of April 2017.

Duke Energy Ohio

Duke Energy Kentucky Rate Case

On September 1, 2017, Duke Energy Kentucky filed a rate case with the KPSC requesting an increase in electric base rates of approximately $49 million, which represents an approximate 15 percent increase on the average customer bill. The rate increase is driven by increased investment in utility plant, increased operations and maintenance expenses, and recovery of regulatory assets. The application also includes implementation of the Environmental Surcharge Mechanism to recover environmental costs not recovered in base rates, requests to establish a Distribution Capital Investment Rider to recover incremental costs of specific programs, requests to establish a FERC Transmission Cost Reconciliation Rider to recover escalating transmission costs and modification to the Profit Sharing Mechanism to increase customers' share of proceeds from the benefits of owning generation and to mitigate shareholder risks associated with that generation. The KPSC set filing deadlines of December 29, 2017, and February 14, 2018, for intervenor testimony and rebuttal testimony, respectively. An evidentiary hearing has not been scheduled. Duke Energy Kentucky anticipates that rates will go into effect in mid-April 2018. Duke Energy Kentucky cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Electric Security Plan Filing

On June 1, 2017, Duke Energy Ohio filed with the PUCO a request for a standard service offer in the form of an electric security plan (ESP). If approved by the PUCO, the term of the ESP would be from June 1, 2018, to May 31, 2024. Terms of the ESP include continuation of market-based customer rates through competitive procurement processes for generation, continuation and expansion of existing rider mechanisms and proposed new rider mechanisms relating to regulatory mandates, costs incurred to enhance the customer experience and transform the grid and a service reliability rider for vegetation management. Public hearings were held in October 2017 and an evidentiary hearing scheduled to begin on November 13, 2017, has been continued to November 28, 2017. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Woodsdale Station Fuel System Filing

On June 9, 2015, the FERC ruled in favor of PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM) on a revised Tariff and Reliability Assurance Agreement including implementation of a Capacity Performance (CP) proposal and to amend sections of the Operating Agreement related to generation non-performance. The CP proposal includes performance-based penalties for non-compliance. Duke Energy Kentucky is a Fixed Resource Requirement (FRR) entity, and therefore is subject to the compliance standards through its FRR plans. A partial CP obligation will apply to Duke Energy Kentucky in the delivery year beginning June 1, 2019, with full compliance beginning June 1, 2020. Duke Energy Kentucky has developed strategies for CP compliance investments. On May 31, 2017, Duke Energy Kentucky filed an application with the KPSC requesting authority to construct an ultra-low sulfur diesel backup fuel system for the Woodsdale Station. The back-up fuel system is projected to cost approximately $55 million and, if approved, is anticipated to be in service prior to the CP compliance deadline of April 2019. Duke Energy Kentucky cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Ohio Valley Electric Corporation

On March 31, 2017, Duke Energy Ohio filed for approval to adjust its existing price stabilization rider (Rider PSR), which is currently set at zero dollars, to pass through net costs related to its contractual entitlement to capacity and energy from the generating assets owned by OVEC. The filing seeks to adjust Rider PSR for OVEC costs subsequent to 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. Various intervenors have filed motions to dismiss or stay the proceeding and Duke Energy Ohio has opposed these filings. See Note 13 for additional discussion of Duke Energy Ohio's ownership interest in OVEC. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

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. On June 6, 2017, the KPSC approved the CPCN request.

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. On September 26, 2017, the PUCO staff filed a report recommending a revenue decrease between approximately $18 million and $29 million and a return on equity between 9.22 percent and 10.24 percent. Objections to the staff report are due by November 9, 2017. Public hearings were held in late October and early November. An evidentiary hearing is scheduled to begin on December 11, 2017. 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. A public hearing was held on June 15, 2017, and an adjudicatory hearing was scheduled to begin September 11, 2017. On August 24, 2017, an administrative law judge (ALJ) granted a request made by Duke Energy Ohio to delay the procedural schedule while it works through various issues related to the pipeline route. If approved, construction of the pipeline extension is expected to be completed before the 2020/2021 winter season. The proposed project involves the installation of a natural gas line and is estimated to cost approximately $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 will take two years to complete. Duke Energy Kentucky also requested approval to establish a regulatory asset 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. On May 25, 2017, the KPSC issued an order to approve the stipulation with certain modifications. On June 1, 2017, Duke Energy Kentucky filed its acceptance of the modifications. Duke Energy Ohio has approximately $7 million included in Regulatory assets on its Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at September 30, 2017, for the book value of existing meter equipment.

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 projected total capital and operations and maintenance expenditures under the ASRP were 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. Duke Energy Ohio's application for rehearing of the PUCO decision was denied on May 17, 2017.

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.

On June 15, 2016, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application for approval of a three-year energy efficiency and peak demand reduction portfolio of programs. A stipulation and modified stipulation were filed on December 22, 2016, and January 27, 2017, respectively. Under the terms of the stipulations, which included support for deferral authority of all costs and a cap on shared savings incentives, Duke Energy Ohio has offered its energy efficiency and peak demand reduction programs throughout 2017. On February 3, 2017, Duke Energy Ohio filed for deferral authority of its costs incurred in 2017 in respect of its proposed energy efficiency and peak demand reduction portfolio. The PUCO staff and one intervenor have proposed a cap on both program costs and shared savings. On September 27, 2017, the PUCO issued an order approving a modified stipulation. The modifications impose an annual cap of approximately $38 million on program costs and shared savings incentives combined, but allowed for Duke Energy Ohio to file for a waiver of costs in excess of the cap in 2017. On October 12, 2017, Duke Energy Ohio filed a motion for a waiver for recovery of costs incurred in 2017 above the annual cap. 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 on June 29, 2017, the Ohio Supreme Court issued its decision affirming the PUCO order. Appellants filed a request for reconsideration, which was denied on September 27, 2017. This matter is now final.

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, which was subsequently extended to 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 September 30, 2017, Duke Energy Ohio had approximately $36 million included in Regulatory assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for future remediation costs expected to be incurred at the East End site.

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, 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 September 30, 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 September 30, 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 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. On June 21, 2017, a three-judge panel affirmed FERC's 2015 decision holding that Duke Energy Ohio has no liability for the cost of the MVP projects constructed after Duke Energy Ohio's withdrawal from MISO. MISO did not file further petitions for review and this matter is now final.

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 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, including AFUDC, and recovery of incremental operating and maintenance costs 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 would be considered for recovery in the next rate case. Terms of the settlement agreement also require Duke Energy Indiana to perform certain reporting and groundwater monitoring. An evidentiary hearing was held on February 23, 2017, and Duke Energy Indiana filed a proposed order with the IURC on March 30, 2017. On May 24, 2017, the IURC approved the settlement agreement.

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.

Grid Infrastructure Improvement Plan

In June 2016, the IURC issued an order approving a settlement agreement among Duke Energy Indiana and certain parties related to a proposed grid infrastructure improvement plan. The settlement agreement included the removal of an AMI project and also provided for deferral accounting for depreciation and post-in-service carrying costs for AMI projects outside the 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 plan. During the third quarter of 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 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016, based in part on the requirement to file a base rate case in 2022 under the approved plan. As of September 30, 2017, Duke Energy Indiana's remaining net book value of non-AMI meters is approximately $43 million and will be depreciated through 2022. In the event that Duke Energy Indiana were to file a base rate case earlier than 2022, it would result in additional impairment charges.

Benton County Wind Farm Dispute

On December 16, 2013, Benton County Wind Farm LLC (BCWF) filed a lawsuit against Duke Energy Indiana seeking damages for past generation losses totaling approximately $16 million alleging Duke Energy Indiana violated its obligations under a 2006 PPA by refusing to offer electricity to the market at negative prices. Damage claims continue to increase during times that BCWF is not dispatched. Under 2013 revised MISO market rules, Duke Energy Indiana is required to make a price offer to MISO for the power it proposes to sell into MISO markets and MISO determines whether BCWF is dispatched. Because market prices would have been negative due to increased market participation, Duke Energy Indiana determined it would not bid at negative prices in order to balance customer needs against BCWF's need to run. BCWF contends Duke Energy Indiana must bid at the lowest negative price to ensure dispatch, while Duke Energy Indiana contends it is not obligated to bid at any particular price, that it cannot ensure dispatch with any bid and that it has reasonably balanced the parties' interests. On July 6, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana entered judgment against BCWF on all claims. BCWF appealed the decision and on December 9, 2016, the appeals court ruled in favor of BCWF. On June 30, 2017, the parties finalized a settlement agreement. Terms of the settlement included Duke Energy Indiana paying $29 million for back damages. Additionally, the parties agreed on the method by which the contract will be bid into the market in the future. Duke Energy Indiana recorded an obligation and a regulatory asset related to the settlement amount in fourth quarter 2016. The settlement amount was paid in June 2017. The IURC issued an order on September 27, 2017, approving recovery of the settlement amount through Duke Energy Indiana's fuel clause. The IURC order has been appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals. Duke Energy Indiana cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Piedmont

South Carolina Rate Stabilization Adjustment Filing

In June 2017, Piedmont filed with the PSCSC under the South Carolina Rate Stabilization Act its quarterly monitoring report for the 12-month period ending March 31, 2017. The filing included a revenue deficiency calculation and tariff rates in order to permit Piedmont the opportunity to earn the rate of return on equity of 12.6 percent established in its last general rate case. On October 4, 2017, the PSCSC approved a settlement agreement between Piedmont and the PSCSC Office of Regulatory Staff. Terms of the settlement included implementation of rates for the 12-month period beginning November 2017 with a return on equity of 10.2 percent.

North Carolina Integrity Management Rider Filings

In October 2017, Piedmont filed a petition under the Integrity Management Rider (IMR) mechanism to collect an additional $8.9 million in annual revenues, effective December 2017, based on the eligible capital investments closed to integrity and safety projects over the six-month period ending September 30, 2017. Piedmont cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

In May 2017, Piedmont filed, and the NCUC approved, a petition 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.

OTHER REGULATORY MATTERS

Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC

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 by Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Piedmont. The ACP pipeline development costs are estimated between $5.0 billion to $5.5 billion, excluding financing costs. 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 13 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 FERC issued the final EIS in July 2017. On October 13, 2017, FERC issued an order approving the CPCN, subject to conditions. On October 16, 2017, ACP accepted the FERC order subject to reserving its right to file a request for rehearing or clarification on a timely basis. Construction is projected to begin in the fourth quarter of 2017, with a targeted in-service date in late 2019. The project remains subject to other pending federal and state approvals.

Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC

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 to construct 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 traverses 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. See Note 13 for additional information related to Duke Energy's ownership interest.

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. On August 22, 2017, the appeals court ruled against FERC in the case for failing to include enough information on the impact of greenhouse-gas emissions carried by the pipeline and vacated the CPCN order. In response to the August 2017 court decision, the FERC issued a draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) on September 27, 2017. Comments on the SEIS are due by November 20, 2017. On October 6, 2017, FERC filed a petition with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals requesting a rehearing regarding the court's decision to vacate the CPCN order. On October 6, 2017, Sabal Trail and other natural gas shippers, including Duke Energy Florida, also filed a rehearing request with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the decision to vacate the CPCN order. It is unclear how this matter will impact the project going forward. The Sabal Trail pipeline has received other required regulatory approvals and the phase one mainline was placed in service in July 2017. On October 12, 2017, Sabal Trail filed a request with FERC to place in-service a lateral line to Duke Energy Florida's Citrus County Combined Cycle facility.

Constitution Pipeline Company, LLC

Duke Energy has 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. Duke Energy's total anticipated contributions are approximately $229 million.

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. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (U.S. Court of Appeals) challenging the legality and appropriateness of the NYSDEC’s decision and on August 18, 2017, the petition was denied in part and dismissed in part. On September 1, 2017, Constitution filed a petition for a rehearing of portions of the decision unrelated to the water quality certification, which was denied by the U.S. Court of Appeals. On October 11, 2017, Constitution filed a petition for declaratory order with the FERC requesting FERC to issue an order finding the NYSDEC waived its rights to issue a water quality certification by not acting on Constitution's application within the time frame required by statute, which would allow the project to proceed. Constitution has revised the target in-service date to as early as the first half of 2019 due to the NYDSEC's denial of the water quality certification and the legal actions being taken to challenge the decision, assuming the timely receipt of a Notice to Proceed from the FERC. Duke Energy cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

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. To the extent the legal and regulatory proceedings have unfavorable outcomes, or if Constitution concludes that the project is not viable or does not go forward, an impairment charge of up to the recorded investment in the project, net of any cash and working capital returned, may be recorded.

See Note 13 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 September 30, 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	$	164
Progress Energy and Duke Energy Florida
Crystal River Units 1 and 2^(b)	873	111
Duke Energy Indiana
Gallagher Units 2 and 4^(c)	280	130
Total Duke Energy	1,738	$	405


(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.