UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington,WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)
(Mark One)
[ X ]
ý
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal yearperiod ended December 31, 20112014 or

OR

[    ]
¨TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from                                                                  tofrom________to________

Commission
File Number
Exact name of registrants as specified in their charters,
state of incorporation, address of principal executive
offices, and telephonefile number
Registrant, State of Incorporation or Organization, Address of Principal Executive Offices, and Telephone Number
I.R.S.IRS Employer
Identification NumberNo.
 
[
 
1-32853
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION
(a Delaware Corporation)
550 South Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28202-1803
704-382-3853
20-2777218
Commission file numberRegistrant, State of Incorporation or Organization, Address of Principal Executive Offices, and Telephone NumberCommission file numberRegistrant, State of Incorporation or Organization, Address of Principal Executive Offices, and Telephone Number
1-4928
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC
(a North Carolina limited liability company)
526 South Church Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202-1803
704-382-3853
56-0205520
1-3274
DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC.
(a Florida corporation)
299 First Avenue North
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
704-382-3853
59-0247770
1-15929
Progress Energy, Inc.PROGRESS ENERGY, INC.
(a North Carolina corporation)
410 South Wilmington Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1748
Telephone: (919) 546-6111704-382-3853
State of Incorporation: North Carolina56-2155481
56-2155481
 1-1232
DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC.
(an Ohio corporation)
139 East Fourth Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
704-382-3853
31-0240030
1-3382
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC.
(a North Carolina Power & Light Company
d/b/a Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.corporation)
410 South Wilmington Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1748
Telephone: (919) 546-6111704-382-3853
State of Incorporation: North Carolina56-0165465
56-01654651-3543
DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
(an Indiana corporation)
1000 East Main Street
Plainfield, Indiana 46168
704-382-3853
35-0594457
SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(B) OF THE ACT:
RegistrantTitle of each class
Name of each exchange on
which registered
Duke Energy Corporation (Duke Energy)Common Stock, $0.001 par valueNew York Stock Exchange, Inc.
Duke Energy5.125% Junior Subordinated Debentures due January 15, 2073New York Stock Exchange, Inc.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy Carolinas)All of the registrant's limited liability company member interests are directly owned by Duke Energy.  
1-3274Progress Energy, Inc. (Progress Energy)
Florida Power Corporation
d/b/a
All of the registrant's common stock is directly owned by Duke Energy.
Duke Energy Progress, Inc. (Duke Energy Progress)All of the registrant's common stock is indirectly owned by Duke Energy.
Duke Energy Florida, Inc.
299 First Avenue North
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
Telephone: (727) 820-5151
State (Duke Energy Florida)
All of Incorporation: Floridathe registrant's common stock is indirectly owned by Duke Energy.59-0247770
Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. (Duke Energy Ohio)All of the registrant's common stock is indirectly owned by Duke Energy.
Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. (Duke Energy Indiana)All of the registrant's common stock is indirectly owned by Duke Energy.


SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(b)12(G) OF THE ACT:  None
Title of each className of each exchange on which registered
Progress Energy, Inc.:
Common Stock (Without Par Value)New York Stock Exchange
Carolina Power & Light Company:None
Florida Power Corporation:None

SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(g) OF THE ACT:
Progress Energy, Inc.:None
Carolina Power & Light Company:$5 Preferred Stock, No Par Value
Serial Preferred Stock, No Par Value
Florida Power Corporation:None



Indicate by check mark whether eachif the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Act.Securities Act

Progress Energy, Inc. (Progress Energy)Yes(X)No(   )
Carolina Power & Light Company (PEC)Yes(   )No(X)
Florida Power Corporation (PEF)Duke Energy
Yesx
(   )
No¨
(X)Duke Energy Florida
Yes x
No ¨
Duke Energy Carolinas
Yes x
No ¨
Duke Energy Ohio
Yes ¨
No x
Progress Energy
Yes ¨
No x
Duke Energy Indiana
Yes ¨
No x
Duke Energy Progress
Yes x
No ¨

Indicate by check mark whether eachif the registrant is not required to file reports to pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act.

Yes ¨ No x (Response applicable to all registrants.)
Progress EnergyYes(   )No(X)
PECYes(   )No(X)
PEFYes(X)No(   )

Indicate by check mark whether each registrantthe registrants (1) hashave filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes x No ¨
Progress EnergyYes(X)No(   )
PECYes(X)No(   )
PEFYes(   )No(X)

Indicate by check mark whether each registrant hasthe registrants have submitted electronically and posted to itson their corporate Web site,website, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrants wereregistrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes x No ¨
Progress EnergyYes(X)No(   )
PECYes(X)No(   )
PEFYes(X)No(   )

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of each registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in PARTPart III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.
Duke Energy
Yes x
No ¨
Duke Energy Florida
Yes x
No ¨
Duke Energy Carolinas
Yes x
No ¨
Duke Energy Ohio
Yes x
No ¨
Progress Energy( )
Yes x
No ¨
Duke Energy Indiana
Yes x
No ¨
PECDuke Energy Progress( )
PEF(X)
Yes x
No ¨

Indicate by check mark whether each registrantDuke Energy is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act:Act. (Check one):  Large accelerated filer x  Accelerated filer ¨  Non-accelerated filer ¨  Smaller reporting company ¨
Progress EnergyLarge accelerated filer(X)Accelerated filer(   )
Non-accelerated filer(   )Smaller reporting company(   )
PECLarge accelerated filer(   )Accelerated filer(   )
Non-accelerated filer(X)Smaller reporting company(   )
PEFLarge accelerated filer(   )Accelerated filer(   )
Non-accelerated filer(X)Smaller reporting company(   )

Indicate by check mark whether each registrant isDuke Energy Carolinas, Progress Energy, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Florida, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana are large accelerated filers, accelerated filers, non-accelerated filers, or smaller reporting companies. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):  Large accelerated filer ¨  Accelerated filer ¨  Non-accelerated filer x Smaller reporting company ¨
Indicate by check mark whether the registrants are a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ¨ No x
Progress EnergyYes(   )No(X)
PECYes(   )No(X)
PEFEstimated aggregate market value of the common equity held by nonaffiliates of Duke Energy at June 30, 2014.Yes52,431,523,340(   )No(X)

As of June 30, 2011, the aggregate market value of the voting and nonvoting common equity of Progress Energy held by nonaffiliates was $14,107,388,747. As of June 30, 2011, the aggregate market value of the common equity of PEC held by nonaffiliates was $0. All of the common stock of PEC is owned by Progress Energy. As of June 30, 2011, the aggregate market value of the common equity of PEF held by nonaffiliates was $0. All of the common stock of PEF is indirectly owned by Progress Energy.


As of February 23, 2012, each registrant had the following shares of common stock outstanding:
RegistrantDescriptionShares
Progress EnergyNumber of shares of Common Stock, (Without Par Value)$0.001 par value, outstanding at February 24, 2015.295,219,128
PEC707,554,168Common Stock (Without Par Value)
159,608,055
PEFCommon Stock (Without Par Value)100

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the ProgressDuke Energy and PEC definitive proxy statementsstatement for the 20122014 Annual Meeting of the Shareholders or an amendment to this Annual Report are incorporated by reference into PART III, Items 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 hereof. If such proxy statements are not filed with the SEC within 120 days after the end of our fiscal year, such information will be filed as part of an amendment to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A.

This combined Form 10-K is filed separately by threeseven registrants: Duke Energy, Duke Energy Carolinas, Progress Energy, PECDuke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Florida, Duke Energy Ohio and PEFDuke Energy Indiana (collectively the ProgressDuke Energy Registrants). Information contained herein relating to any individual registrant is filed by such registrant solely on its own behalf. Neither of PEC nor PEF make anyEach registrant makes no representation as to information related solelyrelating exclusively to the other registrants.
Duke Energy Carolinas, Progress Energy, or the subsidiaries ofDuke Energy Progress, Duke Energy other than itself.

PEF meetsFlorida, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana meet the conditions set forth in General Instruction I (1) Instructions I(1)(a) and (b) of Form 10-K and isare, therefore, filing this Form 10-Kform with the reduced disclosure format permitted byspecified in General Instruction I (2) to suchInstructions I(2) of Form 10-K.










TABLE OF CONTENTS
FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED December 31, 2014
 Item 
 Page
   
CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION 
   
GLOSSARY OF TERMS 
   
PART I.  
1.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
1A.
   
1B.
   
2.
   
3.
   
4.
   
PART II.  
5.
   
6.
   
7.
   
7A.
   
8.
   
9.
   
9A.
   
PART III.  
10.
   
11.
   
12.
   
13.
   
14.
   
PART IV.  
15.
 
 





CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION
This document includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Forward-looking statements are based on management’s beliefs and assumptions. These forward-looking statements are identified by terms and phrases such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “intend,” “estimate,” “expect,” “continue,” “should,” “could,” “may,” “plan,” “project,” “predict,” “will,” “potential,” “forecast,” “target,” “guidance,” “outlook,” and similar expressions. Forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to be materially different from the results predicted. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those indicated in any forward-looking statement include, but are not limited to:
State, federal and foreign legislative and regulatory initiatives, including costs of compliance with existing and future environmental requirements or climate change, as well as rulings that affect cost and investment recovery or have an impact on rate structures or market prices;
The extent and timing of the costs and liabilities relating to the Dan River ash basin release and compliance with current and any future regulatory changes related to the management of coal ash;
The ability to recover eligible costs, including those associated with future significant weather events, and earn an adequate return on investment through the regulatory process;
The costs of decommissioning nuclear facilities could prove to be more extensive than are currently identified and all costs may not be fully recoverable through the regulatory process;
The risk that the credit ratings of the company or its subsidiaries may be different from what the companies expect;
Costs and effects of legal and administrative proceedings, settlements, investigations and claims;
Industrial, commercial and residential growth or decline in service territories or customer bases resulting from customer usage patterns, including energy efficiency efforts and use of alternative energy sources, including self-generation and distributed generation technologies;
Additional competition in electric markets and continued industry consolidation;
Political and regulatory uncertainty in other countries in which Duke Energy conducts business;
The influence of weather and other natural phenomena on operations, including the economic, operational and other effects of severe storms, hurricanes, droughts and tornadoes;
The ability to successfully operate electric generating facilities and deliver electricity to customers;
The impact on facilities and business from a terrorist attack, cybersecurity threats, data security breaches, and other catastrophic events;
The inherent risks associated with the operation and potential construction of nuclear facilities, including environmental, health, safety, regulatory and financial risks;
The timing and extent of changes in commodity prices, interest rates and foreign currency exchange rates and the ability to recover such costs through the regulatory process, where appropriate, and their impact on liquidity positions and the value of underlying assets;
The results of financing efforts, including the ability to obtain financing on favorable terms, which can be affected by various factors, including credit ratings and general economic conditions;
Declines in the market prices of equity and fixed income securities and resultant cash funding requirements for defined benefit pension plans, other post-retirement benefit plans, and nuclear decommissioning trust funds;
Construction and development risks associated with the completion of Duke Energy Registrants’ capital investment projects in existing and new generation facilities, including risks related to financing, obtaining and complying with terms of permits, meeting construction budgets and schedules, and satisfying operating and environmental performance standards, as well as the ability to recover costs from customers in a timely manner or at all;
Changes in rules for regional transmission organizations, including changes in rate designs and new and evolving capacity markets, and risks related to obligations created by the default of other participants;
The ability to control operation and maintenance costs;
The level of creditworthiness of counterparties to transactions;
Employee workforce factors, including the potential inability to attract and retain key personnel;
The ability of subsidiaries to pay dividends or distributions to Duke Energy Corporation holding company (the Parent);
The performance of projects undertaken by our nonregulated businesses and the success of efforts to invest in and develop new opportunities;
The effect of accounting pronouncements issued periodically by accounting standard-setting bodies;
The impact of potential goodwill impairments;
The ability to reinvest prospective undistributed earnings of foreign subsidiaries or repatriate such earnings on a tax-efficient basis; and
The ability to successfully complete future merger, acquisition or divestiture plans.





In light of these risks, uncertainties and assumptions, the events described in the forward-looking statements might not occur or might occur to a different extent or at a different time than described. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made; the Duke Energy Registrants undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise that occur after that date.





Glossary of Terms
The following terms or acronyms used in this Form 10-K are defined below:
PART I
Term or AcronymBUSINESSDefinition
  
the 2010 PlanRISK FACTORSDuke Energy’s 2010 Long-Term Incentive Plan
  
the 2012 Edwardsport settlementUNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTSSettlement agreement in 2012 among Duke Energy Indiana, the OUCC, the Duke Energy Indiana Industrial Group and Nucor Steel-Indiana
  
the 2012 SettlementPROPERTIESSettlement agreement in 2012 among Duke Energy Florida, the OPC and other customer advocates
  
the 2013 SettlementLEGAL PROCEEDINGSSettlement agreement in 2013 among Duke Energy Florida, the OPC and other customer advocates
  
ACPMINE SAFETY DISCLOSURESAtlantic Coast Pipeline
  
AFUDCEXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANTSAllowance for Funds Used During Construction
  
PART II
AguaytiaMARKET FOR REGISTRANTS’ COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIESAguaytia Integrated Energy Project
  
AHFSSELECTED FINANCIAL DATAAssets held for sale
  
ALJMANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONSAdministrative Law Judge
  
ANEELQUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISKBrazilian electricity regulatory agency
  
AOCIFINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATAAccumulated Other Comprehensive Income
  
ASUCHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURESAccounting standard update
  
Board of DirectorsCONTROLS AND PROCEDURESDuke Energy Board of Directors
  
BisonOTHER INFORMATIONBison Insurance Company Limited
  
PART III
BrunswickDIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCEBrunswick Nuclear Station
  
CAAEXECUTIVE COMPENSATIONClean Air Act
  
SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS
CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS, AND DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE
PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING FEES AND SERVICES
PART IV
EXHIBITS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES

1


GLOSSARY OF TERMS

We use the words “Progress Energy,” “we,” “us” or “our” to indicate that certain information relates to Progress Energy, Inc. and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis. When appropriate, the parent holding company or the subsidiaries of Progress Energy are specifically identified on an unconsolidated basis as we discuss their various business activities.
The following abbreviations, acronyms or initialisms are used by the Progress Registrants:
TERMDEFINITION
401(k)Progress Energy 401(k) Savings & Stock Ownership Plan
AFUDCAllowance for funds used during construction
AROAsset retirement obligation
ASCFASB Accounting Standards Codification
ASLBAtomic Safety and Licensing Board
the Asset Purchase AgreementAgreement by and among Global, Earthco and certain affiliates, and the Progress Affiliates as amended on August 23, 2000
ASUAccounting Standards Update
Audit CommitteeAudit and Corporate Performance Committee of Progress Energy’s board of directors
BARTBest Available Retrofit Technology
Base RevenuesNon-GAAP measure defined as operating revenues excluding clause recoverable regulatory returns, miscellaneous revenues, fuel and other pass-through revenues and refunds, if any
BrunswickPEC’s Brunswick Nuclear Plant
BtuBritish thermal unit
CAAClean Air Act
CAIRClean Air Interstate Rule
CAMRClean Air Mercury Rule
CAVRCalpineClean Air Visibility RuleCalpine Corporation
CCRCCapacity Cost-Recovery Clause
CERCLA or SuperfundCatawbaComprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amendedCatawba Nuclear Station
Clean Smokestacks
Catawba RiverkeeperCatawba Riverkeeper Foundation, Inc.
CCRCoal Combustion Residuals
CCSCarbon Capture and Storage
CECPCNCertificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Convenience and Necessity
CEOChief Executive Officer
CinergyCinergy Corp. (collectively with its subsidiaries)
CO2
Carbon Dioxide
Coal Ash ActNorth Carolina Clean SmokestacksCoal Ash Management Act of 2014
CO2
Carbon dioxide
Coal Ash CommissionCoal Ash Management Commission
COLCombined licenseConstruction and Operating License
Corporate and OtherCorporate and Other segment primarily includes the Parent, Progress Energy Service Company and miscellaneous other nonregulated businesses
CR1the CompanyDuke Energy Corporation and CR2PEF’s Crystal River Units No. 1 and No. 2 coal-fired steam turbinesits' subsidiaries
CR3PEF’s
Consolidated ComplaintCorrected Verified Consolidated Shareholder Derivative Complaint
CPPClean Power Plan
CRCCinergy Receivables Company, LLC
CRESCompetitive Retail Electric Supplier
CrescentCrescent Resources LLC
Crystal River Unit No.3Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear PlantStation
CR4 and CR5PEF’s Crystal River Units No. 4 and No. 5 coal-fired steam turbines
CSAPRCross-State Air Pollution Rule
CVOContingent value obligation
CWAClean Water Act
DBDefined Benefit (Pension Plan)
D.C. Circuit Court of AppealsU.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit





DEBSDuke Energy Business Services, LLC
DECAMDuke Energy Commercial Asset Management, Inc.
DECSDuke Energy Corporate Services
DEFRDuke Energy Florida Receivables Company, LLC
DEGSDuke Energy Generation Services, Inc.
DEIGPDuke Energy International Geracao Paranapenema S.A.
DeloitteDeloitte & Touche LLP, and the member firms of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu and their respective affiliates
DENRDepartment of Environment and Natural Resources
DEPRDuke Energy Progress Receivables Company, LLC
DERFDuke Energy Receivables Finance Company, LLC
Disposal GroupDuke Energy Ohio’s nonregulated Midwest generation business and Duke Energy Retail Sales, LLC
DOEUnited StatesU.S. Department of Energy
DOJUnited States Department of Justice
DominionDominion Resources
DSMDemand-side managementDemand Side Management
Duke EnergyDuke Energy Corporation (collectively with its subsidiaries)
EarthcoFour coal-based solid synthetic fuels limited liability companies of which three were wholly owned
ECCRDuke Energy Audit CommitteeEnergy Conservation Cost Recovery ClauseAudit Committee of the Board of Directors
ECRCEnvironmental Cost Recovery Clause
Duke Energy CarolinasDuke Energy Carolinas, LLC
Duke Energy DefendantsSeveral current and former Duke Energy officers and directors named as defendants in the Consolidated Complaint
Duke Energy FloridaDuke Energy Florida, Inc.
Duke Energy IndianaDuke Energy Indiana, Inc.
Duke Energy KentuckyDuke Energy Kentucky, Inc.
Duke Energy OhioDuke Energy Ohio, Inc.
Duke Energy ProgressDuke Energy Progress, Inc.
Duke Energy RegistrantsDuke Energy, Duke Energy Carolinas, Progress Energy, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Florida, Duke Energy Ohio, and Duke Energy Indiana
Duke Energy RetailDuke Energy Retail Sales, LLC
Duke Energy VermillionDuke Energy Vermillion II, LLC
DukeNetDukeNet Communications Holdings, LLC
DynegyDynegy Inc.
EEEnergy efficiency
EGU MACTMACT standards for coal-fired and oil-fired electric steam generating units
EGUElectric Generating Units
EIPProgress Energy’s Equity Incentive Plan
2

Electric SettlementSettlement agreement in 2013 among Duke Energy Ohio and all intervening parties
ELGEffluent Limitation Guidelines
EMCNorth Carolina Environmental Management Commission
EPAUnited StatesU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPCEngineering, procurementProcurement and constructionConstruction agreement
ESOPEmployee Stock Ownership
EPSEarnings Per Share
ESPElectric Security Plan
ETREffective tax rate
Exchange ActExchange Act of 1934
FASBFinancial Accounting Standards Board
FDEPFlorida Department of Environmental Protection
FERCFederal Energy Regulatory Commission
FGTFlorida Gas Transmission Company, LLC





FitchFitch Ratings, Inc.
the
Florida Global CaseLitigation case filed in the Circuit Court for Broward County, Florida by U.S. Global, LLC v. Progress Energy, Inc. et al.
Florida ProgressMunicipal Joint OwnersFlorida Progress CorporationSeminole Electric Cooperative, Inc., City of Ocala, Orlando Utilities Commission, City of Gainesville, City of Leesburg, Kissimmee Utility Authority, Utilities Commission of the City of New Smyrna Beach, City of Alachua and City of Bushnell
Form S-3registration statement
FPSCFlorida Public Service Commission
Funding Corp.Florida Progress Funding Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Florida Progress
FRRFixed Resource Requirement
FTRFinancial transmission rights
GAAPGenerally Accepted Accounting principles generally acceptedPrinciples in the United States of America
Gas SettlementSettlement agreement in 2013 among Duke Energy Ohio, PUCO Staff and intervening parties
GBRAGeneration Base Rate Adjustment recovery mechanism
GHGGreenhouse gasGas
GlobalU.S. Global, LLC
GPCGeorgia Power Company
GWhGigawatt-hours
HarrisPEC’s Shearon Harris Nuclear PlantStation
IPP
HB 998North Carolina House Bill 998
HinesHines Energy Complex
IAPState Environmental Agency of Parana
IBAMABrazil Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources
IbenerIberoamericana de Energia Ibener, S.A.
IBNRIncurred but not yet reported
ICInternal combustion
IGCCIntegrated Gasification Combined Cycle
Interim FERC MitigationInterim firm power sale agreements mitigation plans related to the Progress Energy Investor Plusmerger
IRPIntegrated Resource Plans
IRSInternal Revenue Service
ISFSIIndependent Spent Fuel Storage Installation
ISOIndependent System Operator
ITCInvestment Tax Credit
IURCIndiana Utility Regulatory Commission
Investment TrustsGrantor trusts of Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Florida and Duke Energy Indiana
JDAJoint Dispatch Agreement
Joint IntervenorsIntervenors in matters related to the Edwardsport IGCC Plan, including the Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc., Sierra Club, Inc., Save the Valley, Inc., and Valley Watch, Inc.
KPSCKentucky Public Service Commission
kVKilovolt
kVAKilovolt-ampere
kWhKilowatt-hoursKilowatt-hour
Lee Nuclear StationWilliam States Lee III Nuclear Station
LevyPEF’sDuke Energy Florida’s proposed nuclear plant in Levy County, Fla.Florida
Legacy Duke Energy DirectorsMembers of the pre-merger Duke Energy Board of Directors
LIBORLondon Inter BankInterbank Offered Rate
MACTMaximum achievable control technology
MD&ALong-Term FERC MitigationManagement’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations contained in PART II, Item 7 of this Form 10-KThe revised market power mitigation plan related to the Progress Energy merger
Medicare ActMedicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003
MATSMercury and Air Toxics Standards (previously referred to as the MergerUtility MACT Rule)





Proposed merger between Progress Energy and Duke Energy
the Merger AgreementAgreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of January 8, 2011, by and among Progress Energy and Duke Energy
McfThousand cubic feet
McGuireMcGuire Nuclear Station
MGPManufactured gas plant
MWMegawatts
MWhMISOMegawatt-hoursMidcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
MMBtuMillion British Thermal Unit
Moody’sMoody’s InvestorsInvestor Service, Inc.
NAAQSNational Ambient Air Quality Standards
NC REPSMTBEMethyl tertiary butyl ether
MTEPMISO Transmission Expansion Planning
MWMegawatt
MVPMulti Value Projects
MWhMegawatt-hour
NASDAQNasdaq Composite
NCAGNorth Carolina Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Portfolio StandardAttorney General
NCEMCNorth Carolina Electric Membership Corporation
NCEMPANorth Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency
NCRCFlorida’s Nuclear Cost Recovery Clause
NCSCNorth Carolina Supreme Court
NCUCNorth Carolina Utilities Commission
NDT
NC WARNN.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network
NDTFNuclear decommissioning trust funds
NEILNuclear Electric Insurance Limited
NERCNorth American Electric Reliability Corporation
NMCNational Methanol Company
NOLNet operating loss
NO2x
Nitrogen dioxideoxide
North Carolina Global CaseProgress Synfuel Holdings, Inc. et al. v. U.S. Global, LLC
NOxNPNSNitrogen oxidesNormal purchase/normal sale
NRCU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
O&MOperation and maintenance expense
OATTNSROpen Access Transmission TariffNew Source Review
OCIOther comprehensive income
Ongoing EarningsNWPANon-GAAP financial measure defined as GAAP net income attributable to controlling interests after excluding discontinued operations and the effectsNuclear Waste Policy Act of certain identified gains and charges1982
NYSENew York Stock Exchange
OconeeOconee Nuclear Station
Ohio EPAOhio Environmental Protection Agency
OPCFlorida Office of Public Counsel
OPEBPostretirement benefits other than pensionsOther Post-Retirement Benefit Obligations
ORSSouth Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff
Osprey Plant acquisitionDuke Energy Florida's proposed acquisition of Calpine Corporation's 599 MW combined cycle natural gas plant in Auburndale, FL
OUCCOffice of Utility Consumer Counselor
OVECOhio Valley Electric Corporation
the ParentProgressDuke Energy Inc. holding company on an unconsolidated basis
3

PECCarolina Power & LightCorporation Holding Company d/b/a Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.
PEFFlorida Power Corporation d/b/a Progress Energy Florida, Inc.
PESCProgress Energy Service Company
PJMPJM Interconnection, LLC
Power AgencyNorth Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency
PPACAPlea AgreementsPatient ProtectionPlea Agreements entered into by Duke Energy Carolinas and Affordable Care Act and the related Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act
Preferred Securities7.10% Cumulative Quarterly Income Preferred Securities due 2039, Series A issued by the Trust
Preferred Securities GuaranteeFlorida Progress’ guarantee of all distributionsDuke Energy Progress in connection with a criminal investigation related to the Preferred SecuritiesDan River ash basin release and the management of coal ash basins in North Carolina
Progress AffiliatesFive affiliated coal-based solid synthetic fuels facilities
Progress EnergyProgress Energy, Inc. and subsidiaries on a consolidated basis





Progress RegistrantsThe reporting registrants within the Progress Energy consolidated group. Collectively, Progress Energy, Inc., PEC and PEF
PRPPotentially responsible party, as defined in CERCLA
PSSPPSAPerformance Share Sub-Plan
QFQualifying facility
RCARevolving creditPurchase sale agreement
ReagentsCommodities such as ammonia and limestone used in emissions control technologies
REPSRenewable energy portfolio standard
the Registration StatementThe registration statement filed on Form S-4 by Duke Energy related to the Merger
RobinsonPEC’s Robinson Nuclear Plant
ROEReturn on equity
RSURestricted stock unit
SCPSCPSCSCPublic Service Commission of South Carolina
Section 29Section 29 of the Code
Section 29/45KPublic StaffGeneral business tax credits earned after December 31, 2005 for synthetic fuels production in accordance with Section 29North Carolina Utilities Commission Public Staff
Section 45KSection 45K of the Code
Section 316(b)PUCOSection 316(b)Public Utilities Commission of the Clean WaterOhio
PURPAPublic Utility Regulatory Act of 1978
QFQualifying Facility
QUIPSQuarterly Income Preferred Securities
RCARevolving Credit Agreement
RCRAResource Conservation and Recovery Act
(See Note/s “#”)For all sections, this is a cross-reference to the Combined Notes to the Financial Statements contained in PART II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K
SERCRelative TSRSERC Reliability CorporationTSR of Duke Energy stock relative to a pre-defined peer group
the ResolutionsProposed resolutions promulgated by the Brazilian electricity regulatory agency
RobinsonRobinson Nuclear Station
RTORegional Transmission Organization
SAFSTOR
A method of decommissioning in which a nuclear facility is placed and maintained in a condition that allows the facility to be safely stored and subsequently decontaminated to levels that permit release for unrestricted use.

SCDHECSouth Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
SECSecurities and Exchange Commission
SELCSouthern Environmental Law Center
Segment IncomeIncome from continuing operations net of income attributable to noncontrolling interests
SO2
Sulfur dioxide
SOASociety of actuaries
Spectra EnergySpectra Energy Corp.
Spectra CapitalSpectra Energy Capital, LLC (formerly Duke Capital LLC)
S&PStandard & Poor’s Rating Services
SO2
Sulfur dioxide
SOxSSOSulfur oxides
Subordinated Notes7.10% Junior Subordinated Deferrable Interest Notes due 2039 issued by Funding Corp.
Tax AgreementIntercompany Income Tax Allocation Agreement
the TrustFPC Capital I
the UtilitiesCollectively, PEC and PEF
VSPVoluntary severance plan
VIEVariable interest entity
WardWard Transformer site located in Raleigh, N.C.
Ward OU1Operable unit for stream segments downstream from the Ward site
Ward OU2Operable unit for further investigation at the Ward facility and certain adjacent areasStandard Service Offer
  
State Utility CommissionsNCUC, PSCSC, FPSC, PUCO, IURC and KPSC (Collectively)
Subsidiary RegistrantsDuke Energy Carolinas, Progress Energy, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Florida, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana
Supreme CourtU.S. Supreme Court
SuttonL.V. Sutton combined cycle facility
Suwannee projectProposed 320 MW combustion turbine plant at Duke Energy Florida's Suwannee generating facility
TSRTotal shareholder return
U.S.United States
USDOJUnited States Department of Justice Environmental Crimes Section and the United States Attorneys for the Eastern District of North Carolina, the Middle District of North Carolina and the Western District of North Carolina, collectively
VDEQVirginia Department of Environmental Quality
VEBA IDuke Energy Corporation Employee Benefits Trust
VermillionVermillion Generating Station
VIEVariable Interest Entity
VSPVoluntary Severance Plan
WACCWeighted Average Cost of Capital
WVPAWabash Valley Power Association, Inc.




4

PART I


SAFE HARBOR FOR FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
In this combined report, each of the Progress Registrants makes forward-looking statements within the meaning of the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The matters discussed throughout this combined Form 10-K that are not historical facts are forward looking and, accordingly, involve estimates, projections, goals, forecasts, assumptions, risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results or outcomes to differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements. Any forward-looking statement is based on information current as of the date of this report and speaks only as of the date on which such statement is made, and the Progress Registrants undertake no obligation to update any forward-looking statement or statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date on which such statement is made.
In addition, examples of forward-looking statements discussed in this Form 10-K include, but are not limited to, 1) statements made in PART I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors” and 2) PART II, Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” (MD&A) including, but not limited to, statements under the following headings: a) “Merger” about the proposed merger between Progress Energy and Duke Energy Corporation (Duke Energy) (the Merger) and the impact of the Merger on our strategy and liquidity; b) “Strategy” about our future strategy and goals; c) “Results of Operations” about trends and uncertainties; d) “Liquidity and Capital Resources” about operating cash flows, future liquidity requirements and estimated capital expenditures; and e) “Other Matters” about the effects of new environmental regulations, changes in the regulatory environment, meeting anticipated demand in our regulated service territories, potential nuclear construction and our synthetic fuels tax credits.
Examples of factors that you should consider with respect to any forward-looking statements made throughout this document include, but are not limited to, the following:
·  our ability to obtain the approvals required to complete the Merger and the impact of compliance with material restrictions or conditions potentially imposed by our regulators;
·  the risk that the Merger is terminated prior to completion and results in significant transaction costs to us;
·  our ability to achieve the anticipated results and benefits of the Merger;
·  the impact of business uncertainties and contractual restrictions while the Merger is pending;
·  the scope of necessary repairs of the delamination of PEF’s Crystal River Unit No. 3 Nuclear Plant (CR3) could prove more extensive than is currently identified, such repairs could prove not to be feasible, the costs of repair and/or replacement power could exceed our estimates and insurance coverage or may not be recoverable through the regulatory process;
·  the impact of fluid and complex laws and regulations, including those relating to the environment and energy policy;
·  our ability to recover eligible costs and earn an adequate return on investment through the regulatory process;
·  the ability to successfully operate electric generating facilities and deliver electricity to customers;
·  the impact on our facilities and businesses from a terrorist attack, cyber security threats and other catastrophic events;
·  the ability to meet the anticipated future need for additional baseload generation and associated transmission facilities in our regulated service territories and the accompanying regulatory and financial risks;
·  our ability to meet current and future renewable energy requirements;
·  the inherent risks associated with the operation and potential construction of nuclear facilities, including environmental, health, safety, regulatory and financial risks;
·  the financial resources and capital needed to comply with environmental laws and regulations;
·  risks associated with climate change;
·  weather and drought conditions that directly influence the production, delivery and demand for electricity;
·  recurring seasonal fluctuations in demand for electricity;
ITEM 1. BUSINESS
·  
the ability to recover in a timely manner, if at all, costs associated with future significant weather events through the regulatory process;
DUKE ENERGY
5

·  
fluctuations in the price of energy commodities and purchased power and our ability to recover such costs through the regulatory process;
·  the Progress Registrants’ ability to control costs, including operations and maintenance expense (O&M) and large construction projects;
General
·  the ability of our subsidiaries to pay upstream dividends or distributions to Progress Energy, Inc. holding company (the Parent);
·  current economic conditions;
·  the ability to successfully access capital markets on favorable terms;
·  the stability of commercial credit markets and our access to short- and long-term credit;
·  the impact that increases in leverage or reductions in cash flow may have on each of the Progress Registrants;
·  the Progress Registrants’ ability to maintain their current credit ratings and the impacts in the event their credit ratings are downgraded;
·  the investment performance of our nuclear decommissioning trust (NDT) funds;
·  the investment performance of the assets of our pension and benefit plans and resulting impact on future funding requirements;
·  the impact of potential goodwill impairments;
·  our ability to fully utilize tax credits generated from the previous production and sale of qualifying synthetic fuels under Internal Revenue Code Section 29/45K (Section 29/45K); and
·  the outcome of any ongoing or future litigation or similar disputes and the impact of any such outcome or related settlements.
Many of these risks similarly impact our nonreporting subsidiaries.
These and other risk factors are detailed from timeDuke Energy Corporation (collectively with its subsidiaries, Duke Energy) is an energy company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, subject to timeregulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Duke Energy operates in the Progress Registrants’ filings withUnited States (U.S.) and Latin America primarily through its direct and indirect subsidiaries. Duke Energy's subsidiaries include its subsidiary registrants (collectively referred to as the SEC. Many, but not all, of the factors that may impact actual results are discussed in Item 1A, “Risk Factors,” which should be read carefully. All such factors are difficult to predict, contain uncertainties that may materially affect actual results and may be beyond our control. New factors emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for management to predict all such factors, nor can management assess the effect of each such factor on the Progress Registrants.
6


PART I
BUSINESS
GENERAL
ORGANIZATION
Subsidiary Registrants); Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy Carolinas); Progress Energy, Inc. is a public utility holding company primarily engaged in the regulated electric utility business. Headquartered in Raleigh, N.C., it owns, directly or indirectly, all of the outstanding common stock of its utility subsidiaries, PEC(Progress Energy); Duke Energy Progress, Inc. (Duke Energy Progress); Duke Energy Florida, Inc. (Duke Energy Florida); Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. (Duke Energy Ohio); and PEF. In this report, ProgressDuke Energy which includes the Parent and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis, is at times referred to as “we,” “our” or “us.”Indiana, Inc. (Duke Energy Indiana). When discussing ProgressDuke Energy’s consolidated financial information, it necessarily includes the results of PECits Subsidiary Registrants, which along with Duke Energy, are collectively referred to as the Duke Energy Registrants.
On August 21, 2014, Duke Energy entered into an agreement to sell its nonregulated Midwest generation business (Disposal Group) to Dynegy Inc. (Dynegy) for approximately $2.8 billion in cash subject to adjustments at closing for changes in working capital and PEF (collectively, the Utilities).capital expenditures. The term “Progress Registrants” refers to each of the three separate registrants: ProgressDisposal Group primarily includes Duke Energy PECOhio's coal-fired and PEF. However, neither of the Utilities makes any representation as to information related solely to Progress Energy or the subsidiaries of Progress Energy other than itself. The Parent was incorporated on August 19, 1999, initially as CP&L Energy, Inc. and became the holding company for PEC on June 19, 2000. We acquired PEF through our November 2000 acquisition of its parent, Florida Progress Corporation (Florida Progress).
Our reportable segments are PEC and PEF, which are primarily engagedgas-fired generation assets located in the generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electricity in portions of North Carolina and South Carolina and in portions of Florida, respectively. The Corporate and Other segment primarily includes amounts applicable to the activities of the Parent and Progress Energy Service Company, LLC (PESC) and other miscellaneous nonregulated businesses (Corporate and Other) that do not separately meet the quantitative disclosure requirements as a reportable business segment. See Note 20 for information regarding the revenues, income and assets attributable to our business segments.
The Utilities have 23,000 megawatts (MW) of regulated electric generation capacity and serve approximately 3.1 million retail electric customers as well as other load-serving entities. We are dedicated to meeting the growth needs of our service territories and delivering reliable, competitively priced energy from a diverse portfolio of power plants. The Utilities operate in retail service territories that have historically had population growth higher than the U.S. average. However, like other partsMidwest region of the United States our service territories and business have been negatively impacteddispatched into the PJM wholesale market. These assets earn energy and capacity revenue at market price. The Disposal Group also includes a retail sales subsidiary of Duke Energy, Duke Energy Retail Sales, LLC (Duke Energy Retail), which is certified as a Competitive Retail Electric Supplier (CRES) provider in Ohio. Duke Energy Retail serves retail electric and gas customers in Ohio with energy and provides other energy services at competitive rates. Completion of the transaction is conditioned on approval by FERC. The transaction is expected to close by the current economic conditions. The timing and extentend of the recoverysecond quarter of 2015. For additional information on the economy cannot be predicted.Midwest generation business disposition see Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Acquisitions, Dispositions and Sales of Other Assets."
ForThe Duke Energy Registrants electronically file reports with the year ended December 31, 2011, our consolidated revenues were $8.907 billionSecurities and our consolidated assets at year-end were $35.059 billion.
The Progress Registrants’Exchange Commission (SEC), including annual reports on Form 10-K, definitive proxy statements for our annual shareholder meetings, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, proxies and all amendments to those reports are available free of charge through the Investor Relations section of our website at www.progress-energy.com. Information on our website is not incorporated herein and should not be deemed part of this Report. These reports are available as soon as reasonably practicable after such material is electronically filed with, or furnished with, the SEC. reports.
The public may read and copy any material we have filedmaterials the Duke Energy Registrants file with the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, N.E.,NE, Washington, D.C.DC 20549. Information regardingThe public may obtain information on the operationsoperation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. Alternatively, theThe SEC also maintains a website, www.sec.gov, containingan Internet site that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
On January 8, 2011,SEC at http://www.sec.gov. Additionally, information about the Duke Energy Registrants, including reports filed with the SEC, is available through Duke Energy’s website at http://www.duke-energy.com. Such reports are accessible at no charge and Progress Energy entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the Merger Agreement), which expires on July 8, 2012. Pursuantare made available as soon as reasonably practicable after such material is filed with or furnished to the Merger Agreement, Progress Energy will be acquired by SEC.
Business Segments
Duke Energy conducts its operations in a stock-for-stock transactionthree business segments; Regulated Utilities, International Energy and become a wholly owned subsidiaryCommercial Power. The remainder of Duke Energy’s operations are presented as Other. Duke Energy’s chief operating decision maker regularly reviews financial information about each of these business segments in deciding how to allocate resources and evaluate performance. For additional information on each of these business segments, including financial and geographic information, see Note 3 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Business Segments.”
The following sections describe the business and operations of each of Duke Energy’s reportable business segments, as well as Other.
REGULATED UTILITIES
Regulated Utilities conducts operations primarily through Duke Energy (the Merger). Both companies’ shareholders have approvedCarolinas, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Florida, Duke Energy Indiana, and Duke Energy Ohio. These electric and gas operations are subject to the Merger. However, consummationrules and regulations of the Merger is subject to customary conditions, including, among other things, expiration or termination of the applicable Hart-Scott-Rodino Act waiting period, and receipt of approval, to the extent required, from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
7

(FERC), the Federal Communications Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC),FERC, the North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC), the Kentucky Public Service Commission and theof South Carolina Public Service Commission (SCPSC). Although there are no merger-specific regulatory approvals required in Indiana, Ohio or Florida, the companies will continue to update the public service commissions in those states on the Merger, as applicable and as required. See Item IA, “Risk Factors,” MD&A – “Introduction – Merger,” and Note 2 for additional information related to the Merger.
On February 22, 2012,(PSCSC), the Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC) approved a comprehensive settlement agreement between PEF,, the Florida OfficeIndiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC), the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO), and the Kentucky Public CounselService Commission (KPSC).
Regulated Utilities serves 7.3 million retail electric customers in six states in the Southeast and Midwest regions of the U.S. Its service area covers approximately 95,000 square miles with an estimated population of 23 million people. Regulated Utilities serves 500,000 retail natural gas customers in southwestern Ohio and northern Kentucky. Electricity is also sold wholesale to incorporated municipalities, electric cooperative utilities and other consumer advocatesload-serving entities.
.The agreement, which will continue throughfollowing table represents the last billing cycledistribution of billed sales by customer class for the year ended December 2016, addresses three principal matters: cost recovery for PEF’s proposed Levy Nuclear Power Plant (Levy), the CR3 delamination prudence review pending before the FPSC and certain base rate issues. The agreement sets the Levy cost-31, 2014.recovery factor at a fixed amount during the term of the settlement and also allows PEF to recover investment and replacement power costs for CR3 in various circumstances. The parties to the agreement have waived or limited their rights to challenge the prudence of various costs related to CR3. The agreement provides for a $150 million annual increase in revenue requirements effective with the first billing cycle of January 2013, while maintaining the current return on equity (ROE) range of 9.5 percent to 11.5 percent. In the month following CR3’s return to commercial service, PEF’s ROE range will increase to 9.7 percent to 11.7 percent. Additionally, PEF will refund $288 million to customers through the fuel clause over four years, beginning in 2013. See Note 8C for additional provisions of the 2012 settlement agreement.
In September 2009, CR3 began an outage for normal refueling
 
Duke Energy Carolinas(a)

Duke Energy Progress(a)

 
Duke Energy Florida(b)

 
Duke Energy Ohio(c)

 
Duke Energy Indiana(d)

Residential32%29% 49% 36% 28%
General service32%24% 39% 39% 25%
Industrial25%16% 8% 24% 32%
Total retail sales89%69% 96% 99% 85%
Wholesale and other sales11%31% 4% 1% 15%
Total sales100%100% 100% 100% 100%
(a)Primary general service sectors include health care, education, financial services, information technology and military buildings. Primary industrial sectors include textiles, chemicals, rubber and plastics, paper, food and beverage, and auto manufacturing.

9


PART I

(b)Primary general service sectors include tourism, health care and government facilities and schools. Primary industrial sectors include phosphate rock mining and processing and citrus and other food processing.
(c)Primary general service sectors include health care, education, real estate and rental leasing, financial and insurance services, water/wastewater services, and wholesale trade services. Primary industrial sectors include aerospace, primary metals, chemicals and food.
(d)Primary general service sectors include retail, financial, healthcare and education services. Primary industrial sectors include primary and fabricated metals, transportation equipment, building materials, food and beverage, stone/clay/glass, and chemicals.
The number of residential, general service and maintenance as well as an uprate projectindustrial customers within the Regulated Utilities service territory is expected to increase its generating capability and to replace two steam generators. During preparations to replace the steam generators, workers discovered a delamination (or separation) within the concrete of the outer wall of the containment building, which resulted in an extension of the outage. In March 2011, engineers investigated and subsequently determined that a new delamination had occurred in another area of the structure after initial repair work was completed and during the late stages of retensioning the containment building. Subsequent to March 2011, monitoring equipment has detected additional changes and further damageover time. However, growth in the partially tensioned containment buildingnear term has been hampered by current economic conditions. Average usage per residential customer is expected to remain flat or decline for the foreseeable future. While total industrial and additional cracking or delaminations couldgeneral service sales increased in 2014 when compared to 2013, the growth rate was modest when compared to historical periods.
Seasonality and the Impact of Weather
Regulated Utilities’ costs and revenues are influenced by seasonal patterns. Peak sales of electricity occur during the repair process. Engineering designsummer and winter months, resulting in higher revenue and cash flows in these periods. By contrast, lower sales of electricity occur during the repairspring and fall, allowing for scheduled plant maintenance. Peak gas sales occur during the winter months. Residential and general service customers are most impacted by weather. Estimated weather impacts are based on actual current period weather compared to normal weather conditions. Normal weather conditions are defined as the long-term average of actual historical weather conditions.
The estimated impact of weather on earnings is under way. Abased on the number of factors could affect the repair plan, the return-to-service datecustomers, temperature variances from a normal condition and costs, including regulatory reviews, final engineering designs, contract negotiations, the ultimate work scope completion, testing, weather,customers’ historic usage levels and patterns. The methodology used to estimate the impact of new information discovered during additional testingweather does not and analysiscannot consider all variables that may impact customer response to weather conditions such as humidity and other developments. See “Nuclear Matters – CR3 Outage”relative temperature changes. The precision of this estimate may also be impacted by applying long-term weather trends to shorter-term periods.
Degree-day data are used to estimate energy required to maintain comfortable indoor temperatures based on each day’s average temperature. Heating-degree days measure the variation in weather based on the extent the average daily temperature falls below a base temperature. Cooling-degree days measure the variation in weather based on the extent the average daily temperature rises above the base temperature. Each degree of temperature below the base temperature counts as one heating-degree day and Note 8C.each degree of temperature above the base temperature counts as one cooling-degree day.
Competition
COMPETITIONRetail
Regulated Utilities’ businesses operate as the sole supplier of electricity within their service territories, with the exception of Ohio, which has a competitive electricity supply market for generation service. Regulated Utilities owns and operates facilities necessary to transmit and distribute electricity and, except in Ohio, to generate electricity. Services are priced by state commission approved rates designed to include the costs of providing these services and a reasonable return on invested capital. This regulatory policy is intended to provide safe and reliable electricity at fair prices. Competition in the regulated electric distribution business is primarily from on-site generation of industrial customers and distributed generation, such as rooftop solar, at residential, general service and/or industrial customer sites.
RETAIL COMPETITION
To our knowledge, thereRegulated Utilities is currently no enacted ornot aware of any proposed legislation in North Carolina, South Carolina or Floridaany jurisdiction that would give the Utilities’its retail customers the right to choose their electricity provider or otherwise restructure or deregulate the electric industry. However, the Utilities compete with suppliers of other forms of energy in connection with their retail customers.
Although there is no pending legislation at this time, if the retail jurisdictions served by theRegulated Utilities become subject to deregulation, the recovery of “stranded costs”stranded costs could become a significant consideration. Stranded costs primarily include the generation assets of utilitiesRegulated Utilities whose value in a competitive marketplace wouldmay be less than their current book value, as well as above-market purchased power commitments to qualifiedfrom qualifying facilities (QFs). The Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) established a new class of generating facilities as QFs, typically small power production facilities that generate power within a utility company’s service territory for which the utility companies are legally obligated to purchase the energy at an avoided cost rate. Thus far, all states that have passed restructuring legislation have provided for the opportunity to recover a substantial portion of stranded costs.
OurRegulated Utilities’ largest stranded cost exposure is for PEF’sprimarily related to Duke Energy Florida’s purchased power commitments with QFs, under which PEFit has future minimum expected capacity payments through 2025 of $4.1 billion (See Notes 22A and 22B). PEF$2.2 billion. Duke Energy Florida was obligated to enter into these contracts under provisions of the Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act of 1978. PEFPURPA. Duke Energy Florida continues to seek ways to address the impact of escalating payments under these contracts. However, the FPSC allows full recovery of the retail portion of the cost of power purchased from QFs. PEC does not have significant future minimum expected capacity payments under itsFor additional information related to these purchased power commitments, with QFs.see Note 5 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Commitments and Contingencies.”
In Ohio, Regulated Utilities conducts competitive auctions for electricity supply. The cost of energy purchased through these auctions is recovered from retail customers. Regulated Utilities earns retail margin in Ohio on the transmission and distribution of electricity only and not on the cost of the underlying energy.
Wholesale
8

WHOLESALE COMPETITION
TheRegulated Utilities competecompetes with other utilities and merchant generators for bulk power sales, and for sales to municipalities and cooperatives.
cooperatives, and wholesale transactions. The principal factors in competing for these sales are price, availability of capacity and power, and reliability of service. Prices are influenced primarily by market conditions and fuel costs.
Increased competition in the wholesale electric utility industry and the availability of transmission access could affect theRegulated Utilities’ load forecasts, plans for power supply and wholesale energy sales and related revenues. Wholesale energy sales will be impacted by the extent to which additional generation is available to sell to the wholesale market and the ability of theRegulated Utilities to attract new wholesale customers and to retain current wholesale customers who have existing customers.

10


PART I

Energy Capacity and Resources
Regulated Utilities owns approximately 50,000 megawatts (MW) of generation capacity. For additional information on Regulated Utilities’ generation facilities, see Item 2, “Properties.”
Energy and capacity are also supplied through contracts with PECother generators and purchased on the open market. Factors that could cause Regulated Utilities to purchase power for its customers include generating plant outages, extreme weather conditions, generation reliability, growth, and price. Regulated Utilities has interconnections and arrangements with its neighboring utilities to facilitate planning, emergency assistance, sale and purchase of capacity and energy, and reliability of power supply.
Regulated Utilities’ generation portfolio is a balanced mix of energy resources having different operating characteristics and fuel sources designed to provide energy at the lowest possible cost to meet its obligation to serve retail customers. All options, including owned generation resources and purchased power opportunities, are continually evaluated on a real-time basis to select and dispatch the lowest-cost resources available to meet system load requirements.
Recently Completed Generation Projects
The additional capacity from recently completed generation projects allowed Regulated Utilities to retire or PEF.plan to retire older, less efficient capacity. The following table summarizes the generation projects constructed and placed in service during the past three years.
  Megawatts
 Fuel Commercial Operation 
Cost
(in millions)

Duke Energy CarolinasCliffside Unit 6844
 Coal 2012 $2,100
Duke Energy CarolinasDan River Combined Cycle637
 Natural Gas 2012 675
Duke Energy ProgressH.F. Lee Combined Cycle916
 Natural Gas 2012 725
Duke Energy ProgressL.V. Sutton Combined Cycle622
 Natural Gas 2013 575
Duke Energy IndianaEdwardsport IGCC595
 Coal 2013 3,550
Total 3,614
     $7,625
PECPotential Plant Retirements
The Subsidiary Registrants periodically file Integrated Resource Plans (IRP) with state regulatory commissions. The IRPs provide a view of forecasted energy needs over a long term (10 to 20 years) and PEF are subjectoptions being considered to regulationmeet those needs. Recent IRPs filed by the FERC with respectSubsidiary Registrants included planning assumptions to transmission service, including generator interconnection service forpotentially retire certain coal-fired generating facilities making sales for resale and wholesale sales of electric energy.
In February 2007, the FERC adopted final rules making extensive changes to the pro forma open access transmission tariff (OATT) to ensure that transmission service is provided in a fair manner to all transmission customers. PEC’s and PEF’s compliance filings reflecting the required changes in the transmission planning areas were approved by the FERC in 2010. Although this final rule impacted the Utilities’ transmission operations, planning and wholesale marketing functions, it didearlier than their current estimated useful lives. These facilities do not have a significant impact on the Utilities’ financial results.
In July 2011, the FERC adopted additional final rules relatedrequisite emission control equipment, primarily to regional and interregional transmission planning and cost allocation. These rules also require that the transmission planning process provides a structure whereby a non-incumbent transmission developer could be considered for building transmission projects that are selected for regional or interregional cost allocation. Public utility transmission providers are required to submit compliance filings addressing the regional requirements of the rule by October 2012 and are required to submit compliance filings addressing the interregional requirements of the rule by April 2013. The rule will require significant changes in the PEC and PEF regional and interregional transmission planning and cost allocation approaches, however, based on a preliminary assessment of the rule, it is not expected to have a significant impact on the Utilities’ financial results.
The FERC requires that entities desiring to make wholesale sales of electricity at market-based rates document that they do not possess market power. Market power is exercised when an entity profitably drives up prices through its control of a single activity, such as electricity generation, where it controls a significant share of the total capacity available to the market. The FERC has established screening measures for such determinations. Given the difficulty PEC believed it would experience in passing one of the screens, PEC revised its market-based rate tariffs in 2005 to restrict PEC to making market-based sales outside of its control area and peninsular Florida, and filed a new cost-based tariff for sales within PEC’s control area. PEF likewise made comparable filings which restrict PEF to making market-based rates outside of peninsular Florida and outside of the PEC control area. Accordingly, PEC and PEF make wholesale sales of electricity at cost-based rates in areas inside of PEC’s control area and peninsular Florida, and at market-based rates outside of PEC’s control area and peninsular Florida. We do not anticipate that the operations of the Utilities will be materially impacted by this market-based rate decision.
FRANCHISE MATTERS
PEC has non-exclusive franchises with varying expiration dates in most of the municipalities in North Carolina and South Carolina in which it distributes electricity. In North Carolina, franchises generally continue for 60 years. In South Carolina, franchises continue in perpetuity unless terminated according to certain statutory methods. The general effect of these franchises is to provide for the manner in which PEC occupies rights of way in incorporated areas of municipalities for the purpose of constructing, operating and maintaining an energy transmission and distribution system. Of PEC’s 240 franchises, the majority covers 60-year periods from the date enacted, and 45 have no specific expiration dates. Of the PEC franchise agreements with expiration dates, 11 expire during the period 2012 through 2016, and the remaining agreements expire between 2017 and 2071. We anticipate renewing substantially all of the expiring franchise agreements. To the extent that PEC does not renew the expiring franchise agreements, PEC will continue to operate within municipal rights of way pursuant to statutory authority. PEC also provides service within a number of municipalities and in all of the unincorporated areas within its service area without franchise agreements.
9

PEF has non-exclusive franchises with varying expiration dates in 113 of the Florida municipalities in which it distributes electricity. PEF also provides service to eight other municipalities and in all of the unincorporated areas within its service area without franchise agreements. The general effect of these franchises is to provide for the manner in which PEF occupies rights of way in incorporated areas of municipalities for the purpose of constructing, operating and maintaining an energy transmission and distribution system. The PEF franchise agreements cover periods ranging from 10- to 30-year periods from the date enacted. Of PEF’s 113 franchise agreements, 25 expire between 2012 and 2016, and the remaining agreements expire between 2017 and 2040. We anticipate renewing substantially all of the expiring franchise agreements. To the extent that PEF does not renew the expiring franchise agreements, PEF will continue to operate within municipal rights of way in compliance with city permitting processes that govern these activities.
REGULATORY MATTERS
HOLDING COMPANY REGULATION
The Parent is a registered public utility holding company subject to regulation by the FERC, including provisions relating to the establishment of intercompany extensions of credit, sales, acquisitions of securities and utility assets, and services performed by PESC. The FERC also has authority over accounting and record retention and cost allocation jurisdiction at the election of the holding company system or the state utility commissions with jurisdiction over its utility subsidiaries.
UTILITY REGULATION
FEDERAL REGULATION
The Utilities are subject to regulation by a number of federal regulatory agencies, including the United States Department of Energy (DOE), the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the NRC and themeet United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Reliability Standards
The FERC has certified regulations recently approved or proposed. These facilities total approximately 1,704 MW at three sites. Duke Energy continues to evaluate the NERC as the electric reliability organization that will propose and enforce mandatory reliability standards for the bulk power electric system. Included in this certification was a provision for the delegation of authoritypotential need to audit, investigate and enforce reliability standards in particular regions of the country by entering into delegation agreements with regional entities. In addition, the regional entities have the ability to formulate additional reliability standards in their respective regions, which are required to supplement and be more stringentretire these coal-fired generating facilities earlier than the NERC reliability standards. The SERC Reliability Corporation (SERC)current estimated useful lives, and the Florida Reliability Coordinating Councilplans to seek regulatory recovery for amounts that would not be otherwise recovered when any of these assets are the regional entities for PEC and PEF, respectively.
PEC and PEF are currently subjectretired. For additional information related to certain reliability standards as registered users, owners and operators of the bulk power electric system. We expect existing reliability standards to migrate to more definitive and enforceable requirements over time and additional NERC and regional reliability standards to be approved by the FERC in coming years requiring us to take additional steps to remain compliant. The financial impact of mandatory compliance cannot currently be determined. Failure to comply with the reliability standards could result in the imposition of fines and civil penalties. If we are unable to meet the reliability standards for the bulk power electric system in the future, it could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and liquidity.
PEC and PEF have self-reportedpotential plant retirements see Note 4 to the SERC and Florida Reliability Coordinating Council, respectively, noncompliances and violations with the voluntary and mandatory standards from time to time. The noncompliances and violations have led to the development and implementation of mitigation plans at the Utilities. None of the noncompliances or violations noted above nor the costs of executing the mitigation plans are expected to have a significant impact on our overall compliance efforts, results of operations or liquidity.
10

Nuclear Regulation
The Utilities’ nuclear generating units are regulated by the NRC. The NRC is responsible for granting licenses for the construction, operation and retirement of nuclear power plants and subjects these plants to continuing review and regulation. In the event of noncompliance, the NRC has the authority to impose fines, set license conditions, shut down a nuclear unit or take some combination of these actions, depending upon its assessment of the severity of the situation, until compliance is achieved. See “NuclearConsolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters.”
Sources of Electricity
Environmental Regulation
TheRegulated Utilities are also subject to regulation by federal, state and local regulatory agencies. See “Environmental.”
STATE REGULATION
PEC is subject to regulation in North Carolina by the NCUC, and in South Carolina by the SCPSC. PEF is subject to regulation in Florida by the FPSC. The Utilities are regulated by their respective regulatory bodies with respect to, among other things, rates and service for electricity sold at retail; retail cost recovery of unusual or unexpected expenses, such as severe storm costs; and issuances of securities. The underlying concept of utility ratemaking is to set rates at a level that allows the utility to collect revenues equal to its cost of providing service plus earn a reasonable rate of returnrelies principally on its invested capital, including equity.
Retail Rate Matters
Each of the Utilities’ state utility commissions authorizes retail “base rates” that are designed to provide the respective utility with the opportunity to earn a reasonable rate of return on its “rate base,” or net investment in utility plant. These rates are intended to cover all reasonable and prudent expenses of constructing, operating and maintaining the utility system, except those covered by specific cost-recovery clauses.
In PEC’s most recent rate cases in 1988, the NCUC and the SCPSC each authorized a ROE of 12.75 percent.
In PEF’s 2010 settlement agreement approved by the FPSC, the FPSC authorized PEF the opportunity to earn a ROE of up to 11.5 percent. The 2010 settlement agreement is in effect through the last billing cycle of 2012. See “Recent Developments” for discussion regarding the 2012 settlement agreement.
Retail Cost-Recovery Clauses
Each of the Utilities’ state utility commissions allows recovery of certain costs through various cost-recovery clauses, to the extent the respective commission determines in an annual hearing that such costs, including any past over- or under-recovered costs, are prudent. The clauses are in addition to the Utilities’ approved base rates. The Utilities generally do not earn a return on the recovery of eligible operating expenses under such clauses; however, in certain jurisdictions, the Utilities may earn interest on under-recovered costs. Additionally, the commissions may authorize a return for specified investments for energy efficiency and conservation, capacity costs, environmental compliance and utility plant. See MD&A – “Regulatory Matters and Recovery of Costs” for additional discussion regarding cost-recovery clauses.
Costs recovered by the Utilities through cost-recovery clauses, by retail jurisdiction, are as follows:
·  
North Carolina Retail – fuel costs, the fuel and other portions of purchased power (capacity costs for purchases from dispatchable QFs are also recoverable), costs of new demand-side management (DSM) and  energy efficiency (EE) programs, costs of commodities such as ammonia and limestone used in emissions control technologies (Reagents), and eligible renewable energy costs;
·  
South Carolina Retail – fuel costs, certain purchased power costs, costs of Reagents, sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emission allowance expenses, and costs of new DSM and EE programs; and
11

·  
Florida Retail – fuel costs, purchased power costs, capacity costs, qualified nuclear costs, energy conservation expense and specified environmental costs, including Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) compliance costs, and SO2 and NOx emission allowance expenses.
Fuel, fuel-related costs and certain purchased power costs are eligible for recovery by the Utilities. The Utilities use coal, oil, hydroelectric (PEC only), natural gas and nuclear fuel for its generation of electricity. The following table lists sources of electricity and fuel costs for the three years ended December 31, 2014.
 
Generation by Source(a)(e)
 
Cost of Delivered Fuel per Net
Kilowatt-hour Generated (Cents)(a)(e)
 2014
 2013
 2012
 2014
 2013
 2012
Coal(b)
36.5% 35.7% 39.1% 3.54
 3.67
 3.55
Nuclear(b)
28.4% 28.7% 30.8% 0.65
 0.66
 0.62
Gas and oil(b)
20.8% 21.3% 14.0% 4.70
 4.18
 4.03
All fuels (cost-based on weighted average)(b)
85.7% 85.7% 83.9% 2.86
 2.79
 2.55
Hydroelectric and solar(c)
0.9% 1.5% 0.8%      
Total generation86.6% 87.2% 84.7%      
Purchased power and net interchange(d)
13.4% 12.8% 15.3%      
Total sources of energy100.0% 100.0% 100.0%      
(a)Statistics include Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida beginning July 2, 2012.
(b)Statistics related to all fuels reflect Regulated Utilities' ownership interest in jointly owned generation facilities.
(c)Generating figures are net of output required to replenish pumped storage facilities during off-peak periods. 
(d)Purchased power includes renewable energy purchases. 
(e)Includes the effect of the Joint Dispatch Agreement (JDA) and Mitigation sales. Mitigation sales are excluded from the Regulated Utilities segment. 

11


PART I

Coal
Regulated Utilities meets its coal demand through a portfolio of long-term purchase contracts and short-term spot market purchase agreements. Large amounts of coal are purchased under long-term contracts with mining operators who mine both underground and at the surface. Regulated Utilities uses spot-market purchases to generate electricity, thereby maintainingmeet coal requirements not met by long-term contracts. Expiration dates for its long-term contracts, which have various price adjustment provisions and market re-openers, range from 2015 to 2016 for Duke Energy Carolinas, 2015 to 2018 for Duke Energy Progress, 2015 to 2016 for Duke Energy Florida, and 2015 to 2025 for Duke Energy Indiana. Regulated Utilities expects to renew these contracts or enter into similar contracts with other suppliers as existing contracts expire, though prices will fluctuate over time as coal markets change. Coal purchased for the Carolinas is primarily produced from mines in Central Appalachia, Northern Appalachia and the Illinois Basin. Coal purchased for Florida is primarily produced from mines in Central Appalachia and the Illinois Basin. Coal purchased for Indiana is primarily produced in Indiana and Illinois. Regulated Utilities has an adequate supply of coal under contract to fuel its projected 2015 operations and a diversesignificant portion of supply to fuel mixits projected 2016 operations. Current coal inventory levels for Regulated Utilities are at adequate levels and are expected to remain at adequate levels for the remainder of 2015. Changing natural gas prices continue to influence the level of coal generation.
The current average sulfur content of coal purchased by Regulated Utilities is between 1.5 percent and 2 percent for Duke Energy Carolinas, between 1.5 percent and 2 percent for Duke Energy Progress, between 1 percent and 2.5 percent for Duke Energy Florida, and between 2 percent and 3 percent for Duke Energy Indiana. Regulated Utilities’ environmental controls, in combination with the use of sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission allowances, enable Regulated Utilities to satisfy current SO2 emission limitations for its existing facilities.
Nuclear
The industrial processes for producing nuclear generating fuel generally involve the mining and milling of uranium ore to produce uranium concentrates, and services to convert, enrich, and fabricate fuel assemblies.
Regulated Utilities has contracted for uranium materials and services to fuel its nuclear reactors. Uranium concentrates, conversion services and enrichment services are primarily met through a diversified portfolio of long-term supply contracts. The contracts are diversified by supplier, country of origin and pricing. Regulated Utilities staggers its contracting so that helps mitigateits portfolio of long-term contracts covers the impactmajority of cost increasesits fuel requirements in any one fuel.the near term and decreasing portions of its fuel requirements over time thereafter. Near-term requirements not met by long-term supply contracts have been and are expected to be fulfilled with spot market purchases. Due to the associated regulatory treatmenttechnical complexities of changing suppliers of fuel fabrication services, Regulated Utilities generally sources these services to a single domestic supplier on a plant-by-plant basis using multiyear contracts.
Regulated Utilities has entered into fuel contracts that cover 100 percent of its uranium concentrates, conversion services, and the method allowedenrichment services requirements through at least 2015 and cover fabrication services requirements for recovery, changes inthese plants through at least 2018. For future requirements not already covered under long-term contracts, Regulated Utilities believes it will be able to renew contracts as they expire, or enter into similar contractual arrangements with other suppliers of nuclear fuel costsmaterials and services.
Gas and Oil
Natural gas and oil supply for Regulated Utilities’ generation fleet is purchased under term and spot contracts from yearvarious suppliers. Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Florida and Duke Energy Indiana use derivative instruments to year have no material impact on operating results of the Utilities, unless a commission findslimit a portion of such coststheir exposure to have been imprudent.price fluctuations for natural gas. Regulated Utilities has certain dual-fuel generating facilities that can operate with both natural gas and oil. The cost of Regulated Utilities’ natural gas and oil is either at a fixed price or determined by market prices as reported in certain industry publications. Regulated Utilities believes it has access to an adequate supply of gas and oil for the reasonably foreseeable future. Regulated Utilities’ natural gas transportation for its gas generation is purchased under long-term firm transportation contracts with interstate and intrastate pipelines. Regulated Utilities may also purchase additional shorter-term transportation for its load requirements during peak periods. The Regulated Utilities natural gas plants are served by several supply zones and multiple pipelines.
Purchased Power
Regulated Utilities purchased approximately 14.3 million megawatt-hours (MWh), 11.7 million MWh and 19.8 million MWh of its system energy requirements during 2014, 2013, and 2012, respectively, under purchase obligations and leases and had 4,500 and 3,800 MW of firm purchased capacity under contract during 2014 and 2013, respectively. These amounts include MWh for Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida for all periods presented. These agreements include amounts contracted with certain QFs. Regulated Utilities may need to acquire additional purchased power capacity in the future to accommodate a portion of its system load needs. Regulated Utilities believes it can obtain adequate purchased power to meet these needs. However, delays betweenduring periods of high demand, the expenditureprice and availability of purchased power may be significantly affected.
Gas for fuel costsRetail Distribution
Regulated Utilities is responsible for the purchase and recovery from ratepayers can adversely impact the timingsubsequent delivery of cash flownatural gas to retail customers in its Ohio and Kentucky service territories. Regulated Utilities’ natural gas procurement strategy is to buy firm natural gas supplies and firm interstate pipeline transportation capacity during the winter season and during the non-heating season through a combination of firm supply and transportation capacity along with spot supply and interruptible transportation capacity. This strategy allows Regulated Utilities to assure reliable natural gas supply for its non-curtailable customers during peak winter conditions and provides Regulated Utilities the flexibility to reduce its contract commitments if firm customers choose alternate gas. In 2014, firm supply purchase commitment agreements provided approximately 97 percent of the Utilities. PEFnatural gas supply.
Inventory
Generation of electricity is obligated to file for a midcourse recovery between annual fuel hearings in the event its estimated over- or under-recovery of fuel costs meets or exceeds a threshold of 10 percent of estimated total retail fuel revenues and, accordingly, has the ability to mitigate the cash flow impacts due to the timing of recoverycapital intensive. Regulated Utilities must maintain an adequate stock of fuel and purchased power costs.materials and supplies in order to ensure continuous operation of generating facilities and reliable delivery to customers. As of December 31, 2014, the inventory balance for Regulated Utilities was $3,348 million. For additional information on inventory see Note 1 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Summary of Significant Accounting Policies.”

12


PART I

North Carolina Ash Basin Management
RenewableOn February 2, 2014, a break in a stormwater pipe beneath an ash basin at Duke Energy Carolinas’ retired Dan River steam station caused a release of ash basin water and Energy-Efficiency Standardsash into the Dan River. On February 8, 2014, a permanent plug was installed in the stormwater pipe, stopping the release of materials into the river. Duke Energy Carolinas estimates 30,000 to 39,000 tons of ash and 24 million to 27 million gallons of basin water were released into the river during the incident. Duke Energy Carolinas incurred approximately $24 million of repairs and remediation expense related to this incident during the year ended December 31, 2014. Duke Energy Carolinas will not seek recovery of these costs from customers. In July 2014, Duke Energy completed remediation work identified by the EPA and continues to cooperate with the EPA's civil enforcement process.
PEC is allowedAs a result of separate Memoranda of Plea Agreement (Plea Agreements) entered into by Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress in connection with a criminal investigation related to recover the costsDan River ash basin release and the management of DSM and EE programscoal ash basins at the 14 plants in North Carolina with coal ash basins, Duke Energy Carolinas and SouthDuke Energy Progress recognized expense for the year ended December 31, 2014 of $72 million and $30 million, respectively. The Plea Agreements are subject to the approval of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina through an annual DSM and, EE clause in each jurisdiction. PEC is allowedif approved, will end the grand jury investigation related to capitalize DSM and EE costs intended to produce future benefits. In addition, the NCUCDan River ash basin release and the SCPSC have approvedmanagement of coal ash basins at the 14 plants in North Carolina with coal ash basins.
The Plea Agreements do not cover pending civil claims related to the Dan River coal ash release and operations at other forms of financial incentives for DSM and EE programs, including the recovery of net lost revenues and a performance incentive. DSM programs include, but are not limited to, any program or initiative that shifts the timing of electricity use from peak to nonpeak periods and includes load management, electricity system and operating controls, direct load control, interruptible load and electric system equipment and operating controls. EE programs include any equipment, physical or program change implemented after January 1, 2007, that results in less energy used to perform the same function. PEC has implemented a series of DSM and EE programs andNorth Carolina facilities with ash basins. Duke Energy Corporation will continue to pursuedefend against remaining civil actions associated with these matters. Other costs related to the Dan River release including state or federal civil enforcement proceedings, future regulatory directives, natural resources damages, pending litigation, future claims or litigation, and long-term environmental impact costs cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.
For additional programs,information on the North Carolina Ash Basin Grand Jury Investigation and Plea Agreements, see Note 5 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Commitments and Contingencies."
Nuclear Matters
Regulated Utilities owns, wholly or partially, 12 nuclear reactors located at seven stations. Nuclear insurance includes: nuclear liability coverage; property, decontamination and premature decommissioning coverage; and replacement power expense coverage. Joint owners reimburse Regulated Utilities for certain expenses associated with nuclear insurance in accordance with joint owner agreements. The Price-Anderson Act requires plant owners to provide for public nuclear liability claims resulting from nuclear incidents to the maximum total financial protection liability, which mustcurrently is $13.6 billion. For additional information on nuclear insurance see Note 5 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Commitments and Contingencies.”
Regulated Utilities has a significant future financial commitment to dispose of spent nuclear fuel and decommission and decontaminate each plant safely. The NCUC, PSCSC and FPSC require Regulated Utilities to update their cost estimates for decommissioning their nuclear plants every five years.
The following table summarizes the fair value of nuclear decommissioning trust fund (NDTF) balances and cost study results for Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida.
 NDTF    
(in millions)December 31, 2014
 December 31, 2013
 
Decommissioning Costs(a)(b)

 Year of Cost Study
Duke Energy Carolinas$3,042
 $2,840
 $3,420
 2013
Duke Energy Progress1,701
 1,539
 3,062
 2014
Duke Energy Florida803
 753
 1,083
 2013
(a)Represents cost per the most recent site-specific nuclear decommissioning cost studies, including costs to decommission plant components not subject to radioactive contamination. Amounts are in dollars of the year of cost study.
(b)Includes the Subsidiary Registrants' ownership interest in jointly owned reactors. Other joint owners are responsible for decommissioning costs related to their interest in the reactors.
The NCUC, PSCSC and FPSC have allowed Regulated Utilities’ to recover estimated decommissioning costs through retail rates over the expected remaining service periods of their nuclear stations. Regulated Utilities believes the decommissioning costs being recovered through rates, when coupled with the existing fund balance and expected fund earnings, will be approvedsufficient to provide for the cost of future decommissioning. For additional information see Note 9 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Asset Retirement Obligations.”
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (as amended) (NWPA) provides the framework for development by the respective utility commissions. We cannot predict the outcomefederal government of DSMinterim storage and EE filings currently pending approval or whether the implemented programspermanent disposal facilities for high-level radioactive waste materials. The NWPA promotes increased usage of interim storage of spent nuclear fuel at existing nuclear plants. Regulated Utilities will produce the expected operational and economic results.
PEC is subjectcontinue to renewable energy standards at the state level in North Carolina. North Carolina’s Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard (NC REPS) establishes minimum standards formaximize the use of energy from specified renewable energy resources or implementationspent fuel storage capability within its own facilities for as long as feasible.
Under federal law, the U.S. Department of energy-efficiency measuresEnergy (DOE) is responsible for the selection and construction of a facility for the permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Delays have occurred in the DOE’s proposed permanent repository to be located at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

13


PART I

Until the DOE begins to accept the spent nuclear fuel, Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida will continue to safely manage their spent nuclear fuel. With certain modifications and additional approvals by the state’s electric utilities beginning with a 3 percent requirement in 2012 and increasingNuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), including the expansion of on-site dry cask storage facilities, spent nuclear fuel storage facilities will be sufficient to 12.5 percent in 2021provide storage space for regulated public utilities, including PEC. PEC is on track to meetspent fuel through the 3 percent of retail electric sales target in 2012. PEC has worked diligently to meet the set aside requirements in NC REPS, however, our ability to do so is contingent upon developers meeting proposed project sizes and timelines. In the event that PEC is unable to meet anyexpiration of the NC REPS set-aside requirements, PEC will seek to modify or delay the set-aside provisions as permitted by the NCUC. The premium to be paid by electric utilities to comply with the requirements above the cost they would have otherwise incurred to meet consumer demand is to be recovered through an annual clause. The annual amount that can be recoveredoperating licenses, including any license renewals, for all sites except Shearon Harris Nuclear Station (Harris) and Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Station (Crystal River Unit 3). Under current regulatory guidelines, Harris has sufficient storage capacity in its spent fuel pools through the NC REPS clause is capped and once a utility has expended monies equalexpiration of its renewed operating license. Crystal River Unit 3 was retired in 2013, with plans to place the cap, the utility is deemedfacility in SAFSTOR prior to have met its obligations, regardlessfinal decommissioning. An independent spent fuel storage installation will be installed to accommodate storage of the actual renewables generated or purchased. The NCUC has the authority to modify or alter the NC REPS requirements if the NCUC determines it is in the public interest to do so.
Florida energy law enacted in 2008 includes provisions for development of a renewable portfolio standard for Florida utilities. The Florida legislature has not taken action on a renewable portfolio standard rule. Until the rulemaking processes are completed, we cannot predict the costs of complying with the law, but PEF would be able to recover its reasonable and prudent compliance costs.
On July 26, 2011, the FPSC voted to set PEF’s DSM compliance goals to remain at their current levelall spent nuclear fuel until the next goal setting docket is initiated. An intervener filed a protest toDOE accepts the FPSC’s Proposed Agency Action order, asserting legal challenges to the order. The parties made legal arguments to the FPSC and the FPSC issued an order denying the protest on December 22, 2011. The intervener then filed a notice of appeal of this order to the Florida Supreme Court on January 17, 2012. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
See Note 8 for further discussion of regulatory matters.
12

NUCLEAR MATTERS
GENERAL
spent nuclear fuel.
The nuclear power industry faces uncertainties with respect to the cost and long-term availability of disposal sites for spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive waste, compliance with changing regulatory requirements, capital outlays for modifications and new plant construction, the technological and financial aspects of decommissioning plants at the end of their licensed lives, and requirements relating to nuclear insurance. Nuclear units are periodically removed from service to accommodate normal refueling and maintenance outages, repairs, uprates and certain other modifications.
PEC owns and operates four nuclear generating units: Brunswick Nuclear Plant (Brunswick) Unit No. 1 and Unit No. 2, Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant (Harris) and Robinson Nuclear Plant (Robinson). The NRC has renewed the operating licenses for all of PEC’s nuclear plants. The renewed operating licenses for Brunswick No. 1 and No. 2, Harris and Robinson expire in September 2036, December 2034, October 2046 and July 2030, respectively.
PEF owns and operates one nuclear generating unit, CR3. The NRC operating license held by PEF for CR3 currently expires in December 2016. On March 9, 2009, the NRC docketed, or accepted for review, PEF’s application for a 20-year renewal on the operating license for CR3, which would extend the operating license through 2036, when approved. Docketing the application does not preclude additional requests for information as the review proceeds, nor does it indicate whether the NRC will renew the license. The license renewal application for CR3Regulated Utilities is currently under review by the NRC. The NRC’s remaining open items in the license renewal review process are associated with the containment structure repair. Once the repair design has been completed and evaluated, the NRC may proceed with the renewal application review of the containment structure. Assuming the repair is successful, management believes CR3 will satisfy the requirements for the license renewal.
The NRC periodically issues bulletins and orders addressing industry issues of interest or concern that necessitate a response from the industry. It is our intent to comply with and to complete required responses in a safe, timely and accurate manner. Any potential impact to company operations could vary and would be dependent upon the nature of the requirement(s).
CR3 OUTAGE
Over time, PEC and PEF have made various modifications to their nuclear facilities to increase the energy output. During CR3’s fueling and maintenance outage that began in September 2009, PEF commenced a project to replace CR3’s steam generators. During preparations to replace the steam generators, workers discovered a delamination (or separation) within the concrete of the outer wall of the containment building, which resulted in an extension of the outage. In March 2011, engineers investigated and subsequently determined that a new delamination had occurred in another area of the structure after initial repair work was completed and during the late stages of retensioning the containment building. Subsequent to March 2011, monitoring equipment detected additional changes and further damage in the partially tensioned containment building and additional cracking or delaminations could occur during the repair process. Engineering design of the repair is under way. The preliminary cost estimate for the repair, as filed with the FPSC on June 27, 2011, is between $900 million and $1.3 billion. PEF will update the current estimate as this work is completed. Under this repair plan, we estimate CR3 will return to service in 2014. Nuclear safety remains our top priority, and our plans and actions will continue to reflect that commitment. The decision related to repairing or decommissioning CR3 is complex and subject to a numberthe jurisdiction of unknown factors, including but not limited to the cost of repair and the likelihood of obtaining NRC approval to restart CR3 after repair. A number of factors could affect the repair plan, the return-to-service date and costs, including regulatory reviews, final engineering designs, contract negotiations, the ultimate work scope completion, testing, weather, the impact of new information discovered during additional testing and analysis, and other developments. PEF maintains insurance coverage through the Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited’s (NEIL) accidental property damage program, and PEF is continuing to work with NEIL for recovery of applicable repair costs and associated replacement power costs. See Note 8C.
13

POTENTIAL NEW CONSTRUCTION
While we have not made a final determination on new nuclear construction, we continue to take steps to keep open the option of building one or more plants. During 2008, PEC and PEF filed combined license (COL) applications to potentially construct new nuclear plants in North Carolina and Florida. The NRC estimates that it will take approximately three to four years to review and process the COL applications. We have focused on PEF’s potential construction at Levy given the need for more fuel diversity in Florida and anticipated federal and state policies to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as well as existing state legislative policy that is supportive of nuclear projects.
LEVY
In 2006, we announced that PEF selected a greenfield site at Levy to evaluate for possible future nuclear expansion. We selected the Westinghouse Electric AP1000 reactor design as the technology upon which to base PEF’s application submission. In 2007, PEF completed the purchase of approximately 5,000 acres for Levy and associated transmission needs.
In 2008, the FPSC issued a final order granting PEF’s petition for a Determination of Need for Levy. In 2009, the Power Plant Siting Board, comprised of the governor and the Cabinet, issued the Levy site certification that addresses permitting, land use and zoning, and property interests and replaces state and local permits. Certification grants approval for the location of the power plant and its associated facilities such as roadways and electrical transmission lines carrying power to the electrical grid, among others. Certification does not include licenses required by the federal government.
On July 30, 2008, PEF filed its COL application with the NRC for two reactors, which was docketed, or accepted for review, by the NRC on October 6, 2008. Docketing the application does not preclude additional requests for information as the review proceeds, nor does it indicate whether the NRC will issue the license.design, construction and operation of its nuclear generating facilities. Nuclear operating licenses are potentially subject to extension. The NRC review and development of the Final Safety Evaluation Report and Final Environmental Impact Statement is expected to be complete in April 2012, which will be followed by mandatory and contested hearings. One joint petition to intervene in the licensing proceeding was filed with the NRC within the 60-day notice period by the Green Party of Florida, the Nuclear Information and Resource Service and the Ecology Party of Florida. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) admitted one contention regarding potential impacts to wetlands from groundwater use and the potential impact of salt drift from cooling tower operation. Underfollowing table includes the current schedule, mandatory and contested hearings are expected to be complete by late 2012, with a combined license issued in 2013. We cannot predict the outcomeexpiration of this matter.
PEF also completed and submitted a Limited Work Authorization request for Levy concurrent with the COL application. PEF’s initial schedule anticipated performing certain site work pursuant to the Limited Work Authorization prior to COL receipt. However, in 2009, the NRC Staff determined that certain schedule-critical work that PEF had proposed to perform within the scope of the Limited Work Authorization will not be authorized until the NRC issues the COL. Consequently, excavation and foundation preparation work will be shifted until after COL issuance. This factor alone resulted in a minimum 20-month schedule shift later than the projected in-service dates for Units No. 1 and No. 2 of June 2016 and June 2017, respectively, included in the petition for a Determination of Need. Subsequent changes in regulatory and economic conditions have resulted in additional schedule shifts. These conditions include the permitting and licensing process, national and state economic conditions, short-term natural gas prices, and other FPSC decisions. Uncertainty regarding PEF’s access to capital on reasonable terms, its ability to secure joint owners and increasing uncertainty surrounding carbon regulation and its costs could be other factors to affect the Levy schedule.
As disclosed in PEF’s 2011 nuclear cost-recovery filing, the schedule shifts will reduce the near-term capital expenditures for the project and also reduce the near-term impact on customer rates (See Note 8C). PEF will postpone major construction activities on the project until after the NRC issues the COL, which is expected to be in 2013 if the current licensing schedule remains on track. The schedule shifts will also allow more time for certainty around federal climate change policy. We believe that continuing, although at a slower pace than initially anticipated, is a reasonable and prudent course at this early stage of the project. Taking into account cost, potential carbon regulation, fossil fuel price volatility and the benefits of fuel diversification, we consider Levy to be PEF’s
operating licenses.
14
UnitYear of Expiration
Duke Energy Carolinas
Catawba Unit 12043
Catawba Unit 22043
McGuire Unit 12041
McGuire Unit 22043
Oconee Unit 12033
Oconee Unit 22033
Oconee Unit 32034
Duke Energy Progress
Brunswick Unit 12036
Brunswick Unit 22034
Harris2046
Robinson2030
Duke Energy Florida
Crystal River Unit 3
(a)


preferred baseload generation option. Along with the FPSC’s annual prudence reviews, we will continue to evaluate the project on an ongoing basis based on certain criteria, including, but not limited to, public, regulatory and political support; adequate financial cost-recovery mechanisms; adequate levels of joint owner participation; customer rate impacts; project feasibility, including comparison to other generation options, DSM and EE programs; and availability and terms of capital financing. If the licensing schedule remains on track and if the decision to build is made, the first of the two proposed units could be in service in 2021. The second unit could be in service 18 months later.
PEF signed an engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) agreement on December 31, 2008, with Westinghouse Electric Company LLC and Stone & Webster, Inc. for two Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear units to be constructed at Levy. More than half of the approximate $7.650 billion contract price is fixed or firm with agreed upon escalation factors. The EPC agreement includes various incentives, warranties, performance guarantees, liquidated damage provisions and parent guarantees designed to incent the contractor to perform efficiently. For termination without cause, the EPC agreement contains exit provisions with termination fees, which may be significant, that vary based on the termination circumstances. PEF executed an amendment to the EPC agreement in 2010 due to the schedule shifts previously discussed. Additionally, in light of the schedule shifts in the Levy nuclear project, PEF completed vendor negotiations in July 2011 to continue or suspend purchase orders for long lead time equipment without material fees or charges.
The total escalated cost for the two generating units was estimated in PEF’s petition for the Determination of Need for Levy to be approximately $14 billion. This total cost estimate included land, plant components, financing costs, construction, labor, regulatory fees and the initial core for the two units. An additional $3 billion was estimated for the necessary transmission equipment and approximately 200 miles of transmission lines associated with the project. PEF’s 2011 nuclear cost-recovery filing included an updated analysis that demonstrated continued feasibility of the Levy project with PEF’s then estimated range of total escalated cost, including transmission, of $17.2 billion to $22.5 billion. The filed estimated cost range primarily reflects cost escalation resulting from the schedule shifts. Many factors will affect the total cost of the project and once PEF receives the COL, it will further refine the project timeline and budget. As previously discussed, we will continue to evaluate the Levy project on an ongoing basis.
Florida regulations allow investor-owned utilities such as PEF to recover the retail portion of prudently incurred site selection costs, preconstruction costs and the carrying cost on construction cost balances of a nuclear power plant prior to commercial operation. The costs are recovered on an annual basis through the Capacity Cost-Recovery Clause (CCRC). Such amounts will not be included in a utility’s rate base when the plant is placed in commercial operation. The nuclear cost-recovery rule also has a provision to recover costs should the project be abandoned after the utility receives a final order granting a Determination of Need. These costs include any unrecovered retail portion of construction work in progress at the time of abandonment and any other prudent and reasonable exit costs. In addition, the rule requires the FPSC to conduct an annual prudence review of the reasonableness and prudence of all such costs, including construction costs, and such determination shall not be subject to later review except upon a finding of fraud, intentional misrepresentation or the intentional withholding of key information by the utility (See Note 8C).
HARRIS
In 2006, we announced that PEC selected a site at Harris to evaluate for possible future nuclear expansion. We selected the Westinghouse Electric AP1000 reactor design as the technology upon which to base PEC’s application submission. On February 19, 2008, PEC filed its COL application with the NRC for two additional reactors at Harris, which the NRC docketed on April 17, 2008. No petitions to intervene have been admitted in the Harris COL application. If we receive approval from the NRC and applicable state agencies, and if the decision to build is made, a new plant would not be online until the middle of the next decade.
PEC’s jurisdictions also have laws regarding nuclear baseload generation. South Carolina law includes provisions for cost-recovery mechanisms associated with nuclear baseload generation. North Carolina law authorizes the NCUC to allow annual prudence reviews of baseload generating plant construction costs and inclusion of construction work in progress in rate base with corresponding rate adjustment in a general rate case while a baseload generating plant is under construction.
15

SECURITY
(a)Duke Energy Florida has requested the NRC to terminate the Crystal River Unit 3 operating license as Crystal River Unit 3 permanently ceased operation in February 2013. For additional information on decommissioning activity and transition to SAFSTOR, see Note 4 "Regulatory Matters."
The NRC issues orders with regard to security at nuclear plants in response to new or emerging threats. The most recent orders include additional restrictions on nuclear plant access, increased security measures at nuclear facilities and closer coordination with our partners in intelligence, military, law enforcement and emergency response functions at the federal, state and local levels. We are in compliance with the requirements outlined in the orders through the use of additional security measures until permanent construction projects are completed in 2012. As the NRC, other governmental entities and the industry continue to consider security issues, it is possible that more extensive security plans could be required.
Regulation
SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL
State
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (as amended) providesNCUC, PSCSC, FPSC, PUCO, IURC and KPSC (collectively, the frameworkstate utility commissions) approve rates for development by the federal government of interim storageretail electric and permanent disposal facilities for high-level radioactive waste materials. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 promotes increased usage of interim storage of spent nuclear fuel at existing nuclear plants. We will continue to maximize the use of spent fuel storage capabilitygas service within our own facilities for as long as feasible.
Under federal law, the DOE is responsible for the selection and construction of a facility for the permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. We have contracts with the DOE for the future storage and disposal of our spent nuclear fuel. Delays have occurred in the DOE’s proposed permanent repository to be located at Yucca Mountain, Nev. See Note 22C for information about complaints filed by the Utilities in the United States Court of Federal Claims against the DOE for its failure to fulfill its contractual obligation to receive spent fuel from nuclear plants. Failure to open Yucca Mountain or another facility would leave the DOE open to further claims by utilities.
Until the DOE begins to accept the spent nuclear fuel, the Utilities will continue to safely manage their spent nuclear fuel. With certain modifications and additional approvals by the NRC, including the installation and/or expansion of on-site dry cask storage facilities at Robinson, Brunswick and CR3, the Utilities’ spent nuclear fuel storage facilities will be sufficient to provide storage space for spent fuel generated by their respective systems through the expiration of the operating licenses, including any license renewals, for their nuclear generating units. Harris has sufficient storage capacity in its spent fuel pools through the expiration of its renewed operating license.
DECOMMISSIONING
In the Utilities’ retail jurisdictions, provisions for nuclear decommissioning costs are approved by the respectivestates. The state utility commissions, to varying degrees, have authority over the construction and operation of Regulated Utilities’ generating facilities. Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity issued by the state utility commissions, as applicable, authorize Regulated Utilities to construct and operate its electric facilities, and to sell electricity to retail and wholesale customers. Prior approval from the relevant state utility commission is required for Regulated Utilities to issue securities. The underlying concept of utility ratemaking is to set rates at a level that allows the utility to collect revenues equal to its cost of providing service plus earn a reasonable rate of return on its invested capital, including equity.
Each of the state utility commissions allow recovery of certain costs through various cost-recovery clauses to the extent the respective commission determines in periodic hearings that such costs, including any past over or under-recovered costs, are prudent. The clauses are in addition to approved base rates.
Fuel, fuel-related costs and certain purchased power costs are eligible for recovery by Regulated Utilities. Regulated Utilities uses coal, hydroelectric, natural gas, oil and nuclear fuel to generate electricity, thereby maintaining a diverse fuel mix that helps mitigate the impact of cost increases in any one fuel. Due to the associated regulatory treatment and the method allowed for recovery, changes in fuel costs from year to year have no material impact on operating results of Regulated Utilities, unless a commission finds a portion of such costs to have been imprudent. However, delays between the expenditure for fuel costs and recovery from customers can adversely impact the timing of cash flows of Regulated Utilities.

14


PART I

The following table summarizes base rate cases approved and effective in the past three years.
 Annual Increase (in millions)
 Return on Equity
 Equity Component of Capital Structure
 Effective Date Other
Duke Energy Carolinas 2013 North Carolina Rate Case(a)
$234
 10.2% 53% September 2013 
(b) 
Duke Energy Carolinas 2013 South Carolina Rate Case(a)
118
 10.2% 53% September 2013 
(c) 
Duke Energy Carolinas 2011 North Carolina Rate Case309
 10.5% 53% February 2012  
Duke Energy Carolinas 2011 South Carolina Rate Case93
 10.5% 53% February 2012  
Duke Energy Progress 2012 North Carolina Rate Case(a)
178
 10.2% 53% June 2013 
(d) 
Duke Energy Ohio 2012 Electric Rate Case49
 9.84% 53% May 2013  
Duke Energy Ohio 2012 Natural Gas Rate Case
 9.84% 53% December 2013 
(e) 
Duke Energy Florida 2013 FPSC Settlement
 10.5% 49% October 2013 
(f)(h) 
Duke Energy Florida 2012 FPSC Settlement150
 10.5% 49% January 2013 
(g)(h) 
(a)Rates increase over a two or three year period as approved by the NCUC and PSCSC. Annual increase amounts represent the total increase once effective.
(b)Terms of this rate case include (i) recognition of nuclear outage expenses over the refueling cycle rather than when the outage occurs, (ii) a $10 million shareholder contribution to agencies providing energy assistance to low-income customers, (iii) an annual reduction in the regulatory liability for costs of removal of $30 million for each of the first two years, and (iv) no additional base rate increases to be effective before September 2015.
(c)Terms of this rate case include (i) recognition of nuclear outage expenses over the refueling cycle rather than when the outage occurs, (ii) an approximate $4 million shareholder contribution to agencies providing energy assistance to low-income customers and for economic development, (iii) a reduction in the regulatory liability for costs of removal of $45 million for the first year, and (iv) no additional base rate increases to be effective before September 2015.
(d)Terms of this rate case include (i) recognition of nuclear outage expenses over the refueling cycle rather than when the outage occurs, (ii) a $20 million shareholder contribution to agencies providing energy assistance to low-income customers, and (iii) a reduction in the regulatory liability for costs of removal of $20 million for the first year.
(e)Although the PUCO approved no increase in base rates, more than half of the revenue request was approved to be recovered in various riders, including recovery of costs related to former manufactured gas plants (MGP). Recovery of $56 million of MGP costs via a rider was approved in November 2013. The rider became effective in March 2014, was suspended in June 2014 and reinstated in January 2015. For additional information on MGP recovery see Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters.”
(f)Terms of this settlement include (i) no additional base rate increases until 2019, (ii) partial recovery of Crystal River Unit 3 beginning in 2014, and (iii) full recovery of Crystal River Unit 3, not to exceed $1,466 million, plus the cost to build a dry cask storage facility, beginning no later than 2017.
(g)Terms of this settlement include the removal of Crystal River Unit 3 assets from rate base. 
(h)Capital structure includes deferred income tax, customer deposits and investment tax credits.
For more information on rate matters and other regulatory proceedings, see Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters.”
Federal
The FERC approves Regulated Utilities’ cost-based rates for electric sales to certain wholesale customers, as well as sales of transmission service. Regulations of FERC and the state utility commissions govern access to regulated electric and gas customers and other data by nonregulated entities and services provided between regulated and nonregulated energy affiliates. These regulations affect the activities of nonregulated affiliates with Regulated Utilities.
Regional Transmission Organizations (RTO). PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM) and Midcontinent Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (MISO) are the Independent System Operators (ISO) and FERC-approved RTOs for the regions in which Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana operate. PJM and MISO operate energy, capacity and other markets, and, through central dispatch, control the day-to-day operations of bulk power systems.
Duke Energy Ohio is a member of PJM and Duke Energy Indiana is a member of MISO. Transmission owners in these RTOs have turned over control of their transmission facilities, and their transmission systems are currently under the dispatch control of the RTOs. Transmission service is provided on a region-wide, open-access basis using the transmission facilities of the RTO members at rates based on site-specific estimates that include the costs for removal of all radioactive and other structures attransmission service.
Environmental. Regulated Utilities is subject to the site. In the wholesale jurisdiction the provisions for nuclear decommissioning costs are approved by the FERC. A condition of the operating license for each unit requires an approved plan for decontaminationEPA and decommissioning. state and local environmental agencies. For a discussion of environmental regulation, see “Environmental Matters” in this section.
See Note 5C“Other Matters” section of Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations for a discussion about potential Global Climate Change legislation and other EPA regulations under development and the potential impacts such legislation and regulation could have on Duke Energy’s operations.

15


PART I

INTERNATIONAL ENERGY
International Energy principally operates and manages power generation facilities and engages in sales and marketing of electric power, natural gas, and natural gas liquids outside the U.S. Its activities principally target power generation in Latin America. Additionally, International Energy owns a 25 percent interest in National Methanol Company (NMC), a large regional producer of methanol and methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) located in Saudi Arabia. International Energy’s economic ownership interest will decrease to 17.5 percent upon successful startup of NMC's polyacetal production facility, which is expected to occur after June 2016. International Energy will retain 25 percent of the Utilities’ nuclear decommissioning costs.board representation and voting rights of NMC. The investment in NMC is accounted for under the equity method of accounting.
International Energy’s customers include retail distributors, electric utilities, independent power producers, marketers, and industrial and commercial companies. International Energy’s current strategy is focused on optimizing the value of its current Latin American portfolio and expanding the portfolio through investment in generation opportunities in Latin America.
ENVIRONMENTALDuring 2014, Duke Energy performed a strategic review of international Energy to evaluate a wide range of options and opportunities for growth of the business, including strategies for utilization of off-shore cash. Duke Energy determined it is in the shareholders' best interest, at the present time, to continue to own, operate and create value through portfolio optimization and efficiency of International Energy operations.
Duke Energy also declared a taxable dividend of historical foreign earnings in the form of notes payable that will result in the repatriation of approximately $2.7 billion in cash held and expected to be generated by International Energy over a period of up to eight years. Duke Energy’s intention is to indefinitely reinvest prospective undistributed foreign earnings generated by International Energy. For additional information see Note 22 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Income Taxes,” for additional information.
GENERALCompetition and Regulation
International Energy’s sales and marketing of electric power and natural gas competes directly with other generators and marketers serving its market areas. Competitors are country and region-specific but include government-owned electric generating companies, local distribution companies with self-generation capability and other privately owned electric generating and marketing companies. The principal elements of competition are price and availability, terms of service, flexibility and reliability of service.
WeA high percentage of International Energy’s portfolio consists of baseload hydroelectric generation facilities, which compete with other forms of electric generation available to International Energy’s customers and end-users, including natural gas and fuel oils. Economic activity, conservation, legislation, governmental regulations, weather, including rainfall, additional generation capacities and other factors affect the supply and demand for electricity in the regions served by International Energy.
International Energy’s operations are subject to both country-specific and international laws and regulations. See “Environmental Matters” in this section.
COMMERCIAL POWER
Commercial Power builds, develops, and operates wind and solar renewable generation and energy transmission projects throughout the continental U.S. Long-term contracts are generally executed with load serving entities, which, in most instances, have obligations under state-mandated renewable energy portfolio standards or similar state or local renewable energy goals. Energy and renewable energy credits generated by wind and solar projects are generally sold at contractual prices. Commercial Power also builds, develops and operates high voltage power and natural gas transmission projects. These projects are designed to increase reliability, integrate renewables generation and relieve grid congestion.
Duke Energy, Dominion Resources (Dominion), Piedmont Natural Gas and AGL Resources announced the formation of a joint venture, Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC, to build and own the proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP), a 550-mile interstate natural gas pipeline. The ACP is designed to meet the needs identified in requests for proposals by Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Piedmont Natural Gas. Dominion will build and operate the ACP and will own 45 percent. Duke Energy, will own 40 percent ownership of the pipeline through its Commercial Power segment. The remaining share will be owned by Piedmont Natural Gas and AGL Resources. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress will be customers of the pipeline and enter into 20-year transportation contracts with ACP, subject to state regulatory approval. The project will require FERC approval, which the joint venture will seek to secure by summer 2016. The estimated in-service date of the pipeline is late 2018. For additional information on the ACP, see Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters."
Commercial Power has three wind projects totaling approximately 510 MW under various stages of construction in Starr County, Texas. A 200 MW project is expected to commence operation in the second quarter of 2015, a 110 MW project is expected to commence commercial operations by the end of 2015 and a third 200 MW project is expected to commence operation in the third quarter of 2016. All three projects have entered into long-term power purchase agreements with third parties.
For additional information on Commercial Power’s generation facilities, see Item 2, “Properties.”
Other Matters
Commercial Power is subject to regulation at the federal level, primarily from the FERC. Regulations of the FERC govern access to regulated electric customer and other data by nonregulated entities, services provided between regulated and nonregulated energy affiliates, and Commercial Power’s investments in transmission projects. These regulations affect the activities of Commercial Power.
For more information on rate matters, see Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters — Rate Related Information.”
Market Environment and Competition
The market price of commodities and services, along with the quality and reliability of services provided, drive competition in the wholesale energy business. Commercial Power’s main competitors include other nonregulated generators and wholesale power providers.

16


PART I

Sources of Electricity
Commercial Power relies on wind and solar resources for its generation of electric energy.
OTHER
The remainder of Duke Energy’s operations is presented as Other. While it is not an operating segment, Other primarily includes unallocated corporate interest expense, certain unallocated corporate costs, Bison Insurance Company Limited (Bison), Duke Energy’s wholly owned, captive insurance subsidiary, contributions to the Duke Energy Foundation, and other investments in businesses the Company is in various stages of exiting or winding down. On December 31, 2013, Duke Energy sold its interest in DukeNet Communications Holdings, LLC (DukeNet) to Time Warner Cable, Inc. Following the repayment of existing DukeNet indebtedness at closing, transaction expenses and other purchase price adjustments, Duke Energy received cash proceeds of approximately $215 million.
Bison’s principal activities as a captive insurance entity include the indemnification of various business risks and losses, such as property, workers’ compensation and general liability of Duke Energy subsidiaries and affiliates.
Regulation
Certain entities within Other are subject to the jurisdiction of state and local agencies.
Geographic Regions
For a discussion of Duke Energy’s foreign operations see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Results of Operations” and Note 3 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Business Segments.”
Employees
On December 31, 2014, Duke Energy had 28,344 employees. A total of 6,267 operating and maintenance employees were represented by unions.
Executive Officers
Melissa H. Anderson50
Senior Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer. Ms. Anderson assumed her position in January 2015. Prior to joining Duke Energy, she served as Senior Vice President of Human Resources at Domtar Inc. since 2010.
Lynn J. Good55
Vice Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer.Ms. Good assumed her current position in July 2013. Prior to that, she served as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer since 2009.
Dhiaa M. Jamil58
Executive Vice President and President, Regulated Generation.Mr. Jamil assumed his current position in August 2014. He served as Executive Vice President and President of Duke Energy Nuclear from March 2013 and as Chief Nuclear Officer from February 2008 to August 2014. He also served as Chief Generation Officer for Duke Energy from July 2009 to June 2012.
Julia S. Janson50
Executive Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary.Ms. Janson assumed her current position in December 2012. Prior to that, she had held the position of President of Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky since 2008.
Marc E. Manly62
Executive Vice President and President, Commercial Portfolio.Mr. Manly assumed his current position in August 2014. He served as Executive Vice President and President, Commercial Businesses from December 2012 until August 2014. He previously held the position of Chief Legal Officer from April 2006, upon the merger of Duke Energy and Cinergy, until December 2012.
A.R. Mullinax60
Executive Vice President, Strategic Services. Mr. Mullinax assumed his current position in August 2014. Prior to that, he had held the position of Chief Information Officer since 2007.
Brian D. Savoy39
Senior Vice President, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer.Mr. Savoy assumed his current position in September 2013. Prior to that, he had held the position of Director, Forecasting and Analysis since 2009.
B. Keith Trent55
Executive Vice President, Grid Solutions and President, Midwest and Florida Regions.Mr. Trent assumed his current position in August 2014. He served as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, Regulated Utilities from December 2012 until August 2014. Prior to that, he held the position of Executive Vice President, Regulated Utilities upon the merger with Progress Energy in July 2012, and President, Commercial Businesses from July 2009 until July 2012.
Jennifer L. Weber48
Executive Vice President, External Affairs and Strategic Policy.Ms. Weber assumed her current position in August 2014. Prior to that, she had served as Executive Vice President Chief Human Resources Officer since January 2011. She previously held the position of Senior Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer from November 2008 until January 2011.
Lloyd M. Yates54
Executive Vice President, Market Solutions and President, Carolinas Region.Mr. Yates assumed his current position in August 2014. He held the position of Executive Vice President, Regulated Utilities from December 2012 to August 2014, and prior to that, had served as Executive Vice President, Customer Operations since July 2012, upon the merger of Duke Energy and Progress Energy. Prior to the merger, Mr. Yates had served as Chief Executive Officer, Duke Energy Progress, Inc. since July 2007.
Steven K. Young56
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer.Mr. Young assumed his current position in August 2013. Prior to that, he had served as Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer and Controller since April 2006.
Executive officers serve until their successors are duly elected or appointed.

17


PART I

There are no family relationships between any of the executive officers, nor any arrangement or understanding between any executive officer and any other person involved in officer selection.
Environmental Matters
The Duke Energy Registrants are subject to federal, state and local authorities in the areas oflaws and regulations with regard to air quality,and water quality, control of toxic substances and hazardous and solid wastes,waste disposal and other environmental matters. We believe that we are in substantial complianceDuke Energy is also subject to international laws and regulations with thoseregard to air and water quality, hazardous and solid waste disposal and other environmental regulations currently applicable to our business and operations and believe we have all necessary permits to conduct such operations.matters. Environmental laws and regulations frequently change andaffecting the ultimate costs of compliance cannot be precisely estimated. Duke Energy Registrants include, but are not limited to:
The current estimated capital costs associated with compliance with pollution controlClean Air Act (CAA), as well as state laws and regulations that we expectimpacting air emissions, including State Implementation Plans related to incurexisting and new national ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter. Owners and/or operators of air emission sources are included within MD&A – “Liquidityresponsible for obtaining permits and Capital Resources – Capital Expenditures.”
for annual compliance and reporting.
The foundationClean Water Act (CWA) which requires permits for Progress Energy’s environmental leadership strategy begins with its environmental management system. Underfacilities that discharge wastewaters into the environmental management system, the Environmental, Health and Safety Performance Council, which is comprised of senior executives, provides overall strategic direction, guides corporate environmental policy,
16

monitors environmental regulatory compliance and approves targets that measure, track and drive performance. Our environmental activities are reported to our board of directors’ Operations and Nuclear Oversight Committee. The committee is responsible for climate change oversight and strategy and, therefore, assesses our plans and activities and makes recommendations to the full board regarding these matters. We have established a process to identify environmental risks, take prompt action to address these issues and ensure appropriate senior management oversight on a routine basis.
HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
environment.
The provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, which can require any individual or entity that currently owns or in the past may have owned or operated a disposal site, as well as transporters or generators of 1980,hazardous substances sent to a disposal site, to share in remediation costs.
The Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended (CERCLA), authorize the EPA to require the cleanup of hazardous waste sites. This statute imposes retroactive joint and several liability. Some states, including North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida, have similar types of statutes. We are periodically notified by regulators, including the EPA and various state agencies, of our involvement or potential involvement in sites that may require investigation and/or remediation. There are presently several sites with respect to which we have been notified of our potential liability by the EPA,Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which requires certain solid wastes, including hazardous wastes, to be managed pursuant to a comprehensive regulatory regime.
The National Environmental Policy Act, which requires federal agencies to consider potential environmental impacts in their decisions, including siting approvals.
See “Other Matters” section of Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations for a discussion about potential Global Climate Change legislation and the statepotential impacts such legislation could have on the Duke Energy Registrants’ operations. Additionally, other recently passed and potential future environmental laws and regulations could have a significant impact on the Duke Energy Registrants’ results of North Carolina,operations, cash flows or financial position. However, if and when such laws and regulations become effective, the state of Florida or potentially responsible parties (PRP) groups. Various organic materials associated with the production of manufactured gas, generally referred to as coal tar, are regulated under federal and state laws. PEC and PEF are each PRPs at several manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites. We are also currently in the process of assessing potential costs and exposures at other sites. These costs are eligible forDuke Energy Registrants will seek appropriate regulatory recovery through either base rates or cost-recovery clauses (See Notes 8 and 21). Both PEC and PEF evaluate potential claims against other PRPs and insurance carriers and plan to submit claims for cost recovery where appropriate. The outcome of potential and pending claims cannot be predicted.
While we accrue for probable costs that can be reasonably estimated, based upon the current status of some sites, not all costs can be reasonably estimated or accrued and actual costs may materially exceed our accruals. Material costs in excess of our accruals could have an adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations.
The EPA’s final rule to regulate coal combustion residuals is expected in 2012. The EPA proposed two options in 2010. The first option would create a comprehensive program of federally enforceable requirements for coal combustion residual management and disposal as hazardous waste. The other option would have the EPA set mandatory performance standards for coal combustion residuals management facilities and regulate disposal of coal combustion residuals as nonhazardous waste (as most states do now). The EPA did not identify a preferred option. Under both options, the EPA may leave in place a regulatory exemption for approved beneficial uses of coal combustion residuals that are recycled. Compliance plans and estimated costs to meetcomply within its regulated operations.
For more information on environmental matters involving the requirements of new regulations will be determined when any new regulations are finalized.
AIR QUALITY
We are, or may ultimately be, subjectDuke Energy Registrants, including possible liability and capital costs, see Note 5 to variousthe Consolidated Financial Statements, “Commitments and Contingencies - Environmental.” Except to the extent discussed in Note 5 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Commitments and Contingencies,” compliance with current and proposedinternational, federal, state and local environmental compliance lawsprovisions regulating the discharge of materials into the environment, or otherwise protecting the environment, is incorporated into the routine cost structure of our various business segments and regulations, which likely would result in increased capital expenditures and O&M expense. Control equipment installed for compliance with then-existingis not expected to have a material adverse effect on the competitive position, consolidated results of operations, cash flows or proposed laws and regulations may address somefinancial position of the issues outlined. PEC and PEF have been developing an integrated compliance strategy to meet these evolving requirements. PEC has installed environmental compliance controls that meet the emission reduction requirements under the first phase of the North Carolina Clean Smokestacks Act (Clean Smokestacks Act). The air quality controls installed to comply with NOx and SO2 requirements under certain sections of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Smokestacks Act, as well as PEC’s plan to replace a portion of its coal-fired generation with natural gas-fueled generation, largely address the CAIR requirements for NOx and SO2 for our North Carolina units at PEC. PEF has installed environmental compliance controls that meet the emission reduction requirements under the first phase of the CAIR.Duke Energy Registrants.
In 2011, the EPA issued the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for coal-fired and oil-fired electric steam generating units (EGU MACT). Due to significant investments in NOx and SO2DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS emissions controls and fleet modernization projects completed or under way, we believe PEC and PEF are positioned to comply with the CSAPR without the need for significant capital expenditures, and PEC is relatively well positioned to comply with the EGU MACT. However, PEF will be required to complete additional emissions controls and/or fleet modernization projects in order to meet the compliance
17

timeframe for the EGU MACT. The CSAPR, slated to be in effect January 1, 2012, was stayed by court order in late 2011. The final EGU MACT will become effective on April 16, 2012. Compliance is due in three years with provisions for a one-year extension from state agencies on a case-by-case basis. We are continuing to evaluate the impacts of the CSAPR and EGU MACT on the Utilities. We anticipate that compliance with the EGU MACT will satisfy the North Carolina mercury rule requirements for PEC.
WATER QUALITY
In 2011, the EPA published its proposed regulations for cooling water intake structures at existing power generating, manufacturing and industrial facilities that withdraw more than two million gallons of water per day from waters of the U.S. and use at least 25 percent of the water they withdraw exclusively for cooling purposes to comply with Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act. Several of our generating plants will be subject to these regulations. The final rule is expected in 2012.
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Global climate change is one of the primary corporate environmental risks identified by our environmental management system. Our risks associated with climate change are discussed under Item 1A, “Risk Factors.”
Growing state, federal and international attention to global climate change may result in the regulation of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other GHGs. The EPA has announced a schedule for development of a new source performance standard for new and existing fossil fuel-fired electric utility units. Under the schedule, the EPA was to propose the standard by September 30, 2011, and issue the final rule by May 2012. The EPA is now expected to propose the standard in the first quarter of 2012. The full impact of regulation under GHG initiatives and any final legislation, if enacted, cannot be determined at this time; however, we anticipate that it could result in significant cost increases over time for which the Utilities would seek corresponding rate recovery.
As previously discussed under “Recent Developments,” we are preparing for a carbon-constrained future and are actively engaged in helping shape effective policies to address the issue. We are taking steps to address global climate change by changing the way we generate electricity through our balanced solution strategy. Our balanced solution as discussed in “Other Matters –Duke Energy Demand” is a comprehensive plan to meet the anticipated demand in our service territories and provides a solid basis for slowing and reducing CO2 emissions by focusing on energy efficiency, alternative energy and a state-of-the-art power system. We continuously evaluate new generation options to determine if they are cost effective for the Southeastern United States where our operations are located.
See Note 21 and MD&A – “Other Matters – Environmental Matters” for additional discussion of our environmental matters, including specific environmental issues, the status of the issues, accruals associated with issue resolutions and our associated exposures.
EMPLOYEES
At February 23, 2012, we employed approximately 11,000 full-time employees. Of this total, approximately 2,000 employees at PEF are represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. We entered into a new one-year labor contract with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers beginning December 2011. We consider our relationship with employees, including those covered by collective bargaining agreements, to be good.
We have a noncontributory defined benefit retirement (pension) plan for substantially all full-time employees and an employee stock ownership plan among other employee benefits. We also provide contributory postretirement benefits, including certain health care and life insurance benefits, for substantially all retired employees.
At February 23, 2012, PEC and PEF employed approximately 5,500 and 4,000 full-time employees, respectively.
SEASONALITY AND THE IMPACT OF WEATHER
Seasonal differences in the weather affect demand for electricity. The Utilities experience higher demand during the summer and winter months. As a result, our overall operating results may fluctuate substantially on a seasonal basis.
18

Beyond the impact of seasonality, deviations from normal weather conditions can significantly affect our financial performance. Our residential and commercial customers are most impacted by weather. Industrial customers are less weather sensitive. We define normal weather conditions as the long-term average of actual historical weather conditions. The number of years used to calculate normal weather is determined by management and differs by jurisdiction.
We estimate the impact of weather on our earnings based on the number of customers, temperature variances from a normal condition and the amount of electricity the average residential, commercial and some governmental customers historically demonstrated to use per degree day. Our methodology used to estimate the impact of weather does not and cannot consider all variables that may impact customer response to weather conditions such as humidity and relative temperature changes. The precision of this estimate may also be impacted by applying long-term weather trends to shorter periods.
Degree-day data are used to estimate the energy required to maintain comfortable indoor temperatures based on each day’s average temperature. Heating-degree days measure the variation in the weather based on the extent to which the average daily temperature falls below a base temperature, and cooling-degree days measure the variation in weather based on the extent to which the average daily temperature rises above the base temperature. Each degree of temperature below the base temperature counts as one heating-degree day and each degree of temperature above the base temperature counts as one cooling-degree day. PEC’s base temperature for heating- and cooling-degree days is 65° Fahrenheit for all customer classes. PEF’s base temperatures vary by customer class, ranging from 65° to 70° Fahrenheit for cooling-degree days and 55° to 65° Fahrenheit for heating-degree days.

19

PEC
GENERAL
PECCarolinas is a regulated public utility founded in North Carolina in 1908 and is primarily engaged in the generation, transmission, distribution, and sale of electricity in portions of North Carolina and South Carolina. At December 31, 2011, PEC had a total summer generating capacity (including jointly owned capacity) of 12,958 MW.Duke Energy Carolinas’ service area covers approximately 24,000 square miles and supplies electric service to 2.5 million residential, commercial and industrial customers. For additional information about PEC’sDuke Energy Carolinas’ generating plants, see “Electric – PEC” in Item 2, “Properties.” PEC’s system normally experiences its highest peak demands duringDuke Energy Carolinas is subject to the summer, and the all-time system peak of 12,656 megawatt-hours (MWh) was set on August 9, 2007.
PEC’s service territory covers approximately 34,000 square miles, including a substantial portionregulatory provisions of the coastal plainNCUC, PSCSC, NRC and FERC.
Substantially all of Duke Energy Carolinas operations are regulated and qualify for regulatory accounting. Duke Energy Carolinas operates one reportable business segment, Regulated Utility. For additional information regarding this business segment, including financial information, see Note 3 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Business Segments.”
PROGRESS ENERGY
Progress Energy is a public utility holding company headquartered in Raleigh, North Carolina, extending fromprimarily engaged in the Piedmontregulated electric utility business and is subject to regulation by the FERC. Progress Energy conducts operations through its wholly owned subsidiaries, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida. When discussing Progress Energy’s financial information, it necessarily includes the results of Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida.
Substantially all of Progress Energy’s operations are regulated and qualify for regulatory accounting. Progress Energy operates one reportable business segment, Regulated Utilities. For additional information regarding this business segment, including financial information, see Note 3 to the Atlantic coast between the Pamlico River and the South Carolina border, the lower Piedmont section of North Carolina, an area in western North Carolina in and around the city of Asheville and an area in the northeastern portion of South Carolina. At December 31, 2011, PEC was providing electric services, retail and wholesale, to approximately 1.5 million customers. Major wholesale power sales customers include North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation, North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency (Power Agency) and Public Works Commission of the City of Fayetteville, North Carolina. Major industries in PEC’s service area include chemicals, textiles, paper, food, metals, wood products, rubber and plastics and stone products. No single customer accounts for more than 10 percent of PEC’s revenues.Consolidated Financial Statements, “Business Segments.”
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS
PEC’s net income available to parent was $513 million, $600 million and $513 million for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. PEC’s total assets were $16.102 billion, $14.899 billion and $13.502 billion at December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.
REVENUES
See “Electric Utility Regulated Operating Statistics – PEC” for information about energy sales and operating revenues.
FUEL AND PURCHASED POWER
SOURCES OF GENERATION
PEC’s consumption of various types of fuel depends on several factors, the most important of which are the demand for electricity by PEC’s customers, the availability of various generating units, the availability and cost of fuel and the requirements of federal and state regulatory agencies.
See “Electric Utility Regulated Operating Statistics – PEC” for generated and purchased energy supply by source and PEC’s average fuel cost.
PEC’s total system generation (excluding jointly owned capacity) by primary energy source, along with purchased power for the last three years, is presented in the following table:
  2011  2010  2009 
Nuclear  43%  35%  41%
Coal  35%  49%  46%
Oil/Gas  13%  9%  6%
Purchased Power  8%  6%  6%
Hydro  1%  1%  1%
PEC is generally permitted to pass the cost of fuel and certain purchased power costs to its customers through fuel cost-recovery clauses. Because these costs are primarily recovered through recovery clauses established by regulators, fluctuations do not materially affect net income. The future prices for and availability of various fuels discussed in this report cannot be predicted with complete certainty. See “Commodity Price Risk” under Item 7A, “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk,” and Item 1A, “Risk Factors.” However, PEC
20

believes that its fuel supply contracts, as described below and in Note 22A, will be adequate to meet its fuel supply needs.
Nuclear
Nuclear fuel is processed through four distinct stages: uranium ore mining and milling, conversion, enrichment and fabrication. PEC has sufficient contracts for each stage to meet its nuclear fuel requirement needs for the foreseeable future. PEC’s nuclear fuel contracts typically have terms ranging from three to fifteen years. For a discussion of PEC’s plans with respect to spent fuel storage, see “Nuclear Matters – Spent Nuclear Fuel.”
Coal
PEC anticipates a burn requirement of approximately 9.6 million tons of coal in 2012. Approximately 88 percent of the coal is expected to be supplied from Central Appalachian, 7 percent from Illinois Basin, and 5 percent from Northern Appalachian coal sources and will be primarily delivered by rail.
For 2012, PEC has short-term, intermediate and long-term agreements from various sources for approximately 98 percent of its estimated burn requirements of its coal units. The contracts have expiration dates ranging from one to seven years. PEC will continue to sign contracts of various lengths, terms and quality to meet its expected burn requirements.
As discussed within Note 8B, PEC has implemented a plan to retire certain coal-fired units representing approximately 30 percent of its coal-fired power generation fleet no later than the end of 2013 as part of a major coal-to-gas modernization strategy. See “Oil and Gas” for planned gas facilities.
Oil and Gas
In June 2011, PEC placed in service a newly constructed 600-MW natural gas-fueled combined cycle unit at the SmithDuke Energy Complex in Richmond County, N.C. PEC is in the process of constructing two new generating facilities: an approximately 950-MW combined cycle natural gas-fueled facility at a site in Wayne County, N.C., and an approximately 620-MW natural gas-fueled generating facility at its Sutton coal plant site in New Hanover County, N.C. The facilities have expected in-service dates in January 2013 and December 2013, respectively.
Oil and natural gas supply for PEC’s generation fleet is purchased under term and spot contracts from various suppliers. PEC uses derivative instruments to limit its exposure to price fluctuations for natural gas. PEC has dual-fuel generating facilities that can operate with both oil and gas. The cost of PEC’s physical oil and natural gas is either at a fixed price or determined by market prices as reported in certain industry publications. PEC believes that it has access to an adequate supply of oil and gas for the reasonably foreseeable future. PEC’s natural gas transportation for its gas generation is purchased under term firm transportation contracts with interstate and intrastate pipelines. PEC may also purchase additional shorter-term transportation for its load requirements during peak periods.
Purchased Power
PEC purchased approximately 4.6 million MWh, 4.0 million MWh and 3.3 million MWh of its system energy requirements during 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively, under purchase obligations and operating leases and had 1,394 MW of firm purchased capacity under contract during 2011. PEC may need to acquire additional purchased power capacity in the future to accommodate a portion of its system load needs. PEC believes that it can obtain adequate purchased power to meet these needs. However, during periods of high demand, the price and availability of purchased power may be significantly affected.
Hydroelectric
PEC has three hydroelectric generating plants licensed by the FERC: Walters, Tillery and Blewett. PEC also owns the Marshall Plant, which has a license exemption. The total summer generating capacity for all four units is 225 MW. PEC submitted an application to relicense its Tillery and Blewett plants for 50 years and anticipates a decision by the FERC in 2012. The Walters Plant license will expire in 2034.
21

PEF
GENERAL
PEFProgress is a regulated public utility foundedprimarily engaged in the generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electricity in portions of North Carolina and South Carolina. Duke Energy Progress’ service area covers approximately 32,000 square miles, and supplies electric service to approximately 1.5 million residential, commercial and industrial customers. For information about Duke Energy Progress’ generating plants, see Item 2, “Properties.” Duke Energy Progress is subject to the regulatory provisions of the NCUC, PSCSC, NRC and FERC.
Substantially all of Duke Energy Progress’ operations are regulated and qualify for regulatory accounting. Duke Energy Progress operates one reportable business segment, Regulated Utility. For additional information regarding this business segment, including financial information, see Note 3 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Business Segments.”

18


PART I

DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA
Duke Energy Florida in 1899 and is a regulated public utility primarily engaged in the generation, transmission, distribution, and sale of electricity in portions of Florida. At December 31, 2011, PEF had a total summerDuke Energy Florida’s service area covers approximately 13,000 square miles and supplies electric service to approximately 1.7 million residential, commercial and industrial customers. For information about Duke Energy Florida’s generating capacity (including jointly owned capacity)plants, see Item 2, “Properties.” Duke Energy Florida is subject to the regulatory provisions of 10,019 MW.the FPSC, NRC and FERC.
Substantially all of Duke Energy Florida’s operations are regulated and qualify for regulatory accounting. Duke Energy Florida operates one reportable business segment, Regulated Utility. For additional information about PEF’s generating plants,regarding this business segment, including financial information, see “Electric – PEF” in Item 2, “Properties.” PEF’s system normally experiences its highest peak demands duringNote 3 to the winter, and the all-time system peak of 10,822 MWh was set on January 11, 2010.Consolidated Financial Statements, “Business Segments.”
DUKE ENERGY OHIO
PEF’s service territory covers approximately 20,000 square miles in west-central Florida, and includes the densely populated areas around Orlando, as well as the cities of St. Petersburg and Clearwater. PEF is interconnected with 22 municipal and 9 rural electric cooperative systems. At December 31, 2011, PEF was providing electric services, retail and wholesale, to approximately 1.6 million customers. Major wholesale power sales customers include Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc., Reedy Creek Improvement District, the city of Gainesville, the city of Winter Park and the city of Homestead. Major industries in PEF’s territory include phosphate rock mining and processing, electronics design and manufacturing, and citrus and other food processing. Other major commercial activities are tourism, health care and agriculture. No single customer accounts for more than 10 percent of PEF’s revenues.
PEF’s net income available to parent was $312 million, $451 million and $460 million for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. PEF’s total assets were $14.484 billion, $14.056 billion and $13.100 billion at December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.
REVENUES
See “Electric Utility Regulated Operating Statistics – PEF” for information about energy sales and operating revenues.
FUEL AND PURCHASED POWER
SOURCES OF GENERATION
PEF’s consumption of various types of fuel depends on several factors, the most important of which are the demand for electricity by PEF’s customers, the availability of various generating units, the availability and cost of fuel and the requirements of federal and state regulatory agencies.
See “Electric Utility Regulated Operating Statistics – PEF” for PEF’s energy supply by source and energy fuel cost.
PEF’s total system generation (excluding jointly owned capacity) by primary energy source, along with purchased power for the last three years is presented in the following table:
  2011  2010  2009 
Oil/Gas   
  56%  54%  44%
Coal  25%  26%  25%
Purchased Power  19%  20%  20%
Nuclear(a)
  -%�� -%  11%
(a)
Due to the extended outage at CR3 nuclear generating unit that began in September 2009, no nuclear power was generated in 2011 and 2010.
 
Duke Energy Ohio is a public utility that provides service in portions of Ohio and Kentucky. References herein to Duke Energy Ohio include Duke Energy Ohio and its subsidiaries. Duke Energy Ohio is subject to the regulatory provisions of the PUCO, KPSC and FERC.
PEFBusiness Segments
Duke Energy Ohio operates two business segments: Regulated Utilities and Commercial Power. For additional information on each of these business segments, including financial information, see Note 3 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Business Segments.”
The following is generally permitted to passa brief description of the costnature of fueloperations of each of Duke Energy Ohio’s reportable business segments.
REGULATED UTILITIES
Regulated Utilities transmits and certain purchased power to its customers through fuel cost-recovery clauses. Because these costs are primarily recovered through recovery clauses established by regulators, fluctuations do not materially affect net income. In early 2012, PEF agreed to a settlement returning $288 million to customers through the fuel clause (See Note 8C). The future prices fordistributes electricity in Ohio. Regulated Utilities also generates, transmits and availability of various fuels discusseddistributes electricity in this report cannot be predicted with complete certainty. See “Commodity Price Risk” under Item 7A, “QuantitativeKentucky. Regulated Utilities also transports and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk,” and Item 1A, “Risk Factors.” However, PEF believes that its fuel supply contracts, as described below and in Note 22A, will be adequate to meet its fuel supply needs.
22

Oil and Gas
Oil andsells natural gas supply for PEF’s generation fleet is purchased under termin Ohio and spot contracts from various suppliers. PEF uses derivative instrumentsKentucky. Duke Energy Ohio applies regulatory accounting to limitsubstantially all of the operations in its exposureRegulated Utilities operating segment.
Duke Energy Ohio’s Regulated Utilities service area covers 3,000 square miles and supplies electric service to price fluctuations840,000 residential, commercial and industrial customers and provides regulated transmission and distribution services for natural gas and oil. PEF has dual-fuelto 500,000 customers. See Item 2, “Properties” for further discussion of Duke Energy Ohio’s Regulated Utilities generating facilities that can operate with both oilfacilities.
See Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters,” for further discussion related to regulatory filings.
COMMERCIAL POWER
On August 21, 2014, Duke Energy entered into an agreement to sell Commercial Power's Midwest generation business to Dynegy. The transaction is conditioned on approval by FERC, and gas. The cost of PEF’s physical oil and natural gas is either at a fixed price or determined by market prices as reported in certain industry publications. PEF believes that it has access to an adequate supply of oil and gas for the reasonably foreseeable future. PEF’s natural gas transportation for its gas generation is purchased under term firm transportation contracts with interstate pipelines. PEF may also purchase additional shorter-term transportation for its load requirements during peak periods.
Coal
PEF anticipates a burn requirement of approximately 4.6 million tons of coal in 2012. Approximately 79 percent of the coal is expected to be supplied fromclose by the Illinois Basinend of the second quarter of 2015. The results of these operations have been reclassified to Discontinued Operations on the Consolidated Statements of Operations and 21 percent from Central Appalachian coal sourcesComprehensive Income. For additional information on the Midwest generation business disposition see Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Acquisitions, Dispositions and will be primarily delivered by water.
Sales of Other Assets."
For 2012, PEF has intermediate and long-term contracts from various sources for approximately 105 percent of its estimated burn requirements of its coal units. These contracts have price adjustment provisions and have expiration dates ranging from one to four years. PEF will continue to sign contracts of various lengths, terms and quality to meet its expected burn requirements.
Purchased Power
PEF purchased approximately 7.8 million MWh, 9.5 million MWh and 8.7 million MWh of its system energy requirements during 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively, under purchase obligations, operating leases and capital leases and had 2,105 MW of firm purchased capacity under contract during 2011. These agreements include approximately 682 MW of firm capacity under contract with certain QFs. PEF may need to acquire additional purchased power capacity in the future to accommodate a portion of its system load needs. PEF believes that it can obtain adequate purchased power to meet these needs if required. However, during periods of high demand, the price and availability of purchased power may be significantly affected.
Nuclear
Nuclear fuel is processed through four distinct stages: uranium ore mining and milling, conversion, enrichment and fabrication. PEF has sufficient contracts for each stage to meet its nuclear fuel requirement needs for the foreseeable future. PEF’s nuclear fuel contracts typically have terms ranging from three to fifteen years. For a discussion of PEF’s plans with respect to spent fuel storage, see “Nuclear Matters – Spent Nuclear Fuel.”

23

CORPORATE AND OTHER
Corporate and Other primarily includes the operations of the Parent and PESC. The Parent’s unallocated interest expense is included in Corporate and Other. PESC provides centralized administrative, management and support services to our subsidiaries, which generates essentially all of the segment’s revenues. See Note 19 for additional information about PESC services provided and costs allocated to subsidiaries. This segment also includes miscellaneous nonregulated business areas that do not separately meet the quantitative disclosure requirements as a reportable business segment.on Duke Energy Ohio’s Commercial Power generating facilities, see Item 2, “Properties,”
DUKE ENERGY INDIANA
The Corporate and Other segment’s net loss attributable to controlling interests was $250 million, $195 million and $216 million for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. Corporate and Other segment total assets were $20.926 billion, $21.110 billion and $20.538 billion at December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively, which were primarily comprised of the Parent’s investments in subsidiaries.

24



ELECTRIC UTILITY REGULATED OPERATING STATISTICS – PROGRESS ENERGY 
  Years Ended December 31 
  2011  2010  2009  2008  2007 
 Energy supply (millions of kWh)
               
Generated               
Steam  33,834   44,971   40,420   46,771   51,163 
Nuclear  25,059   21,624   29,412   30,565   30,336 
Combustion turbine/combined cycle  29,259   27,856   21,254   15,557   13,319 
Hydro  602   608   651   429   415 
Purchased  12,404   13,473   11,996   14,956   14,994 
Total energy supply (company share)(a)
  101,158   108,532   103,733   108,278   110,227 
Jointly owned share(a) (b)
  5,046   5,228   5,500   5,780   5,351 
Total system energy supply  106,204   113,760   109,233   114,058   115,578 
 Average fuel costs (per million Btu)
                    
Oil $14.98  $13.15  $11.78  $9.60  $8.70 
Gas $6.24  $6.92  $8.36  $10.14  $8.67 
Coal $3.73  $3.70  $3.85  $3.50  $3.06 
Nuclear $0.60  $0.59  $0.53  $0.46  $0.45 
Weighted-average $3.55  $3.90  $3.79  $3.66  $3.17 
 Energy sales (millions of kWh)
                    
Retail                    
Residential  37,386   39,632   36,516   36,328   37,112 
Commercial  25,736   26,080   25,523   26,080   26,215 
Industrial  13,856   13,884   13,653   15,174   15,721 
Other retail  4,834   4,860   4,753   4,768   4,805 
Unbilled  (1,226)  630   491   (107)  (61)
Wholesale  15,215   17,856   17,801   21,063   21,333 
Total energy sales  95,801   102,942   98,737   103,306   105,125 
Company uses and losses  5,357   5,590   4,996   4,972   5,102 
Total energy requirements  101,158   108,532   103,733   108,278   110,227 
 Operating revenues (in millions)
                    
Retail                    
Billed $8,025  $8,714  $8,449  $7,585  $7,672 
Unbilled  (58)  28   14   7   1 
Wholesale  880   1,080   1,114   1,288   1,191 
Miscellaneous revenue  338   354   301   280   270 
Amount to be refunded to customers(c)
  (288)  -   -   -   - 
Total operating revenues of the Utilities $8,897  $10,176  $9,878  $9,160  $9,134 
(a)The extended outage at PEF's CR3 nuclear generating unit that began in September 2009 impacted the energy supply mix in 2011, 2010 and 2009.
(b)Amounts represent joint owners' share of the energy supplied from the six generating facilities that are jointly owned. Replacement power was supplied to the CR3 joint owners in 2011 and 2010 from other generating sources or purchased power.
(c)Amount to be refunded to PEF customers through the fuel clause in accordance with the PEF 2012 settlement agreement (See Note 8C).

25



ELECTRIC UTILITY REGULATED OPERATING STATISTICS – PEC 
  Years Ended December 31 
  2011  2010  2009  2008  2007 
 Energy supply (millions of kWh)
               
Generated               
Steam  21,009   30,528   27,261   28,363   30,770 
Nuclear  25,059   21,624   24,467   24,140   24,212 
Combustion turbine/combined cycle  7,435   5,429   3,634   2,795   2,960 
Hydro  602   608   651   429   415 
Purchased  4,512   3,985   3,251   4,735   3,901 
Total energy supply (company share)  58,617   62,174   59,264   60,462   62,258 
Jointly owned share(a)
  5,046   5,228   5,057   5,205   4,800 
Total system energy supply  63,663   67,402   64,321   65,667   67,058 
 Average fuel costs (per million Btu)
                    
Oil $17.85  $14.34  $14.84  $16.05  $12.28 
Gas $5.98  $6.59  $8.17  $10.66  $9.19 
Coal $3.66  $3.56  $3.82  $3.39  $2.96 
Nuclear $0.60  $0.59  $0.53  $0.46  $0.44 
Weighted-average $2.48  $2.69  $2.60  $2.44  $2.21 
 Energy sales (millions of kWh)
                    
Retail                    
Residential  18,148   19,108   17,117   17,000   17,200 
Commercial  13,844   14,184   13,639   13,941   14,032 
Industrial  10,613   10,665   10,368   11,388   11,901 
Other retail  1,610   1,574   1,497   1,466   1,438 
Unbilled  (597)  172   360   (8)  (55)
Wholesale  12,605   13,999   13,966   14,329   15,309 
Total energy sales  56,223   59,702   56,947   58,116   59,825 
Company uses and losses  2,394   2,472   2,317   2,346   2,433 
Total energy requirements  58,617   62,174   59,264   60,462   62,258 
 Operating revenues (in millions)
                    
Retail                    
Billed $3,785  $4,044  $3,801  $3,582  $3,534 
Unbilled  (34)  11   5   8   - 
Wholesale  648   729   707   737   754 
Miscellaneous revenue  129   138   114   102   97 
Total operating revenues $4,528  $4,922  $4,627  $4,429  $4,385 
(a)Amounts represent joint owners' share of the energy supplied from the four generating facilities that are jointly owned.

26



ELECTRIC UTILITY REGULATED OPERATING STATISTICS – PEF 
  Years Ended December 31 
  2011  2010  2009  2008  2007 
 Energy supply (millions of kWh)
               
Generated               
Steam  12,825   14,443   13,159   18,408   20,393 
Nuclear  -   -   4,945   6,425   6,124 
Combustion turbine/combined cycle  21,824   22,427   17,620   12,762   10,359 
Purchased  7,892   9,488   8,745   10,221   11,093 
Total energy supply (company share)(a)
  42,541   46,358   44,469   47,816   47,969 
Jointly owned share(a) (b)
  -   -   443   575   551 
Total system energy supply  42,541   46,358   44,912   48,391   48,520 
 Average fuel costs (per million Btu)
                    
Oil $14.11  $12.96  $11.43  $9.24  $8.54 
Gas $6.33  $7.00  $8.40  $10.03  $8.51 
Coal $3.88  $4.09  $4.25  $3.74  $3.28 
Nuclear $-  $-  $0.52  $0.49  $0.48 
Weighted-average $5.53  $6.14  $5.88  $5.67  $4.85 
 Energy sales (millions of kWh)
                    
Retail                    
Residential  19,238   20,524   19,399   19,328   19,912 
Commercial  11,892   11,896   11,884   12,139   12,183 
Industrial  3,243   3,219   3,285   3,786   3,820 
Other retail  3,224   3,286   3,256   3,302   3,367 
Unbilled  (629)  458   131   (99)  (6)
Wholesale  2,610   3,857   3,835   6,734   6,024 
Total energy sales  39,578   43,240   41,790   45,190   45,300 
Company uses and losses  2,963   3,118   2,679   2,626   2,669 
Total energy requirements  42,541   46,358   44,469   47,816   47,969 
 Operating revenues (in millions)
                    
Retail                    
Billed $4,240  $4,670  $4,648  $4,003  $4,138 
Unbilled  (24)  17   9   (1)  1 
Wholesale  232   351   407   551   437 
Miscellaneous revenue  209   216   187   178   173 
Amount to be refunded to customers(c)
  (288)  -   -   -   - 
Total operating revenues $4,369  $5,254  $5,251  $4,731  $4,749 
(a)The extended outage at PEF's CR3 nuclear generating unit that began in September 2009 impacted the energy supply mix in 2011, 2010 and 2009.
(b)Amounts represent joint owners' share of the energy supplied from the two generating facilities that are jointly owned. Replacement power was supplied to the CR3 joint owners in 2011 and 2010 from other generation sources or purchased power.
(c)Amount to be refunded to customers through the fuel clause in accordance with the 2012 settlement agreement (See Note 8C).

27


ITEM 1A.
RISK FACTORS
InvestingDuke Energy Indiana is a regulated public utility primarily engaged in the securitiesgeneration, transmission, distribution and sale of electricity in portions of Indiana. Duke Energy Indiana’s service area covers 23,000 square miles and supplies electric service to 810,000 residential, commercial and industrial customers. See Item 2, “Properties” for further discussion of Duke Energy Indiana’s generating facilities, transmission and distribution. Duke Energy Indiana is subject to the regulatory provisions of the Progress Registrants involves risks,IURC and FERC.
Substantially all of Duke Energy Indiana’s operations are regulated and qualify for regulatory accounting. Duke Energy Indiana operates one reportable business segment, Regulated Utility. For additional information regarding this business segment, including financial information, see Note 3 to the risks described below, that could affect the Progress RegistrantsConsolidated Financial Statements, “Business Segments.”
ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS
In addition to other disclosures within this Form 10-K, including Management’s Discussion and their businesses, as well as the energy industryAnalysis - Matters Impacting Future Results for each registrant in general. Most of the business information, as well as the financialItem 7, and operational data contained in our risk factors, is updated periodically in the reports the Progress Registrants file with the SEC. Before purchasing securities of the Progress Registrants, you should carefully consider the following risks and the other information in this combined Annual Report, as well as the documents the Progress Registrants filefiled with the SEC from time to time. Eachtime, the following factors should be considered in evaluating Duke Energy and its subsidiaries. Such factors could affect actual results of operations and cause results to differ substantially from those currently expected or sought. Unless otherwise indicated, risk factors discussed below generally relate to risks associated with all of the risks described below could result in a decrease inDuke Energy Registrants. Risks identified at the value of the securities of the Progress Registrants and your investment therein.
Solely with respect to this Item 1A, “Risk Factors,” unless the context otherwise requires or the disclosure otherwise indicates, references to “we,” “us” or “our” are to each of the individual Progress Registrants, and the matters discussedSubsidiary Registrant level are generally applicable to each Progress Registrant.Duke Energy.

19


PART I

Regulatory, Legislative and Legal Risks
WeThe Duke Energy Registrants’ regulated electric revenues, earnings and results are dependent on state legislation and regulation that affect electric generation, transmission, distribution and related activities, which may limit their ability to recover costs.
The Duke Energy Registrants’ regulated utility businesses are regulated on a cost-of-service/rate-of-return basis subject to statutes and regulatory commission rules and procedures of North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky. If the Duke Energy Registrants’ regulated utility earnings exceed the returns established by the state utility commissions, retail electric rates may be unablesubject to obtainreview and possible reduction by the approvals required to complete our merger withcommissions, which may decrease the Duke Energy or, obtaining required governmentalRegistrants’ future earnings. Additionally, if regulatory bodies do not allow recovery of costs incurred in providing service on a timely basis, the Duke Energy Registrants’ future earnings could be negatively impacted.
If legislative and regulatory approvals may requirestructures were to evolve in such a way that the combined companyDuke Energy Registrants’ exclusive rights to comply with restrictionsserve their regulated customers were eroded, their future earnings could be negatively impacted.
Deregulation or conditions that may materially impact the anticipated benefits of the Merger.
On January 8, 2011, we entered into a definitive merger agreement with Duke Energy. Before the Merger may be completed, various filings must be made with certain state and federal regulators, antitrust and other authoritiesrestructuring in the United States. See Note 2 forelectric industry may result in increased competition and unrecovered costs that could adversely affect the statusDuke Energy Registrants’ financial position, results of shareholder and regulatory approvals. These governmental authorities may impose conditions on the completion, or require changes to the terms, of the Merger, including restrictions or conditions on the business, operations or financial performance of the combined company following consummation that may materially impact the anticipated benefits of the Merger. These conditionscash flows and their utility businesses.
Increased competition resulting from deregulation or changes could have the effect of delaying completion of the Merger or imposing additional costs on or limiting the revenues of the combined company following the Merger, whichrestructuring legislation could have a materialsignificant adverse effectimpact on the financialDuke Energy Registrants’ results of the combined company and/operations, financial position, or cause either party to abandon the Merger.

In particular, in response to the FERC’s concerns about market power in the Carolinas, we and Duke Energy have prepared a mitigation plan and anticipate filing it with the FERC after review by the NCUC. The mitigation plan contains an interim component involving power sales to new market participants and a permanent component involving construction of transmission upgrades. The companies intend to hold discussions with consumer advocates in an effort to reach agreement concerning state ratemaking treatment associated with the mitigation plan and other merger-related issues. We cannot provide assurances that the FERC will approve the mitigation plan or that the NCUC or SCPSC will approve ratemaking treatment of the components of the plan and other merger-related issues, in each case on terms acceptable to either company. In addition, the companies will have to assess the costs associated with any mitigation plan together with the costs associated with other regulatory approvals in connection with the provisions of the Merger Agreement.
We are also subject to the risk that other required conditions to the Merger may not be satisfied. The Merger is subject to a number of customary closing conditions, including the accuracy of representations and warranties, receipt of legal opinions concerning tax consequences, the absence of legal restraints,cash flows. Retail competition and the absenceunbundling of any material adverse effect with respect to either party. In the event one of these conditions is not satisfied, one or both companies would have the ability to terminate the Merger unless satisfaction of the condition is waived.
In the event that the Merger Agreement is terminated prior to the completion of the Merger, we could incur significant transaction costs that could materially impact our financial performance and results. Failure to complete the Merger could also negatively impact our stock price and our future business and financial results.
We have incurred, and will continue to incur, significant merger transaction costs, including legal, accounting, financial advisory, filing, printing and other costs relating to the Merger. If the Merger is not completed, then the benefit of these costs will be lost. Additionally, if the Merger is not completed, depending upon the reasons for not completing the Merger, including whether we have received or entered into a competing takeover proposal, we may be required to pay Duke Energy a termination fee of $400 million. The costs associated with not completing the Mergerregulated electric service could have a material effectsignificant adverse financial impact on our financial results.
28

If completed, our merger withthe Duke Energy may not achieve the anticipated results and benefits.
We andRegistrants due to an impairment of assets, a loss of retail customers, lower profit margins or increased costs of capital. The Duke Energy enteredRegistrants cannot predict the extent and timing of entry by additional competitors into the Merger Agreement withelectric markets. The Duke Energy Registrants cannot predict if or when they will be subject to changes in legislation or regulation, nor can they predict the expectationimpact of these changes on their financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
The Duke Energy Registrants’ businesses are subject to extensive federal regulation that will affect their operations and costs.
The Duke Energy Registrants are subject to regulation by FERC, NRC, EPA and various other federal agencies as well as the Merger would result in various benefits,North American Electric Reliability Corporation. Regulation affects almost every aspect of the Duke Energy Registrants’ businesses, including, among other things, cost savingstheir ability to: take fundamental business management actions; determine the terms and operating efficiencies primarily relatingrates of transmission and distribution services; make acquisitions; issue equity or debt securities; engage in transactions with other subsidiaries and affiliates; and pay dividends upstream to the regulatedDuke Energy Registrants. Changes to federal regulations are continuous and ongoing. The Duke Energy Registrants cannot predict the future course of regulatory changes or the ultimate effect those changes will have on their businesses. AchievingHowever, changes in regulation can cause delays in or affect business planning and transactions and can substantially increase the anticipated benefitsDuke Energy Registrants’ costs.
The Dan River ash basin release could impact the reputation and financial condition of the Merger is subject to a number of uncertainties, including whether our businesses and the businesses of Duke Energy can be integrated in an efficient, effectiveRegistrants.
There is uncertainty regarding the extent and timely manner. As noted above, as a resulttiming of obtaining all necessary regulatory approvals, certain restrictions or conditions may be imposed on the combined company that materially impact or limit the benefits anticipated by us as a result of the Merger. The combined company is also subjectfuture additional costs and liabilities related to the risk that the expected cost savings and operational synergies may not be fully realized. Failure to achieve these anticipated benefits could result in increased costs, decreases inDan River ash basin release, including the amount and extent of expected liquidity provided byany pending or future civil or criminal penalties, and resulting litigation. These uncertainties are likely to continue for an extended period and may further increase costs. Thus, the combined company and diversion of management's time and energy andDan River ash basin release could have an adverse effectimpact on the combined company's business, financial results and prospects.
We will be subject to business uncertainties and contractual restrictions whilereputation of the merger with Duke Energy is pending that could adversely affect ourRegistrants and their financial results.
Uncertainty about the effect of the Merger on employees or suppliers may have an adverse effect on us. Although we intend to take steps designed to reduce any adverse effects, these uncertainties may impair our ability to attract, retain and motivate key personnel until the Merger is completed and for a period of time thereafter, and could cause suppliers and others that deal with us to seek to change existing business relationships.
Employee retention and recruitment may be particularly challenging prior to the completion of the Merger, as employees and prospective employees may experience uncertainty about their future roles with the combined company. If, despite our retention and recruiting efforts, key employees depart or fail to accept employment with us because of issues relating to the uncertainty and difficulty of integration or a desire not to remain with the combined company, our business operations and financial results could be adversely affected.
Merger- and integration-related issues will place a significant burden on management and internal resources. The diversion of management time on merger-related issues could affect our financial results.
In addition, the Merger Agreement restricts us, without Duke Energy's consent, from making certain acquisitions and taking other specified actions, including limiting our total capital spending, limiting the extent to which we can obtain financing through long-term debt and equity issuances or increasing the Parent’s common stock dividend rate until the Merger occurs or the Merger Agreement terminates. These restrictions may prevent us from pursuing otherwise attractive business opportunities and making other changes to our business prior to consummation of the Merger or termination of the Merger Agreement. Unless the Merger Agreement is terminated earlier, we and Duke Energy will each have the right to terminate the Merger Agreement if the Merger has not been completed by July 8, 2012.
The scope of necessary repairs of the delamination of CR3 could prove more extensive than is currently identified, such repairs could prove not to be feasible, the costs of repair and/or replacement power could exceed our estimates and insurance coverage or may not be recoverable through the regulatory process; the occurrence of any of which could adversely affect our financial condition,position, results of operations and cash flows.
In September 2009, CR3 began an outage for normal refueling and maintenance as well as an uprate project to increase its generating capability and to replace two steam generators. During preparations to replace the steam generators, workers discovered a delamination (or separation) within the concrete at the periphery of the containment building, which resulted in an extension of the outage. After analysis, PEF determined that the concrete delamination at CR3 was caused by redistribution of stresses in the containment wall that occurred when PEF created an opening to accommodate the replacement of the unit’s steam generators. In March 2011, the work to return the plant to service was suspended after monitoring equipment at the repair site identified a new delamination that occurred in a different section of the outer wall after the repair work was completed and during the late stages of retensioning the containment building. Subsequent to March 2011, monitoring equipment has detected additional changes and further damage in the partially tensioned containment building and additional cracking or delaminations
29

could occur during the repair process. CR3 has remained out of service while PEF conducted an engineering analysis and review of the new delamination and evaluated repair options.
In June 2011, PEF notified the NRC and the FPSC that it plans to repair the CR3 containment structure and estimates it will return CR3 to service in 2014. The repair option selected entails systematically removing and replacing concrete in substantial portions of the containment structure walls. The planned option does not include replacing concrete in the area where concrete was replaced during the initial repair. PEF’s preliminary cost estimate for this repair, as filed with the FPSC on June 27, 2011, is between $900 million and $1.3 billion, although a number of factors will affect the repair schedule, return-to-service date and costs of repair, including regulatory reviews, final engineering designs, contract negotiations, ultimate work scope completion, testing, weather, the impact of new information discovered during additional testing and analysis and other developments. In addition to regulatory reviews, our assessment and plans for recovery of costs and repair to CR3 are being reviewed by Duke Energy. PEF believes the actions taken and costs incurred in response to the CR3 delamination have been prudent and, accordingly, believes that replacement power and repair costs not recoverable through insurance to be recoverable through PEF’s fuel cost-recovery clause or base rates.
While the foregoing reflects PEF’s current intentions and estimates with respect to CR3, the costs, timing and feasibility of additional repairs to CR3, the cost of replacement power, and the degree of recoverability of these costs, are all subject to significant uncertainties. Additional developments with respect to the condition of the CR3 structures, costs that are greater than anticipated, recoverability that is less than anticipated and/or the inability to return CR3 to service all could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. See Note 8C for additional information related to the CR3 outage.
We are subject to fluid and complex government regulations that may have a negative impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
We are subject to comprehensive regulation by multiple federal, state and local regulatory agencies, which significantly influences our operating environment and may affect our ability to recover costs from utility customers. We are required to comply with numerous laws and regulations and to obtain numerous permits, approvals and certificates from the governmental agencies that regulate various aspects of our business, including customer rates, retail service territories, reliability of our transmission system, applicable renewable energy and energy-efficiency standards, environmental compliance, issuances of securities, asset acquisitions and sales, accounting policies and practices, and the operation of generating facilities. We believe the necessary permits, approvals and certificates have been obtained for our existing operations and that our business is conducted in accordance with applicable laws. Changes in laws and regulations as well as changes in federal administrative policy are ongoing and the ultimate costs of compliance cannot be precisely estimated. Such changes could have an adverse impact on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows, particularly if the costs of those changes are not fully recoverable from our ratepayers.
The rates that PEC and PEF may charge retail customers for electric power are subject to the authority of state regulators. Accordingly, our profit margins and ability to earn an adequate return on investment could be adversely affected if we do not control and prudently manage costs to the satisfaction of regulators, or if we do not obtain successful outcomes in our regulatory proceedings. Such regulatory decisions may be impacted by economic and public policy considerations within the respective jurisdictions.
The NCUC, the SCPSC and the FPSC each exercise regulatory authority for review and approval of the retail electric power rates charged within its respective state. The Utilities’ state utility commissions approve base rates, which by law must give a utility a reasonable opportunity to recover its operating costs and return on invested capital. They also approve recovery through cost-recovery clauses of certain additional costs, known as “pass-through” costs, which vary by jurisdiction; examples include fuel costs, certain purchased power costs, qualified nuclear costs and specified environmental costs. The commissions can disagree with our request of appropriate base rates, and can disallow either requested base rates or pass-through recoveries on the grounds that such costs were not reasonable and prudent.
Regulatory decisions may also impact prospective revenues and earnings, affect the timing of the recognition of revenues and expenses and may overturn past decisions used in determining our revenues and expenses.
30

Management continually evaluates the anticipated recovery of regulatory assets, liabilities and revenues subject to refund and provides allowances as deemed necessary. In the event that our assessment of the probability of recovery through the ratemaking process is incorrect, we will adjust the associated regulatory asset or liability to reflect the change in our assessment or any regulatory disallowances. A change in our evaluation of the probability of recovery of regulatory assets or a regulatory disallowance of all or a portion of our costs could adversely impact our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
The Utilities expect increased future expenditures in several key areas including, but not limited to, environmental compliance, new and existing generation, transmission and distribution facilities, renewable energy and energy-efficiency standards compliance (as applicable), DSM programs and fuel and other commodities. Such cost increases will be subject to scrutiny from regulators, policymakers and ratepayers. As referenced above, the commissions may disallow any costs that they find unreasonable and imprudent.
Our financial performance depends on the successful operation of electric generating facilities by the Utilities and their ability to deliver electricity to customers.
Operating our electric generating facilities and delivery systems involves many risks, including:
§  operator error and breakdown or failure of equipment or processes, including repair and replacement power costs;
§  failure of information technology systems and network infrastructure;
§  operational limitations imposed by environmental or other regulatory requirements;
§  limitations imposed on our nuclear generating units by regulatory agencies or a failure to obtain required licenses for our nuclear generating units, as discussed later;
§  inadequate or unreliable access to transmission and distribution assets;
§  labor disputes and inability to recruit and retain skilled technical workers;
§  inability to successfully and timely execute repair, maintenance and/or refueling outages;
§  interruptions to the supply of fuel and other commodities used in generation;
§  failure to comply with FERC-mandated reliability standards for the bulk power electric system;
§  inadequate coal combustion product management (disposal or beneficial use) capabilities;
§  failure to adequately forecast system requirements and commodity requirements; and
§  catastrophic events such as hurricanes, floods, extreme drought, earthquakes, fires, explosions, terrorist attacks, pandemic health events or other similar occurrences.
Occurrences of these events could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
A significant portion of our generating facilities was constructed many years ago. Aging equipment, even if maintained in accordance with industry practices, may require significant capital expenditures. Failure of equipment or facilities could potentially increase O&M expense, purchased power expense and capital expenditures.
A cyber attack could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
Information security risks have generally increased in recent years as a result of the proliferation of new technologies and the increased sophistication and activities of cyber attacks. Through our smart grid and other initiatives, we have increasingly connected equipment and systems related to the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity to the Internet. Because of the critical nature of our infrastructure and the increased accessibility enabled through connection to the Internet, we may face a heightened risk of cyber attack. In the event of such an attack, we could have our business operations disrupted, property damaged and customer information stolen; experience substantial loss of revenues, response costs and other financial loss; and be subject to increased regulation, litigation and damage to our reputation.
Meeting the anticipated demand in our service territories and fulfilling our environmental compliance strategies will require, among other things, modernization of coal-fired generating facilities, the construction of new generating facilities and the siting and construction of associated transmission facilities. We may not be able to obtain required licenses, permits and rights of way; successfully and timely complete construction; or recover the
31

cost of such new generation and transmission facilities through our base rates or other recovery mechanisms, any of which could adversely impact our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
Meeting the anticipated demand within the Utilities’ service territories and complying with existing and potential environmental laws and regulations will require a balanced approach. The three main elements of this balanced solution are: (1) expanding our energy-efficiency programs; (2) investing in the development of alternative energy resources for the future; and (3) operating state-of-the-art power systems that produce energy cleanly and efficiently by modernizing existing plants and pursuing options for building new plants and associated transmission facilities.
The risks of each of the elements of our balanced solution include, but are not limited to, the following:
Energy-Efficiency and New Energy Resources
We are expanding our DSM, energy-efficiency and conservation programs and will continue to pursue additional initiatives as these programs can be effective ways to reduce energy costs, offset the need for new power plants and protect the environment.
We are subject to the risk that our customers may not participate in our conservation programs or that the results from these programs may be less than anticipated. This could impact our compliance with state-mandated energy-efficiency standards as discussed in the risks regarding renewable energy standards. Also, not achieving the energy-efficiency and conservation measurements we assumed in our long-term resource planning could require us to further expand our generation capacity or purchase additional power at prevailing market rates.
We are also subject to the risk that customer participation in these programs or new technologies that impact the quantity and pattern of electricity usage may decrease our electric sales and require us to seek future rate increases to cover our prudently incurred costs.
As discussed further in the risk factor related to renewable energy standards, we are actively engaged in a variety of alternative energy projects. These alternative energy projects may be determined not to be cost-efficient or cost-effective.
Modernization and Construction of Generating Plants
We are currently evaluating our options for new generating plants, including gas and nuclear technologies. We are implementing our announced plan to retire certain coal-fired units in North Carolina that do not have emission control equipment by the end of 2013 and to construct new natural gas-fueled units at certain of these facilities. We are also evaluating the possibility of converting certain of these facilities to be fueled by natural gas or biomass. At this time, no definitive decision has been made regarding the construction of nuclear plants.
32

Decisions to build new power plants and successful completion of such construction projects are based on many factors including:
§  projected system load growth;
§  performance of existing generation fleet;
§  availability of competitively priced alternative energy sources;
§  projections of fuel prices, availability and security;
§  the regulatory environment, including the ability to recover costs and earn an appropriate return on investment;
§  operational performance of new technologies;
§  the time required to permit and construct;
§  environmental impact;
§  both public and policymaker support, including support for siting of power plant and associated transmission;
§  siting and construction of transmission facilities;
§  cost and availability of construction equipment, materials and skilled labor;
§  nuclear decommissioning costs, insurance and costs of security;
§  ability to obtain financing on favorable terms; and
§  availability of adequate water supply.
There is no assurance that we will be able to successfully and timely construct new generating facilities or to expand or modernize existing facilities within our projected budgets or that those expenditures will be recoverable through our base rates or other recovery mechanisms. As with any major construction undertaking, completion could be delayed or prevented, or cost overruns could be incurred, as a result of numerous factors, including shortages of material and labor, labor disputes, weather interferences, difficulties in obtaining necessary licenses or permits or complying with license or permit conditions, and unforeseen engineering, environmental or geological problems. These construction projects are long-term and may involve facility designs that have not been previously constructed or that have not been finalized when that project is commenced. Consequently, the projects could be subject to significant cost increases for labor, materials, scope changes and changes in design. Unsuccessful construction, expansion or modernization efforts could be subject to additional costs and/or the write-off of our investment in the project or improvement.
The construction of new power plants and associated expansion of our transmission system will require a significant amount of capital expenditures. We cannot provide certainty that adequate external financing will be available to support the construction. Additionally, borrowings incurred to finance construction may adversely impact our leverage, which could increase our cost of capital. For certain new baseload generating facilities, we may pursue joint ventures or similar arrangements with third parties in order to share some of the financing and operational risks, but we cannot be certain we will be able to successfully negotiate any such arrangement. Furthermore, joint ventures or joint ownership arrangements also present risks and uncertainties, including those associated with sharing control over the construction and operation of a facility and reliance on the other party’s financial or operational strength.
Our assumptions regarding future growth and resulting power demand in our service territories may not be realized. Like other parts of the United States, our service territories and business have been negatively impacted by the current economic conditions. The timing and extent of the recovery of the economy cannot be predicted. We may increase our baseload capacity based on anticipated growth levels and have excess capacity if those levels are not realized. The resulting excess capacity may exceed the reserve margins established by the NCUC, SCPSC and FPSC to meet our obligation to serve retail customers and, as a result, may not be recoverable.
Nuclear
In addition to the risks discussed above, the successful construction of a new nuclear power plant requires the satisfaction of a number of conditions. The conditions include, but are not limited to, the continued operation of the industry’s existing nuclear fleet in a safe, reliable and cost-effective manner, an efficient and successful licensing process and a viable program for managing spent nuclear fuel. We cannot provide certainty that these conditions will exist. While we have not made a final determination on nuclear construction, we have taken steps to keep open
33

the option of building a plant or plants. We will continue to evaluate the ongoing viability of our nuclear construction projects based on certain criteria, including obtaining the COL; public, regulatory and political support; adequate financial cost-recovery mechanisms; and availability and terms of capital financing. Adverse changes in these criteria could result in project cost increases or project termination.
PEF has entered into an EPC agreement for Levy. However, because of schedule shifts, we executed an amendment to the EPC agreement and will postpone major construction activities on the project until after the NRC issues the COL. Because we have executed an amendment to the EPC agreement and anticipate negotiating additional amendments upon receipt of the COL, we cannot currently predict the timing of when those obligations will be satisfied or the magnitude of any change. PEF has completed suspension negotiations with the equipment vendors regarding those long lead time equipment items for which work was suspended.
In addition, other COL applicants could be pursuing regulatory approval, permitting and construction at roughly the same time as we would. Consequently, there may be shortages of qualified individuals to design, construct and operate these proposed new nuclear facilities.
Gas
In addition to the risks discussed above, the successful construction of a gas-fired plant requires access to an adequate supply of natural gas. The gas pipeline infrastructure in eastern and western North Carolina is limited. Existing pipelines will have to be extended to the new plant locations prior to commencement of operations, which introduces the risks associated with a critical construction project not under our direct control. Power plants fueled by fossil fuels such as natural gas and fuel oil emit GHGs, which may be subject to future regulation.
Coal
In addition to the risks discussed above, the successful modernization of a coal-fired power plant requires the satisfaction of a number of conditions, including, but not limited to, consideration of emissions that impact air and water quality and management of coal combustion products such as slag, bottom ash and fly ash.
We are subject to renewable energy standards that may have a negative impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
We are subject to state renewable energy standards in North Carolina. North Carolina’s standards include use of energy from specified renewable energy resources or implementation of energy-efficiency measures totaling 3 percent by 2012 and increasing to 12.5 percent by 2021. Florida energy law enacted in 2008 includes provisions for development of a renewable portfolio standard but the rulemaking process is not complete. We may be subject to additional state or federal level standards in the future that could require the Utilities to produce or buy a higher portion of their energy from renewable energy sources. Mandated state and federal standards could result in the use of renewable energy sources that are not cost-effective in order to comply with requirements. If we are not able to receive retail rates reflecting our costs or investments to comply with the state or federal standards, our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows may be adversely affected.
There are inherent potential risks in the operation of nuclear facilities, including environmental, health, safety, regulatory, terrorism, and financial risks, that could result in fines or the shutdown of our nuclear units, which may present potential financial exposures in excess of our insurance coverage.
PEC operates four nuclear units (three of which are jointly owned) and PEF has one jointly owned nuclear unit. In addition, we are exploring the possibility of expanding our nuclear generating capacity to meet future expected baseload generation needs. Our nuclear facilities are subject to operational, environmental, health and financial risks such as the ability to dispose of spent nuclear fuel, maintaining adequate capital reserves for decommissioning, limitations on amounts and types of insurance available, potential operational liabilities and extended outages, and the costs of securing the facilities against possible terrorist attacks. We maintain decommissioning trusts and external insurance coverage to minimize the financial exposure to these risks. However, damages from an accident or business interruption at our nuclear units could exceed the amount of our insurance coverage. For PEF, it may incur liabilities to co-owners in the event of extended outages or operation at less than full capacity. If the Utilities
34

are not allowed to recover the additional costs incurred either through insurance or regulatory mechanisms, our results of operations could be negatively impacted.
The NRC has broad authority under federal law to impose licensing and safety-related requirements for the operation of nuclear generating facilities. In the event of noncompliance, the NRC has the authority to impose fines, set license conditions, shut down a nuclear unit, or take some combination of these actions, depending upon its assessment of the severity of the situation, until compliance is achieved. Revised safety requirements promulgated by the NRC could require us to make substantial expenditures at our nuclear plants. In addition, although we have no reason to anticipate a serious nuclear incident at our plants, if an incident did occur, it could materially and adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. A major incident at a nuclear facility anywhere in the world could cause the NRC to limit or prohibit the operation or licensing of any domestic nuclear unit.
Our nuclear facilities have operating licenses that need to be renewed periodically. We anticipate successful renewal of these licenses. However, potential terrorist threats and increased public scrutiny of utilities could result in an extended process with higher licensing or compliance costs.
With construction beginning on a number of new nuclear facilities around the world, and the prospect of several projects across the United States, there will be increased competition within the energy sector for skilled technical workers for both the construction and operation of nuclear facilities. Our ability to successfully operate our nuclear facilities is dependent upon our continued ability to recruit and retain skilled technical workers.
WeRegistrants are subject to numerous environmental laws and regulations that requirerequiring significant capital expenditures that can increase ourthe cost of operations, and which may impact or limit our business plans, or expose uscause exposure to environmental liabilities.
WeThe Duke Energy Registrants are subject to numerous environmental laws and regulations affecting many aspects of ourtheir present and future operations, including coal combustion residuals (CCRs), air emissions, water quality, wastewater discharges, solid waste and hazardous waste production, handling and disposal.waste. These laws and regulations can result in increased capital, operating and other costs, particularly with regard to enforcement efforts focused on existing power plants and compliance plans with regard to new and existing power plants.costs. These laws and regulations generally require usthe Duke Energy Registrants to obtain and comply with a wide variety of environmental licenses, permits, authorizationsinspections and other approvals. Both public officials and private individuals may seek to enforce applicableCompliance with environmental laws and regulations.regulations can require significant expenditures, including expenditures for cleanup costs and damages arising from contaminated properties. Failure to comply with applicableenvironmental regulations and permits mightmay result in the imposition of fines, penalties and penalties byinjunctive measures affecting operating assets. The steps the Duke Energy Registrants could be required to take to ensure their facilities are in compliance could be prohibitively expensive. As a result, the Duke Energy Registrants may be required to shut down or alter the operation of their facilities, which may cause the Duke Energy Registrants to incur losses. Further, the Duke Energy Registrants may not be successful in recovering capital and operating costs incurred to comply with new environmental regulations through existing regulatory authorities. We cannot provide assurancerate structures and their contracts with customers. Also, the Duke Energy Registrants may not be able to obtain or maintain from time to time all required environmental regulatory approvals for their operating assets or development projects. Delays in obtaining any required environmental regulatory approvals, failure to obtain and comply with them or changes in environmental laws or regulations to more stringent compliance levels could result in additional costs of operation for existing facilities or development of new facilities being prevented, delayed or subject to additional costs. Although it is not expected that existingthe costs to comply with current environmental regulations will not be revisedhave a material adverse effect on the Duke Energy Registrants’ financial position, results of operations or cash flows due to regulatory cost recovery, the Duke Energy Registrants are at risk that newthe costs of complying with environmental regulations in the future will have such an effect.
The EPA has recently enacted or proposed new federal regulations governing the management of cooling water intake structures, wastewater and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. These regulations may require the Duke Energy Registrants to make additional capital expenditures and increase operating and maintenance costs.

20


PART I

Duke Energy’s investments and projects located outside of the U.S. expose it to risks related to the laws, taxes, economic and political conditions, and policies of foreign governments. These risks may delay or reduce Duke Energy’s realization of value from its international projects.
Duke Energy currently owns and may acquire and/or dispose of material energy-related investments and projects outside the U.S. The economic, regulatory, market and political conditions in some of the countries where Duke Energy has interests may impact its ability to obtain financing on suitable terms. Other risks relate to its customers’ ability to honor their obligations with respect to projects and investments, delays in construction, limitations on its ability to enforce legal rights, and interruption of business, as well as risks of war, expropriation, nationalization, renegotiation, trade sanctions or nullification of existing contracts and changes in law, regulations, market rules or tax policy.
Operational Risks
The Duke Energy Registrants’ results of operations may be negatively affected by overall market, economic and other conditions that are beyond their control.
Sustained downturns or sluggishness in the economy generally affect the markets in which the Duke Energy Registrants operate and negatively influence electricity operations. Declines in demand for electricity as a result of economic downturns in the Duke Energy Registrants’ regulated electric service territories will reduce overall sales and lessen cash flows, especially as industrial customers reduce production and, therefore, consumption of electricity. Although the Duke Energy Registrants’ regulated electric business is subject to regulated allowable rates of return and recovery of certain costs, such as fuel, under periodic adjustment clauses, overall declines in electricity sold as a result of economic downturn or recession could reduce revenues and cash flows, thereby diminishing results of operations. Additionally, prolonged economic downturns that negatively impact the Duke Energy Registrants’ results of operations and cash flows could result in future material impairment charges to write-down the carrying value of certain assets, including goodwill, to their respective fair values.
The Duke Energy Registrants also sell electricity into the spot market or other competitive power markets on a contractual basis. With respect to such transactions, the Duke Energy Registrants are not be adoptedguaranteed any rate of return on their capital investments through mandated rates, and revenues and results of operations are likely to depend, in large part, upon prevailing market prices. These market prices may fluctuate substantially over relatively short periods of time and could reduce the Duke Energy Registrants’ revenues and margins, thereby diminishing results of operations.
Factors that could impact sales volumes, generation of electricity and market prices at which the Duke Energy Registrants are able to sell electricity are as follows:
weather conditions, including abnormally mild winter or become applicablesummer weather that cause lower energy usage for heating or cooling purposes, respectively, and periods of low rainfall that decrease the ability to us. Increasedoperate facilities in an economical manner;
supply of and demand for energy commodities;
transmission or transportation constraints or inefficiencies that impact nonregulated energy operations;
availability of competitively priced alternative energy sources, which are preferred by some customers over electricity produced from coal, nuclear or gas plants, and customer usage of energy efficient equipment that reduces energy demand;
natural gas, crude oil and refined products production levels and prices;
ability to procure satisfactory levels of inventory, such as coal, gas and uranium; and
capacity and transmission service into, or out of, the Duke Energy Registrants’ markets.
Natural disasters or operational accidents may adversely affect the Duke Energy Registrants’ operating results.
Natural disasters (such as electromagnetic events or the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan) or other operational accidents within the company or industry (such as the San Bruno, California natural gas transmission pipeline failure) could have direct significant impacts on the Duke Energy Registrants as well as on key contractors and suppliers. Such events could indirectly impact the Duke Energy Registrants through changes to policies, laws and regulations whose compliance costs have a significant impact on the Duke Energy Registrants’ financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
Coal ash storage and management strategies to comply with CCR regulations could impact the reputation and financial condition of the Duke Energy Registrants.
As a result of electricity produced at coal-fired power plants Duke Energy Registrants manage large amounts of CCRs in dry storage in landfills or combined with water in ash basins. The potential exists for another coal ash pond failure or coal ash related incident, such as the one that occurred during the Dan River ash basin release, that could impact the environment or raise general public health concerns. Such an incident could have a material adverse impact to the reputation and financial condition of the Duke Energy Registrants.
Recent regulations for the disposal of CCRs from power plants by the EPA are expected to be effective in 2015. These regulations classify CCR as nonhazardous waste under the RCRA and apply to all new and existing landfills, new and existing surface impoundments, structural fills and CCR piles and establishes requirements regarding landfill design, structural integrity design and assessment criteria for surface impoundments, groundwater monitoring and protection procedures and other operational and reporting procedures to ensure the safe disposal and management of CCR. In addition to federal CCR regulations, CCR landfills and surface impoundments will continue to be independently regulated by most states and additional regulations by states may be imposed in the future. At this time, Duke Energy is evaluating the federal and state CCR regulations and developing cost estimates that will largely be dependent upon compliance alternatives selected to meet requirements of the regulations. These federal and state regulations may require additional capital expenditures, increased operating restrictionsand maintenance costs, or closure of certain facilities which could affect the financial position, results of operations and cash flows of the Duke Energy Registrants. Although the Duke Energy Registrants intend to seek cost recovery for future expenditures through the normal ratemaking process with state utility

21


PART I

commissions, which permit recovery of necessary and prudently incurred costs associated with Duke Energy’s regulated operations, there is no guarantee that recovery of such costs will be granted.
The Duke Energy Registrants’ financial position, results of operations and cash flows may be negatively affected by a lack of growth or slower growth in the number of customers, or decline in customer demand or number of customers.
Growth in customer accounts and growth of customer usage each directly influence demand for electricity and the need for additional power generation and delivery facilities. Customer growth and customer usage are affected by a number of factors outside the control of the Duke Energy Registrants, such as mandated energy efficiency measures, demand-side management goals, distributed generation resources and economic and demographic conditions, such as population changes, job and income growth, housing starts, new business formation and the overall level of economic activity.
Certain regulatory and legislative bodies have introduced or are considering requirements and/or incentives to reduce energy consumption by certain dates. Additionally, technological advances driven by federal laws mandating new levels of energy efficiency in end-use electric devices or other improvements in or applications of technology could lead to declines in per capita energy consumption.
Advances in distributed generation technologies that produce power, including fuel cells, micro-turbines, wind turbines and solar cells, may reduce the cost of alternative methods of producing power to a level competitive with central power station electric production utilized by the Duke Energy Registrants.
Some or all of these factors, could result in a lack of growth or decline in customer demand for electricity or number of customers, and may cause the failure of the Duke Energy Registrants to fully realize anticipated benefits from revised or additional regulationsignificant capital investments and expenditures which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, particularly if those costs are not fully recoverable from our ratepayers.
In addition, we may be deemed a responsible party for environmental clean-up at sites identified by a regulatory body or private party. We cannot predict with certainty the amount or timing of future expenditures related to environmental matters because of the difficulty of estimating clean-up costs. There is also uncertainty in quantifying liabilities under environmental laws that impose joint and several liability on all PRPs. While we accrue for probable costs that can be reasonably estimated, not all costs can be reasonably estimated or accrued and actual costs may materially exceed our accruals. Material costs in excess of our accruals could have an adverse impact on ourtheir financial condition,position, results of operations and cash flows.
Our coal-fired plants produce coal combustion products, primarily ash. The EPAFurthermore, the Duke Energy Registrants currently have energy efficiency riders in place to recover the cost of energy efficiency programs in North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Ohio and a number of states are considering additional regulatoryKentucky. Should the Duke Energy Registrants be required to invest in conservation measures that may affect management, treatment, marketing and disposal of coal combustion residues. Revised or new laws or regulations under consideration may impose changes in solid waste classifications or additional environmental controls for groundwater protection, and future mitigation of related impacts could have a material impact on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. We are also evaluating the effect on groundwater quality from past and current operations, which may result in operational changes and additional measures.
35

Our compliance with evolving environmental regulations, including those regarding water quality andreduced sales from effective conservation, regulatory lag in adjusting rates for the reductionimpact of emissions of NOx, SO2 and mercury from coal-fired power plants, is anticipated to require significant capital expenditures that could impact our financial condition. These costs are anticipated to be eligible for regulatory recovery through either base rates or cost-recovery clauses.
The operation of emission control equipment needed to comply with requirements set by various environmental regulations increases our operating costs and reduces the generating capacity of our coal-fired plants. O&M expenses significantly increase due to the additional personnel, materials and general maintenance associated with operation of the equipment. Operation of the emission control equipment requires the procurement of significant quantities of reagents, such as limestone and ammonia. Future increases in demand for these items from other utility companies operating similar equipment could increase our costs associated with operating the equipment. Additionally, the operation of emission control equipment may result in the development of collateral issues that require further remedial actions, resulting in additional expenditures and operating costs.
We are subject to risks associated with climate change, whichmeasures could have a negative impact on our business, financial condition,impact.
The Duke Energy Registrants’ operating results of operations and cash flows. Future legislation or regulations related to climate change may impose significant restrictions on CO2 and other GHG emissions. We may incur significant costs to comply with such legislation or regulations or in connection with related litigation. Physical risks associated with climate change could impact us.
Growing state, federal and international attention to global climate change may result in the regulation of CO2 and other GHGs. Any future legislative or regulatory actions taken to address global climate change represent a business risk to our operations and the full impact of such initiatives on our operations cannot be determined at this time; however, we anticipate that it could result in significant cost increases over time, for which the Utilities would seek corresponding rate recovery. Reductions in CO2 emissions to the levels specified by some proposals could be materially adverse to our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows if associated costs of control or limitation cannot be recovered from ratepayers.
Potential climate change impacts in the southeastern United States could include warmer days and nights, increased total rainfall from heavy storms, increased severe weather events, sea level rise and increased drought conditions. An increase in the number of heat waves, periods of drought and sea level rise could result in changes in energy demand due to shifting populations and industry. As noted below, severe weather may adversely affect our results of operations.
We could become subject to litigation related to the purported impacts of GHG emissions. A number of legal actions have been filed against us and other electric utilities asserting public and private nuisance, trespass and negligence claims.
Because weather conditions directly influence the demand for, our ability to provide and the cost of providing electricity, our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows can fluctuate on a seasonal orand quarterly basis and can be negatively affected by changes in weather conditions and severe weather.weather.
Weather conditionsElectric power generation is generally a seasonal business. In most parts of the U.S., and other markets in our service territories directly influence thewhich Duke Energy operates, demand for electricity and affectpower peaks during the price of energy commodities necessarywarmer summer months, with market prices typically peaking at that time. In other areas, demand for power peaks during the winter. Further, extreme weather conditions such as heat waves or winter storms could cause these seasonal fluctuations to provide electricity to our customers.be more pronounced. As a result, ourin the future, the overall operating results of the Duke Energy Registrants’ businesses may fluctuate substantially on a seasonal basis. In addition, we have historically soldand quarterly basis and thus make period-to-period comparison less power, and consequently earned less income, when weather conditions were mild. Unusually mild weather could diminish our results of operations and cash flows and harm our financial condition.
relevant.
Sustained severe drought conditions could impact generation by PEC’s hydroelectric plants, as well as our fossil and nuclear plant operations, as these facilities use water for cooling purposes and for the operation of environmental compliance equipment. Furthermore, destruction caused by severe weather events, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, severe thunderstorms, snow and ice storms, can result in lost operating revenues due to outages; property damage, including downed transmission and distribution lines; and additional and unexpected expenses to mitigate storm damage.
36

Our ability to recover significant costs resulting from severe weather events is subject to regulatory oversight, and the timing and amount The cost of any such recovery is uncertain and may impact our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
We are subject to incurring significant costs resulting from damage sustained during severe weather events. While the Utilities have historically been granted regulatory approval to defer and amortize or collect from customers the majority of significant storm costs incurred, the Utilities’ storm cost-recovery petitions may not always be granted orrestoration efforts may not be granted in a timely manner. If we cannot recover costs associated with future severe weather events in a timely manner, or in an amount sufficientfully recoverable through the regulatory process.
The Duke Energy Registrants’ sales may decrease if they are unable to cover our actual costs, our financial condition, results of operationsgain adequate, reliable and cash flows could be materiallyaffordable access to transmission assets.
The Duke Energy Registrants depend on transmission and adversely impacted.
Under its 2010 settlement agreement, PEF is alloweddistribution facilities owned and operated by utilities and other energy companies to recover the costs of named storms on an expedited basis through a surcharge on monthly residential customer bills for storm costs. In the event the storm costs exceed the maximum allowed surcharge, which will be eliminated under the 2012 settlement agreement, excess additional costs can be deferred and recovered in a subsequent year or years as determined by the FPSC. Additionally, the order approving the settlement agreement allows PEFdeliver electricity sold to use the surcharge to replenish the storm damage reserve to a specified level after storm costs are fully recovered.
PEC does not maintain a storm damage reserve account and does not have a cost-recovery clause to recover storm costs. PEC may request recovery of significant storm-related costs; PEC has previously sought and received permission from the NCUC and the SCPSC to defer storm expenses and amortize them over agreed-upon time periods.
Our revenues, operating results and financial condition are impacted by customer growth and usage in our service territories and may fluctuate with current economic conditions. We are also impacted by the demand and competitive state of the wholesale market.
Our revenues, operating results and financial condition are impacted by customer growth and usage. Customer growth can be impacted by population growth FERC’s power transmission regulations, as well as by economic factors, including, but not limitedthose of Duke Energy’s international markets, require wholesale electric transmission services to jobbe offered on an open-access, non-discriminatory basis. If transmission is disrupted, or if transmission capacity is inadequate, the Duke Energy Registrants’ ability to sell and deliver products may be hindered.
The different regional power markets have changing regulatory structures, which could affect growth and housing market trends. The Utilities are impacted byperformance in these regions. In addition, the economic cyclesISOs who oversee the transmission systems in regional power markets have imposed in the past, and may impose in the future, price limitations and other mechanisms to address volatility in the power markets. These types of price limitations and other mechanisms may adversely impact the profitability of the customers we serve. As our service territories experience economic downturns, residential customer consumption patterns may change and our revenues may be negatively impacted. If our commercial and industrial customers experience economic downturns, their consumption of electricity may decline and our revenues can be negatively impacted. Like other parts of the United States, our service territories and business have been impacted by the current economic conditions. The timing and extent of the recovery of the economy cannot be predicted. Additionally, our customers could voluntarily reduce their consumption of electricity in response to decreases in their disposable income or individual energy conservation efforts.Duke Energy Registrants’ wholesale power marketing business.
Wholesale revenues fluctuate with regional demand, fuel prices and contracted capacity. Our wholesale profitability is dependent upon market conditions and our ability to renew or replace expiring wholesale contracts on favorable terms. Based on economic conditions in effect when wholesale contracts expire, the Utilities may not be successful in renewing or replacing expiring contracts.
Fluctuations in commodity prices or availability may adversely affect various aspects of the Utilities’Duke Energy Registrants’ operations as well as the Utilities’their financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.flows.
WeThe Duke Energy Registrants are exposed to the effects of market fluctuations in the price of natural gas, coal, fuel oil, nuclear fuel, electricity and other energy-related commodities including emission allowances, as a result of ourtheir ownership of energy-related assets. Fuel costs are recovered primarily through cost-recovery clauses, subject to the Utilities’approval of state utility commissions’ approval. commissions.
Additionally, we have hedging strategies in place to mitigate fluctuations in commodity supply prices, but to the extent that we do not cover our entire exposure to commodity price fluctuations, or our hedging procedures do not work as planned, there can be no assurances that our financial performance will not be negatively impacted by price fluctuations. Additionally, weDuke Energy Registrants are exposed to risk that our counterparties will not be able to performfulfill their obligations. Disruption in the delivery of fuel, including disruptions as a result of, among other things, transportation delays, weather, labor relations,force majeure events, or environmental regulations affecting any of these fuel suppliers, could limit the Duke Energy Registrants to operate their facilities. Should our counterparties fail to perform, wethe Duke Energy Registrants might be forced to replace the underlying commitment at prevailing market prices. In such an event, we might incurprices possibly resulting in losses in addition to the amounts, if any, already paid to the counterparties.
37

Certain of ourthe Duke Energy Registrants’ hedge agreements may result in the receipt of, or posting of, derivative collateral with our counterparties, depending on the daily derivative position. Fluctuations in commodity prices that lead to ourthe return of collateral received and/or ourthe posting of collateral with our counterparties negatively impact our liquidity. Downgrades in ourthe Duke Energy Registrants’ credit ratings could lead to additional collateral posting requirements. WeThe Duke Energy Registrants continually monitor our derivative positions in relation to market price activity.

22


VolatilityPART I

Potential terrorist activities or military or other actions could adversely affect the Duke Energy Registrants’ businesses.
The continued threat of terrorism and the impact of retaliatory military and other action by the U.S. and its allies may lead to increased political, economic and financial market instability and volatility in market prices for fuelnatural gas and oil, which may have material adverse effects in ways the Duke Energy Registrants cannot predict at this time. In addition, future acts of terrorism and possible reprisals as a consequence of action by the U.S. and its allies could be directed against companies operating in the U.S. or their international affiliates. Information technology systems, transmission and distribution and generation facilities such as nuclear plants could be potential targets of terrorist activities or harmful activities by individuals or groups. The potential for terrorism has subjected the Duke Energy Registrants’ operations to increased risks and could have a material adverse effect on their businesses. In particular, the Duke Energy Registrants may experience increased capital and operating costs to implement increased security for their information technology systems, transmission and distribution and generation facilities, including nuclear power plants under the NRC’s design basis threat requirements. These increased costs could include additional physical plant security and security personnel or additional capability following a terrorist incident.
Cyberattacks and data security breaches could adversely affect the Duke Energy Registrants' businesses.
Information security risks have generally increased in recent years as a result of the proliferation of new technologies and the increased sophistication and frequency of cyberattacks and data security breaches. The utility industry requires the continued operation of sophisticated information technology systems and network infrastructure, which are part of an interconnected regional grid. Additionally, connectivity to the Internet continues to increase through smart grid and other initiatives. Because of the critical nature of the infrastructure, increased connectivity to the Internet and technology systems’ inherent vulnerability to disability or failures due to hacking, viruses, acts of war or terrorism or other types of data security breaches, the Duke Energy Registrants face a heightened risk of cyberattack. In the event of such an attack, the Duke Energy Registrants could (i) have business operations disrupted, property damaged, customer information stolen and other private information accessed (ii) experience substantial loss of revenues, repair and restoration costs, implementation costs for additional security measures to avert future cyberattacks and other financial loss, and (iii) be subject to increased regulation, litigation and reputational damage.
Failure to attract and retain an appropriately qualified workforce could unfavorably impact the Duke Energy Registrants’ results of operations.
Certain events, such as an aging workforce, mismatch of skill set or complement to future needs, or unavailability of contract resources may result from,lead to operating challenges and increased costs. The challenges include lack of resources, loss of knowledge base and the lengthy time required for skill development. In this case, costs, including costs for contractors to replace employees, productivity costs and safety costs, may rise. Failure to hire and adequately train replacement employees, including the transfer of significant internal historical knowledge and expertise to new employees, or future availability and cost of contract labor may adversely affect the ability to manage and operate the business, especially considering the workforce needs associated with nuclear generation facilities. If the Duke Energy Registrants are unable to successfully attract and retain an appropriately qualified workforce, their financial position or results of operations could be negatively affected.
Duke Energy’s investments and projects located outside of the U.S. expose it to risks related to fluctuations in currency rates. These risks, and Duke Energy’s activities to mitigate such risks, may adversely affect its cash flows and results of operations.
Duke Energy’s operations and investments outside the U.S. expose it to risks related to fluctuations in currency rates. As each local currency’s value changes relative to the U.S. dollar, the value in U.S. dollars of Duke Energy’s assets and liabilities in such locality and the cash flows generated in such locality, expressed in U.S. dollars, also change. Duke Energy’s primary foreign currency rate exposure is to the Brazilian Real.
Duke Energy selectively mitigates some risks associated with foreign currency fluctuations by, among other items:
§  weather conditions;
§  seasonality;
§  power usage;
§  illiquid markets;
§  transmission or transportation constraints or inefficiencies;
§  technological changes;
§  availability of competitively priced alternative energy sources;
§  demand for energy commodities;
§  production levels of natural gas, crude oil and refined products, nuclear fuel and coal;
§  natural disasters, wars, terrorism, embargoes and other catastrophic events; and
§  federal, state and foreign energy and environmental regulation and legislation.
In addition, we anticipate significant capital expenditures for environmental compliance and baseload generation. The completion of these projects within established budgets is contingent upon many variables includingthings, indexing contracts to the securing of labor and materials at estimated costs. The demand and prices for labor and materials are subject to volatility and may increaseU.S. dollar and/or local inflation rates, hedging through debt denominated or issued in the future. We are subject to the risk that cost overagesforeign currency and hedging through foreign currency derivatives. These efforts, however, may not be recoverable from ratepayerseffective and, our financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsin some cases, may be adversely impacted.
Prices for emission allowance credits fluctuate. While allowances are eligible for annual recovery in PEF’s jurisdictions in Florida and PEC’s in South Carolina, no such annual recovery exists in North Carolina for PEC. Future changes in the price of allowancesexpose Duke Energy to other risks that could have a significant adverse financial impact on us and PEC and, consequently, on our results of operations and cash flows.
As a holding company with no revenue-generating operations, the Parent is dependent on upstream cash flows fromnegatively affect its subsidiaries, primarily the Utilities; its commercial paper program; its credit facility; and its ability to access the long-term debt and equity capital markets.
The Parent is a holding company and, as such, has no revenue-generating operations of its own. The primary cash needs at the Parent level are our common stock dividend, interest and principal payments on the Parent’s senior unsecured debt and potentially funding a portion of the Utilities’ capital expenditures through equity contributions. The Parent’s ability to meet these needs is typically funded with dividends from the Utilities generated from their earnings and cash flows and results of operations.
The costs of retiring Duke Energy Florida’s Crystal River Unit 3 could prove to a lesser extent, dividends from other subsidiaries; repayment of funds duebe more extensive than is currently identified.
Costs to retire and decommission the Parent by its subsidiaries;plant could exceed estimates and, if not recoverable through the Parent’s credit facility; and/or the Parent’s ability to access the short-term and long-term debt and equity capital markets.
Prior to funding the Parent, its subsidiaries have financial obligations that must be satisfied, including, among others, their respective debt service, preferred dividends and obligations to trade creditors. Additionally, the Utilitiesregulatory process, could retain their free cash flow to fund their capital expenditures in lieu of receiving equity contributions from the Parent. Should the Utilities not be able to pay dividends or repay funds due to the Parent or if the Parent cannot access the commercial paper market, its credit facility or the long-term debt and equity capital markets, the Parent’s ability to pay principal, interest and dividends would be restricted. The Parent could change its existing common stock dividend policy based upon these and other business factors.
38

Our business is dependent on our ability to successfully access capital markets on favorable terms. Limits on our access to capital may adversely impact our ability to execute our business plan or pursue improvements that we would otherwise rely on for future growth.
Our cash requirements are driven by the capital-intensive nature of our Utilities. In addition to operating cash flows, we rely heavily on commercial paper, long-term debt and equity issuances. If access to these sources of liquidity becomes constrained, our ability to implement our business strategy will be adversely affected. Market disruptions or a downgrade of our credit ratings could increase our cost of borrowing and may adversely affect our ability to access the financial markets. If we cannot fund our expected capital expendituresDuke Energy’s, Progress Energy’s and debt maturities through normal operations or by accessing capital markets, our business plans, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows may be adversely impacted.
We typically issue commercial paper to meet short-term liquidity needs. When financial and economic conditions result in tightened short-term credit markets, coupled with corresponding volatility in commercial paper durations and interest rates, we evaluate other options for meeting our short-term liquidity needs, which may include borrowing from our credit facilities, issuing short-term notes, issuing long-term debt and/or issuing equity. In addition, if our short-term credit ratings are downgraded below Tier 2 (A-2/P-2/F2) we could experience increased volatility in commercial paper durations and interest rates and our access to the commercial paper markets may be negatively impacted. In that case, we would evaluate other options for meeting our short-term liquidity needs as previously described. These alternative sources of liquidity may not be available or may not have comparable favorable terms and, thus, may impact adversely our business plans,Duke Energy Florida’s financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
IncreasesDuke Energy Ohio’s and Duke Energy Indiana’s membership in our leverage or reductions in our cash flow could adversely affect our competitive position, business planning and flexibility, financial condition, ability to service our debt obligations and to pay dividends on our common stock, and ability to access capital on favorable terms.
As discussed above, we typically rely heavily on our commercial paper and long-term debt. Our credit agreements contain certain provisions and impose various limitationsan RTO presents risks that could impact our liquidity, such as cross-default provisions and defined maximum total debt to total capital (leverage) ratios. Under these revolving credit facilities, indebtedness includes certain letters of credit, surety bonds and guarantees that are not recorded on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
As previously discussed, we are anticipating extensive capital needs for new generation, transmission and distribution facilities, and environmental compliance expenditures. Funding these capital needs could increase our leverage and present numerous risks including those addressed below.
39

In the event our leverage increases such that we approach the permitted ratios, our access to capital and additional liquidity could decrease. A limitation in our liquidity could have a material adverse effect on their results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
The rules governing the various regional power markets may change, which could affect Duke Energy Ohio’s and Duke Energy Indiana’s costs and/or revenues. To the degree Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana incur significant additional fees and increased costs to participate in an RTO, their results of operations may be impacted. Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana may be allocated a portion of the cost of transmission facilities built by others due to changes in RTO transmission rate design. Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana may be required to expand their transmission system according to decisions made by an RTO rather than their own internal planning process. While RTO transmission rates were initially designed to be revenue neutral, various proposals and proceedings currently taking place by the FERC may cause transmission rates to change from time to time. In addition, RTOs have been developing rules associated with the allocation and methodology of assigning costs associated with improved transmission reliability, reduced transmission congestion and firm transmission rights that may have a financial impact on our business strategyDuke Energy Ohio and our ongoing financing needs. Additionally,Duke Energy Indiana.
As members of an RTO, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana are subject to certain additional risks, including those associated with the allocation among RTO members, of losses caused by unreimbursed defaults of other participants in the RTO markets and those associated with complaint cases filed against an RTO that may seek refunds of revenues previously earned by RTO members.
Nuclear Generation Risks
Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida may incur substantial costs and liabilities due to their ownership and operation of nuclear generating facilities.

23


PART I

Ownership interest in and operation of nuclear stations by Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida subject them to various risks. These risks include, among other things: the potential harmful effects on the environment and human health resulting from the operation of nuclear facilities and the storage, handling and disposal of radioactive materials; limitations on the amounts and types of insurance commercially available to cover losses that might arise in connection with nuclear operations; and uncertainties with respect to the technological and financial aspects of decommissioning nuclear plants at the end of their licensed lives.
Ownership and operation of nuclear generation facilities requires compliance with licensing and safety-related requirements imposed by the NRC. In the event of non-compliance, the NRC may increase regulatory oversight, impose fines, and/or shut down a significant increase in our leverageunit, depending upon its assessment of the severity of the situation. Revised security and safety requirements promulgated by the NRC, which could be prompted by, among other things, events within or reductions in cash flowoutside of the control of Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida, such as a serious nuclear incident at a facility owned by a third party, could adversely affect us by:
§  increasing the cost of future debt financing;
§  impacting our ability to pay dividends on our common stock at the current rate;
§  making it more difficult for us to satisfy our existing financial obligations;
§  increasing our vulnerability to adverse economic and industry conditions;
§  requiring us to dedicate anecessitate substantial portion of our cash flow from operations to debt repayment, thereby reducing funds available for operations, future business opportunities or other purposes;
§  limiting our flexibility in planning for, or reacting to, changes in our business and the industry in which we compete;
§  requiring the issuance of additional equity;
§  placing us at a competitive disadvantage compared to competitors who have less debt; and
§  causing a downgrade in our credit ratings.
Any reduction in our credit ratings below investment grade would likely increase our financing costs, limit our access to additional capital and require posting of collateral, all of whichother expenditures, as well as assessments to cover third-party losses. In addition, if a serious nuclear incident were to occur, it could materially affect our business, financial condition,have a material adverse effect on the results of operations and financial condition and reputation of Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida.
Liquidity, Capital Requirements and Common Stock Risks
The Duke Energy Registrants rely on access to short-term borrowings and longer-term capital markets to finance their capital requirements and support their liquidity needs. Access to those markets can be adversely affected by a number of conditions, many of which are beyond the Duke Energy Registrants’ control.
The Duke Energy Registrants’ businesses are financed to a large degree through debt. The maturity and repayment profile of debt used to finance investments often does not correlate to cash flows.flows from their assets. Accordingly, as a source of liquidity for capital requirements not satisfied by the cash flow from their operations and to fund investments originally financed through debt instruments with disparate maturities, the Duke Energy Registrants rely on access to short-term money markets as well as longer-term capital markets. The Subsidiary Registrants also rely on access to short-term intercompany borrowings. If the Duke Energy Registrants are not able to access capital at competitive rates or at all, the ability to finance their operations and implement their strategy and business plan as scheduled could be adversely affected. An inability to access capital may limit the Duke Energy Registrants’ ability to pursue improvements or acquisitions that they may otherwise rely on for future growth.
Market disruptions may increase the cost of borrowing or adversely affect the ability to access one or more financial markets. Such disruptions could include: economic downturns, the bankruptcy of an unrelated energy company, capital market conditions generally, market prices for electricity and gas, actual or threatened terrorist attacks, or the overall health of the energy industry. The availability of credit under Duke Energy’s Master Credit Facility depends upon the ability of the banks providing commitments under the facility to provide funds when their obligations to do so arise. Systematic risk of the banking system and the financial markets could prevent a bank from meeting its obligations under the facility agreement.
WhileDuke Energy maintains a revolving credit facility to provide backup for its commercial paper program and letters of credit to support variable rate demand tax-exempt bonds that may be put to the long-term targetDuke Energy Registrant issuer at the option of the holder. The facility includes borrowing sublimits for the Duke Energy Registrants, each of whom is a party to the credit facility, and financial covenants that limit the amount of debt that can be outstanding as a percentage of the total capital for the specific entity. Failure to maintain these covenants at a particular entity could preclude Duke Energy from issuing commercial paper or the Duke Energy Registrants from issuing letters of credit or borrowing under the Master Credit Facility.
The Duke Energy Registrants must meet credit quality standards and there is no assurance they will maintain investment grade credit ratings. If the Duke Energy Registrants are unable to maintain investment grade credit ratings, forthey would be required under credit agreements to provide collateral in the Parent andform of letters of credit or cash, which may materially adversely affect their liquidity.
Each of the Utilities are above the minimumDuke Energy Registrants’ senior long-term debt issuances is currently rated investment grade by various rating weagencies. The Duke Energy Registrants cannot provide certainty that any of our current ratingsensure their senior long-term debt will remain in effect for any given period of time or that a rating will not be lowered or withdrawn entirely by a rating agency if, in its judgment, circumstancesrated investment grade in the future so warrant. Such circumstances could include, among others, increases in leverage, adverse changes in other financial metrics and adverse regulatory outcomes. Our debt indentures and credit agreements do not contain any “ratings triggers,” which would causefuture.
If the acceleration of interest and principal payments inrating agencies were to rate the event of a ratings downgrade. Any downgrade could increase ourDuke Energy Registrants below investment grade, borrowing costs may adversely affect ourwould increase, perhaps significantly. In addition, the potential pool of investors and funding sources would likely decrease. Further, if the short-term debt rating were to fall, access to capitalthe commercial paper market could be significantly limited. A reduction in liquidity and borrowing availability could ultimately impact the ability to indefinitely reinvest prospective undistributed earnings generated by Duke Energy’s foreign subsidiaries, which could result in significant income taxes that would have a material effect on its results of operations.
A downgrade below investment grade could also require the posting of additional collateral for derivatives in the form of letters of credit or cash under various credit, commodity and capacity agreements and trigger termination clauses in some interest rate derivative agreements, which would require cash payments. All of these events would likely reduce the Duke Energy Registrants’ liquidity and profitability and could have a liabilitymaterial effect on their financial position, which could negatively impact our financial condition, results of operations andor cash flows. Any reduction in our
Non-compliance with debt covenants or conditions could adversely affect the Duke Energy Registrants’ ability to execute future borrowings.
The Duke Energy Registrants’ debt and credit ratings below investment gradeagreements contain various financial and other covenants. Failure to meet those covenants beyond applicable grace periods could also result in collateral posting requirements for certainaccelerated due dates and/or termination of our natural gas transportation contracts. We note that the ratings from credit agencies are not recommendations to buy, sell or hold our securities or those of PEC or PEF and that each agency’s rating should be evaluated independently of any other agency’s rating.agreements.

24


PART I

Market performance and other changes may decrease the value of NDT fundsthe NDTF investments of Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and benefit plan assets,Duke Energy Florida, which then could require significant additional funding.
Ownership and operation of nuclear generation facilities also requires the maintenance of funded trusts that are intended to pay for the decommissioning costs of the respective nuclear power plants. The performance of the capital markets affects the values of the assets held in trust to satisfy these future obligations to decommission the Utilities’ nuclear plantsobligations. Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and under our defined benefit pension and other postretirement benefit plans. WeDuke Energy Florida have significant obligations in these areasthis area and hold significant assets in these trusts. These assets are subject to market fluctuations and will yield uncertain returns, which may fall below our projected rates of return. Although a number of factors impact our funding requirements, a decline in the market value of the assets may increase the funding requirements of the obligations for decommissioning the Utilities’ nuclear plantsplants. If Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and under our defined benefit pension and other postretirement benefit plans. Additionally, changes in interest rates affect the liabilities under these benefit plans; as interest rates decrease, the liabilities increase, potentially requiring additional funding. Further, the funding requirements of the obligations related to these benefit plans may increase due to changes in governmental regulations and participant demographics, including increased numbers of retirements or changes in life expectancy assumptions. If weDuke Energy Florida are unable to successfully manage the NDT funds and benefit plantheir NDTF assets, ourtheir financial condition, results of operations and cash flows could be negatively affected.
40

ImpairmentPoor investment performance of goodwillthe Duke Energy pension plan holdings and other factors impacting pension plan costs could have a significant negativeunfavorably impact on our financial condition,the Duke Energy Registrants’ liquidity and results of operations and cash flows.operations.
Goodwill is required to be tested for impairment at least annually and more frequently when indicatorsThe costs of impairment exist. Allproviding non-contributory defined benefit pension plans are dependent upon a number of our goodwill is allocated to our utility reporting units, and goodwill impairment tests are performed at the utility reporting unit level.
We calculate the fair value of our utility reporting units by considering various factors, including valuation studies based primarily on income and market approaches. The calculations in both approaches are highly dependent on subjective factors, such as management’s estimatethe rates of return on plan assets, discount rates, the level of interest rates used to measure the required minimum funding levels of the plans, future government regulation and required or voluntary contributions made to the plans. The Subsidiary Registrants are allocated their proportionate share of the cost and obligations related to these plans. Without sustained growth in the pension investments over time to increase the value of plan assets and, depending upon the other factors impacting costs as listed above, Duke Energy could be required to fund its plans with significant amounts of cash. Such cash flows, the selection of appropriate discount and growth rates from a marketplace participant’s perspective,funding obligations, and the selectionSubsidiary Registrants’ proportionate share of peer utilities and marketplace transactions for comparative valuation purposes. The estimated futuresuch cash flows are based on the Utilities’ business plans that assume the occurrence of certain events in the future, such as the outcome of future rate filings, future approved rates of returns on equity, the timing of anticipated significant future capital investments, the anticipated earnings and returns related to such capital investments, continued recovery of cost of service and renewal of certain contracts. These underlying assumptions and estimates are made as of a point in time. If these assumptions change or should the actual outcome of some or all of these assumptions differ significantly from the current assumptions, the fair value of the utility reporting units could be significantly different in future periods, which could result in a future impairment charge to goodwill. Impairment of our recorded goodwill could result in volatility in our earnings under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP) and an increase in our leverage, which could trigger a downgrade of our credit ratings leading to higher borrowing costs and/or dilution through additional issuances of common stock. A full impairment of all of our goodwill would cause us to violate financial or restrictive covenants contained in our indebtedness or other contractual arrangements.
Our ability to fully utilize tax credits may be limited. This risk is not applicable to PEC and PEF.
In accordance with the provisions of Internal Revenue Code Section 29/45K, we have generated tax credits based on the content and quantity of coal-based solid synthetic fuels produced and sold to unrelated parties. This tax credit program expired at the end of 2007. The timing of the utilization of the tax credits is dependent upon our taxable income, which can be impacted by a number of factors. The timing of the utilization can also be impacted by certain substantial changes in ownership, including the Merger. Additionally, in the normal course of business, our tax returns are audited by the IRS. If our tax credits were disallowed in whole or in part as a result of an IRS audit, there could be significant additional tax liabilities and associated interest for previously recognized tax credits, whichfunding obligations, could have a material adverse impact on our earnings andthe Duke Energy Registrants’ financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Although we are unaware of any currently proposed legislation or new IRS regulations or interpretations impacting previously recorded synthetic fuels tax credits, the value of credits generated could be unfavorably impacted by such legislation or IRS regulations and interpretations.
ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS
ITEM 1B.
UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS
NoneNone.

25

41

PART I

ITEM 2. PROPERTIES
PROPERTIES
REGULATED UTILITIES
We believe that our physical properties and thoseThe following table provides information related to Regulated Utilities' electric generation stations as of our subsidiaries are adequate to carry on our and their businesses as currently conducted. We maintain property insurance against loss or damage by fire or other perils to the extent that such property is usually insured.
ELECTRIC – PEC
PEC’s 18 generating plants represent a flexible mix of fossil steam, nuclear, combustion turbine, combined cycle and hydroelectric resources, with a total summer generating capacity of 12,958 MW. Of this total, Power Agency owns approximately 700 MW. On December 31, 2011, PEC had2014. The MW displayed in the following generating facilities:table below are based on summer capacity.
FacilityPlant TypePrimary FuelLocationTotal MW Capacity
Owned MW Capacity
Ownership Interest
Duke Energy Carolinas      
OconeeNuclearUraniumSC2,554
2,554
100
Catawba(a)
NuclearUraniumSC2,290
441
19.25
McGuireNuclearUraniumNC2,278
2,278
100
Belews CreekFossil SteamCoalNC2,220
2,220
100
MarshallFossil SteamCoalNC2,078
2,078
100
J.E. Rogers Fossil SteamCoalNC1,396
1,396
100
Bad CreekHydroWaterSC1,360
1,360
100
LincolnCombustion TurbineGas / OilNC1,267
1,267
100
AllenFossil SteamCoalNC1,127
1,127
100
RockinghamCombustion TurbineGas / OilNC825
825
100
JocasseeHydroWaterSC780
780
100
Dan RiverCombined CycleGasNC637
637
100
BuckCombined CycleGasNC631
631
100
Mill CreekCombustion TurbineGas / OilSC596
596
100
Cowans FordHydroWaterNC325
325
100
W.S. LeeFossil SteamCoalSC170
170
100
KeoweeHydroWaterSC152
152
100
W.S. LeeCombustion TurbineGas / OilSC82
82
100
Distributed generationRenewableSolarNC4
4
100
Other small hydro (25 plants)HydroWaterNC / SC666
666
100
Total Duke Energy Carolinas   21,438
19,589
 
Duke Energy Progress      
Roxboro(b) (c)
Fossil SteamCoalNC2,433
2,343
96.30
Brunswick(c)
NuclearUraniumNC1,870
1,527
81.67
SmithCombined CycleGas / OilNC1,088
1,088
100
Harris(c)
NuclearUraniumNC928
778
83.83
H.F. LeeCombined CycleGas / OilNC916
916
100
Wayne CountyCombustion TurbineGas / OilNC863
863
100
DarlingtonCombustion TurbineGas / OilSC787
787
100
SmithCombustion TurbineGas / OilNC784
784
100
RobinsonNuclearUraniumSC741
741
100
Mayo(c)
Fossil SteamCoalNC727
609
83.83
L.V. SuttonCombined CycleGas / OilNC622
622
100
AshevilleFossil SteamCoalNC376
376
100
AshevilleCombustion TurbineGas / OilNC324
324
100
WeatherspoonCombustion TurbineGas / OilNC128
128
100
WaltersHydroWaterNC112
112
100
L.V. SuttonCombustion TurbineGas / OilNC61
61
100
BlewettCombustion TurbineOilNC52
52
100
Other small hydro (3 plants)HydroWaterNC110
110
100
Total Duke Energy Progress   12,922
12,221
 
Duke Energy Florida      
Crystal RiverFossil SteamCoalFL2,291
2,291
100
HinesCombined CycleGas / OilFL1,912
1,912
100
BartowCombined CycleGas / OilFL1,074
1,074
100
AncloteFossil SteamGasFL991
991
100
Intercession City(d)
Combustion TurbineGas / OilFL986
986
(d)
DeBaryCombustion TurbineGas / OilFL637
637
100
Tiger BayCombined CycleGas / OilFL205
205
100

26


PART I

          PEC  Summer Net 
   No. of      Ownership  
Capability(a)
 
 Facility
Location Units  In-Service Date Fuel (in %)  (in MW) 
 FOSSIL STEAM
              
 Asheville
Arden, N.C.  2   1964-1971 Coal  100   376 
 Cape Fear(b)
Moncure, N.C.  2   1956-1958 Coal  100   316 
 Lee(b)
Goldsboro, N.C.  3   1951-1962 Coal  100   382 
 Mayo
Roxboro, N.C.  1   1983 Coal  83.83   727(c)
 Robinson
Hartsville, S.C.  1   1960 Coal  100   177 
 Roxboro
Semora, N.C.  4   1966-1980 Coal  96.3(d)  2,417(c)
 Sutton(b)
Wilmington, N.C.  3   1954-1972 Coal  100   575 
 Total  16            4,970 
 NUCLEAR
                  
 Brunswick
Southport, N.C.  2   1975-1977 Uranium  81.67   1,870(c)
 Harris
New Hill, N.C.  1   1987 Uranium  83.83   900(c)
 Robinson
Hartsville, S.C.  1   1971 Uranium  100   724 
 Total  4            3,494 
 COMBUSTION TURBINE
                 
 Asheville
Arden, N.C.  2   1999-2000 Gas/Oil  100   324 
 Blewett
Lilesville, N.C.  4   1971 Oil  100   52 
 Cape Fear
Moncure, N.C.  2   1969 Oil  100   46 
 Darlington
Hartsville, S.C.  13   1974-1997 Gas/Oil  100   790 
 Lee
Goldsboro, N.C.  4   1968-1971 Oil  100   75 
 Morehead City
Morehead City, N.C.  1   1968 Oil  100   12 
 Smith(e)
Hamlet, N.C.  5   2001-2002 Gas/Oil  100   820 
 Robinson
Hartsville, S.C.  1   1968 Gas/Oil  100   11 
 Sutton
Wilmington, N.C.  3   1968-1969 Gas/Oil  100   61 
 Wayne County
Goldsboro, N.C.  5   2000-2009 Gas/Oil  100   863 
 Weatherspoon
Lumberton, N.C.  4   1970-1971 Gas/Oil  100   131 
 Total  44            3,185 
 COMBINED CYCLE
                 
 Smith(e)
Hamlet, N.C.  2   2002-2011 Gas/Oil  100   1,084 
 Total  2            1,084 
 HYDRO
                  
 Blewett
Lilesville, N.C.  6   1912 Water  100   22 
 Marshall
Marshall, N.C.  2   1910 Water  100   4 
 Tillery
Mount Gilead, N.C.  4   1928-1960 Water  100   87 
 Walters
Waterville, N.C.  3   1930 Water  100   112 
 Total  15            225 
TOTAL   81            12,958 
FacilityPlant TypePrimary FuelLocationTotal MW Capacity
Owned MW Capacity
Ownership Interest
BartowCombustion TurbineGas / OilFL177
177
100
BayboroCombustion TurbineOilFL174
174
100
Suwannee RiverCombustion TurbineGasFL155
155
100
TurnerCombustion TurbineOilFL131
131
100
Suwannee RiverFossil SteamGas / OilFL128
128
100
HigginsCombustion TurbineGas / OilFL105
105
100
Avon ParkCombustion TurbineGas / OilFL48
48
100
University of Florida CogenerationCombustion TurbineGasFL46
46
100
Rio PinarCombustion TurbineOilFL12
12
100
Total Duke Energy Florida   9,072
9,072
 
Duke Energy Ohio      
East BendFossil SteamCoalKY600
600
100
WoodsdaleCombustion TurbineGas / PropaneOH462
462
100
Miami Fort (Unit 6)Fossil SteamCoalOH163
163
100
Total Duke Energy Ohio   1,225
1,225
 
Duke Energy Indiana      
Gibson(e)
Fossil SteamCoalIN3,132
2,822
90.10
Cayuga(f)
Fossil SteamCoal / OilIN1,005
1,005
100
Wabash River(g)
Fossil SteamCoal / OilIN676
676
100
EdwardsportFossil SteamCoalIN595
595
100
MadisonCombustion TurbineGasOH576
576
100
Vermillion(h)
Combustion TurbineGasIN568
355
62.50
WheatlandCombustion TurbineGasIN460
460
100
NoblesvilleCombined CycleGas / OilIN285
285
100
GallagherFossil SteamCoalIN280
280
100
Henry CountyCombustion TurbineGas / OilIN129
129
100
CayugaCombustion TurbineGas / OilIN99
99
100
ConnersvilleCombustion TurbineOilIN86
86
100
Miami WabashCombustion TurbineOilIN80
80
100
MarklandHydroWaterIN45
45
100
Total Duke Energy Indiana   8,016
7,493
 
Total Regulated Utilities   52,673
49,600
 
Totals By Plant Type      
Nuclear   10,661
8,319
 
Fossil Steam   20,388
19,870
 
Combined Cycle   7,370
7,370
 
Combustion Turbine   10,700
10,487
 
Hydro   3,550
3,550
 
Renewable   4
4
 
Total Regulated Utilities   52,673
49,600
 
(a)Summer ratings reflect complianceJointly owned with NERC reliability standardsNorth Carolina Municipal Power Agency Number 1, North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation and are gross of joint ownership interest.Piedmont Municipal Power Agency.
(b)PEC has announced that it intends to retire these units no later than the endDuke Energy Progress owns and operates Roxboro Station Units 1-3 and owns 87.06 percent of, 2013. See Item I, "Business - PEC - Fuel and Purchased Power - Oil and Gas" regarding PEC's plans to build new generation fueled by natural gas.operates, Unit 4.
(c)Facilities are jointlyJointly owned by PECwith North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency (NCEMPA). Duke Energy Progress executed an agreement in September 2014 to purchase NCEMPA's ownership interest in these facilities. For additional information see Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Acquisitions, Dispositions and Power Agency. The capacities shown include Power Agency's share.Sales of Other Assets."
(d)PECDuke Energy Florida owns and Power Agency are joint owners ofoperates Intercession City Station Units 1-10 and 12-14. Unit 4 at the Roxboro Plant. PEC's ownership interest in this 698-MW unit11 is 87.06 percent.
(e)Formerly referred to as "Richmond."
42

At December 31, 2011, including both the total generating capacity of 12,958 MW and the total firm contracts for purchased power of 1,394 MW, PEC had total capacity resources of approximately 14,352 MW.
Power Agency has undivided ownership interests of 18.33 percent in Brunswick Unit Nos. 1 and 2, 12.94 percent in Roxboro Unit No. 4, 3.77 percent in Roxboro Common facilities, and 16.17 percent in Harris and Mayo Unit No. 1. Otherwise, PEC has good and marketable title to its principal plants and units, subject to the lien of its mortgage and deed of trust,jointly owned with minor exceptions, restrictions and reservations in conveyances, as well as minor defects of the nature ordinarily found in properties of similar character and magnitude. PEC also owns certain easements over private property on which transmission and distribution lines are located.
At December 31, 2011, PEC had approximately 6,000 circuit miles of transmission lines including 300 miles of 500-kilovolt (kV) lines and 3,100 miles of 230-kV lines. PEC also had approximately 45,000 circuit miles of overhead distribution conductor and 22,000 circuit miles of underground distribution cable. Distribution and transmission substations in service had a transformer capacity of approximately 70 million kilovolt-ampere (kVA) in approximately 900 transformers. Distribution line transformers numbered approximately 538,000 with an aggregate capacity of approximately 24 million kVA.

43


ELECTRIC – PEF
PEF’s 14 generating plants represent a flexible mix of fossil steam, combustion turbine, combined cycle and nuclear resources, with a total summer generating capacity of 10,019 MW. Of this total, joint owners own approximately 120 MW. On December 31, 2011, PEF had the following generating facilities:
          PEF  Summer Net 
   No. of      Ownership  
Capability(a)
 
 Facility
Location Units  In-Service Date Fuel (in %)  (in MW) 
 FOSSIL STEAM
              
 Anclote
Holiday, Fla.  2   1974-1978 Gas/Oil  100   1,011 
 Crystal River
Crystal River, Fla.  4   1966-1984 Coal  100   2,295 
 Suwannee River
Live Oak, Fla.  3   1953-1956 Gas/Oil  100   129 
 Total  9            3,435 
 COMBINED CYCLE
                 
 Bartow
St. Petersburg, Fla.  1   2009 Gas/Oil  100   1,133 
 Hines
Bartow, Fla.  4   1999-2007 Gas/Oil  100   1,912 
 Tiger Bay
Fort Meade, Fla.  1   1997 Gas  100   205 
 Total  6            3,250 
 COMBUSTION TURBINE
                 
 Avon Park
Avon Park, Fla.  2   1968 Gas/Oil  100   48 
 Bartow
St. Petersburg, Fla.  4   1972 Gas/Oil  100   177 
 Bayboro
St. Petersburg, Fla.  4   1973 Oil  100   174 
 DeBary
DeBary, Fla.  10   1975-1992 Gas/Oil  100   638 
 Higgins
Oldsmar, Fla.  4   1969-1971 Gas/Oil  100   105 
 Intercession City
Intercession City, Fla.  14   1974-2000 Gas/Oil (b)   982(c)
 Rio Pinar
Rio Pinar, Fla.  1   1970 Oil  100   12 
 Suwannee River
Live Oak, Fla.  3   1980 Gas/Oil  100   155 
 Turner
Enterprise, Fla.  4   1970-1974 Oil  100   137 
 University of Florida
                 
CogenerationGainesville, Fla.  1   1994 Gas  100   46 
 Total  47            2,474 
 NUCLEAR
                  
 Crystal River
Crystal River, Fla.  1   1977 Uranium  91.78   860(c) (d)
 Total  1            860 
TOTAL   63            10,019 
(a)Summer ratings reflect compliance with NERC reliability standards and are gross of joint ownership interest.
(b)PEF and Georgia Power Company are joint owners of a 143-MW advanced combustion turbine located at PEF's Intercession City site. Georgia Power Company(GPC). GPC has the exclusive right to the output of this unit during the months of June through September. PEFDuke Energy Florida has the exclusive right to the output of this unit for the remainder of the year.
(c)Facilities are jointly owned. The capacities shown include joint owners' share.
(d)(e)Due to the extended outage at the CR3 nuclear generating unit that began in September 2009, no nuclear power was generated in 2011Duke Energy Indiana owns and 2010 (See Note 8C)operates Gibson Station Units 1-4 and owns 50.05 percent of, and operates, Unit 5. Unit 5 is jointly owned with Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc. and Indiana Municipal Power Agency.
(f)Includes Cayuga Internal Combustion (IC).
(g)Includes Wabash River IC.
(h)Jointly owned with Wabash Valley Power Association.

27


At December 31, 2011, including both the total generating capacity of 10,019 MW and the total firm contracts for purchased power of 2,105 MW, PEF had total capacity resources of approximately 12,124 MW.PART I

Several entities have acquired undivided ownership interests in CR3 in the aggregate amount of 8.22 percent. The joint ownership participants are: City of Alachua – 0.08 percent, City of Bushnell – 0.04 percent, City of Gainesville – 1.41 percent, Kissimmee Utility Authority – 0.68 percent, City of Leesburg – 0.82 percent, Utilities Commission of the City of New Smyrna Beach – 0.56 percent, City of Ocala – 1.33 percent, Orlando Utilities Commission – 1.60 percent and Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. – 1.70 percent. PEF and Georgia Power Company are co-owners of a 143-MW advance combustion turbine located at PEF’s Intercession City Unit P11. Georgia Power Company has
44

the exclusive rightfollowing table provides information related to the output of this unit during the months of June through September. PEF has that right for the remainder of the year. Otherwise, PEF has good and marketable title to its principal plants and units, subject to the lien of its mortgage and deed of trust, with minor exceptions, restrictions and reservations in conveyances, as well as minor defects of the nature ordinarily found in properties of similar character and magnitude. PEF also owns certain easements over private property on whichRegulated Utilities' electric transmission and distribution lines are located.
Atproperties as of December 31, 2011, PEF had approximately 5,100 circuit miles2014.
 
Duke
Energy
Carolinas

Duke
Energy
Progress

Duke
Energy
Florida

Duke
Energy
Ohio

Duke
Energy
Indiana

Total
Regulated
Utilities

Electric Transmission Lines      
Miles of 500 to 525 Kilovolt (kV)600
300
200


1,100
Miles of 345 kV


1,000
700
1,700
Miles of 230 kV2,600
3,400
1,700

700
8,400
Miles of 100 to 161 kV6,800
2,600
1,000
700
1,400
12,500
Miles of 13 to 69 kV3,100

2,300
800
2,500
8,700
Total conductor miles of electric transmission lines13,100
6,300
5,200
2,500
5,300
32,400
Electric Distribution Lines      
Miles of overhead lines66,600
44,600
24,100
13,800
22,500
171,600
Miles of underground line36,000
23,400
17,700
5,700
8,500
91,300
Total conductor miles of electric distribution lines102,600
68,000
41,800
19,500
31,000
262,900
Number of electric transmission and distribution substations1,500
500
500
300
500
3,300
Miles of gas mains


7,200

7,200
Miles of gas service lines


6,200

6,200
Substantially all of transmission lines including 200 miles of 500-kV lines and approximately 1,600 miles of 230-kV lines. PEF also had approximately 18,000 circuit miles of overhead distribution conductor and 13,000 circuit miles of underground distribution cable. Distribution and transmission substationsRegulated Utilities' electric plant in service had a transformer capacityis mortgaged under indentures relating to Duke Energy Carolinas’, Duke Energy Progress', Duke Energy Florida's, Duke Energy Ohio’s and Duke Energy Indiana’s various series of approximately 65 million kVAFirst Mortgage Bonds.
INTERNATIONAL ENERGY
The following table provides additional information related to International Energy’s electric generation stations as of December 31, 2014. The MW displayed in approximately 800 transformers. Distribution line transformers numbered approximately 390,000 with an aggregate capacity of approximately 20 million kVA.the table below are based on summer capacity.

FacilityPrimary FuelLocationTotal MW Capacity
Owned MW Capacity
Ownership Interest
DEI Brazil(a)
WaterBrazil2,274
2,089
92
EgenorWaterPeru357
357
100
Cerros ColoradosWater / GasArgentina576
524
91
DEI ChileWater / DieselChile362
362
100
DEI El SalvadorOil / DieselEl Salvador324
293
90
DEI GuatemalaOil / Diesel / CoalGuatemala361
361
100
ElectroquilDieselEcuador192
163
85
AguaytiaGasPeru192
192
100
Total International Energy  4,638
4,341
 
ITEM 3.LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Legal proceedings are included in Note 22D and are incorporated by reference herein.

ITEM 4.MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES
Not applicable

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANTS AT FEBRUARY 28, 2012

NameAgeRecent Business Experience
(a)
William D. Johnson
58
Chairman, PresidentIncludes Canoas I and Chief Executive Officer, Progress Energy and Florida Progress, October 2007 to present; Chairman, PEC and PEF, from November 2007 to present; President and Chief Operating Officer, Progress Energy, from January 2005 to October 2007; Group President, PEC, from January 2004 to October 2007; Executive Vice President, PEF, from November 2000 to November 2007; Executive Vice President, Florida Progress, from November 2000 to December 2003; and Corporate Secretary, PEC, PEF, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC and Florida Progress, from November 2000 to December 2003. Mr. Johnson has beenII, which are jointly owned with Progress Energy (formerly CP&L) since 1992 and served as Group President, Energy Delivery, Progress Energy, from January 2004 to December 2004. Prior to that, he was President, CEO and Corporate Secretary, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, from October 2002 to December 2003. He also served as Executive Vice President – Corporate Relations & Administrative Services, General Counsel and Secretary of Progress Energy. Mr. Johnson served as Vice President – Legal Department and Corporate Secretary, CP&L, from 1997 to 1999.
Before joining Progress Energy, Mr. Johnson was a partner with the Raleigh, N.C., law office of Hunton & Williams LLP where he specialized in the representation of utilities. He previously served as a law clerk to the Honorable J. Dickson Phillips Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

45


Jeffrey A. Corbett52
Senior Vice President, Energy Delivery, PEC, January 2008 to present. Mr. Corbett oversees operations and services in the Carolinas, including engineering, distribution, construction, metering, power restoration, community relations and customer service. He previously served as Senior Vice President, Energy Delivery, PEF, from June 2006 to January 2008, with the same responsibilities in Florida as mentioned above. Mr. Corbett served as Vice President – Distribution for PEC, from January 2005 to June 2006. He also served PEC as Vice President – Eastern Region, from September 2002 to January 2005. Mr. Corbett joined Progress Energy in 1999 and has served in a number of roles, including General Manager of the Eastern Region and Director of Distribution Power Quality and Reliability.
Before joining Progress Energy, Mr. Corbett spent 17 years with Virginia Power, serving in a variety of engineering and leadership roles.
*Vincent M. Dolan57
President and Chief Executive Officer, PEF, July 2009 to present. Mr. Dolan oversees all aspects of PEF’s delivery operations, including distribution and customer service, transmission, and products and services. He previously served as Vice President – External Relations, PEF, from December 2006 to July 2009; Vice President – Regulatory & Customer Relations, PEF, from March 2005 to December 2006; and Vice President – Corporate Relations & Administrative Services, PEF, from April 2002 to March 2005. Mr. Dolan has been with PEF since 1986 in positions of increasing responsibility in the areas of operations, strategic development, customer services, and regulatory affairs.
Before joining PEF, Mr. Dolan was with Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, an international engineering and manufacturing firm.
*Michael A. Lewis49
Senior Vice President, Energy Delivery, PEF, January 2008 to present. Mr. Lewis oversees operations and services in Florida, including engineering, distribution, construction, metering, power restoration, community relations, energy-efficiency, and alternative energy strategies. He previously served as Vice President, Distribution, PEF, from August 2007 to January 2008; Vice President, Distribution Engineering & Operations, PEF, from December 2005 to August 2007; Vice President, Distribution Operations & Support, PEF, from April 2004 to December 2005; and Vice President, Coastal Region, PEF, from December 2000 to April 2004. Mr. Lewis has been with PEF in a number of engineering and management positions since 1986, including District Manager, Distribution Operations Manager in Pasco County, General Manager for the South Coastal region and Regional Vice President of both the North and South Coastal regions.
46

Jeffrey J. Lyash50
Executive Vice President, Energy Supply, Progress Energy, June 2010 to present. In this role, Mr. Lyash oversees Progress Energy’s diverse fleet of generating resources, including nuclear, coal, oil, natural gas and hydroelectric stations. In addition, he oversees fuel procurement for the generating fleet and power trading operations. He also serves as Executive Vice President, PEC, since August 2009, and PEF, since July 2009. Mr. Lyash previously served as Executive Vice President, Corporate Development, Progress Energy, from July 2009 to June 2010; President and Chief Executive Officer, PEF, from June 2006 to July 2009; Senior Vice President, PEF, from November 2003 to June 2006; and Vice President Transmission in Energy Delivery, PEC, from January 2002 to October 2003. Mr. Lyash joined Progress Energy (formerly CP&L) in 1993 and spent his first eight years at the Brunswick Nuclear Plant in Southport, N.C., in a number of management roles. His last position at Brunswick was as Director of Site Operations.
Before joining Progress Energy, Mr. Lyash worked for the NRC between 1984 and 1993 in a number of senior technical and management positions.
John R. McArthur56
Executive Vice President, Progress Energy, September 2008 to present. In this role, Mr. McArthur is responsible for corporate and utility support functions, including Audit Services, Corporate Communications, Corporate Services, External Relations, Human Resources and Legal. He also serves as General Counsel, since April 2010, and previously from 2004 until 2009, and Corporate Secretary, since 2004, of Progress Energy. Mr. McArthur is also Executive Vice President of PEC since September 2008, Executive Vice President of PEF since November 2008 and Executive Vice President of Florida Progress Corporation since January 2010. Mr. McArthur has been with Progress Energy in a number of roles since 2001, including Senior Vice President, Corporate Relations and Vice President, Public Affairs.
Before joining Progress Energy, Mr. McArthur was a senior adviser to N.C. Governor Mike Easley, handling major policy initiatives as well as media and legal affairs. Previously, he handled state government affairs for General Electric Co. Mr. McArthur also served as chief counsel in the N.C. Attorney General’s office, where he supervised utility, consumer, health care, and environmental protection issues. Prior to that he was a partner with the Raleigh, N.C., law office of Hunton & Williams LLP and served as a law clerk to the Honorable Sam J. Ervin III of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
47

Mark F. Mulhern52
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Progress Energy, PEC and PEF, September 2008 to present. He previously served as Senior Vice President, Finance, PEC and PEF, from November 2007 to September 2008, and Senior Vice President, Finance, Progress Energy, from July 2007 to September 2008. Mr. Mulhern also served as President of Progress Ventures (the unregulated subsidiary of Progress Energy), from 2005 to 2008; Senior Vice President of Competitive Commercial Operations of Progress Ventures, from 2003 to 2005; Vice President, Strategic Planning of Progress Energy, from 2000 to 2003; Vice President and Treasurer of Progress Energy, from 1997 to 2000; and Vice President and Controller of Progress Energy, from 1996 to 1997.
Before joining Progress Energy (formerly CP&L) in 1996, Mr. Mulhern was the Chief Financial Officer at Hydra Co Enterprises, the independent power subsidiary of Niagara Mohawk. He also spent eight years at Price Waterhouse, serving a wide variety of manufacturing and service businesses.
James Scarola55
Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer, PEC and PEF, January 2008 to present. Mr. Scarola oversees all aspects of our nuclear program. He previously served as Vice President at the Brunswick Nuclear Plant from October 2005 to December 2007. Mr. Scarola joined Progress Energy (formerly CP&L) in 1998, where he served as Vice President at the Harris Nuclear Power Plant until October 2005.
Mr. Scarola entered the nuclear power field in 1978 as a design engineer and has held positions in construction, start-up testing, maintenance, engineering and operations. Prior to joining Progress Energy, he was the General Manager of Florida Power & Light Company’s St. Lucie Nuclear Plant.

48



Paula J. Sims50
Senior Vice President, Corporate Development and Improvement, Progress Energy, June 2010 to present. Ms. Sims is responsible for implementing Progress Energy’s balanced solution strategy for meeting the future energy needs of its customers. In addition, she oversees program development and construction of new generation projects, renewable energy and efficiency programs, supply chain, information technology and wholesale power operations. Ms. Sims is the executive sponsor for Continuous Business Excellence, Progress Energy’s framework for improving processes, efficiency and overall cost management and has responsibility for environmental, health and safety. She also serves as Senior Vice President, PEC and PEF, since April 2006. Ms. Sims previously served as Senior Vice President, Power Operations, PEC and PEF, from July 2007 to June 2010; Senior Vice President, Regulated Services of PEC, from January 2006 to July 2007; Vice President, Fossil Fuel Generation of Progress Energy and PEF, from January 2006 to April 2006; Vice President, Regulated Fuels of Progress Energy, from December 2004 to December 2005; Chief Operating Officer of Progress Fuels Corporation, from February 2002 to December 2004; and Vice President, Business Operations & Strategic Planning of Progress Fuels Corporation, from June 2001 to February 2002.
Before joining Progress Energy in 1999, Ms. Sims was with GE Aircraft Engines, where she served in a number of engineering, operations and plant management roles for over 15 years.
Jeffrey M. Stone50
Chief Accounting Officer and Controller, Progress Energy and Florida Progress, June 2005 to present; Chief Accounting Officer, PEC and PEF, from June 2005 and November 2005, respectively, to present; and Vice President and Controller, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, from January 2005 and June 2005, respectively to present. Mr. Stone previously served as Controller of PEF and PEC, from June 2005 to November 2005. Since 1999, Mr. Stone has served Progress Energy in a number of roles in corporate support including Vice President – Capital Planning and Control; and Executive Director – Financial Planning & Regulatory Services, as well as in various management positions with Energy Supply and Audit Services.
Prior to joining Progress Energy, Mr. Stone worked as an auditor with Deloitte & Touche in Charlotte, N.C.

49



Lloyd M. Yates51
President and Chief Executive Officer, PEC, July 2007 to present. Mr. Yates oversees all aspects of PEC’s delivery operations, including distribution and customer service, transmission, and products and services. He previously served as Senior Vice President, PEC, from January 2005 to July 2007, where he was responsible for overseeing the four operational and customer service regions in the Carolinas,Companhia Brasileira de Aluminio, as well as the distribution function. Mr. Yates served PECwholly owned Palmeiras and Retiro small hydro plants.
International Energy also owns a 25 percent equity interest in NMC. In 2014, NMC produced approximately 921,000 metric tons of methanol and approximately 1.1 million metric tons of MTBE. Approximately 40 percent of methanol is normally used in the MTBE production.

28


PART I

COMMERCIAL POWER
The following table provides information related to Commercial Power’s electric generation facilities as of December 31, 2014. The MW displayed in the table below are based on summer capacity.
FacilityPlant TypePrimary FuelLocationTotal MW Capacity
Owned MW Capacity
Ownership Interest
Duke Energy Renewables      
Los Vientos WindpowerRenewableWindTX402
402
100
Top of the WorldRenewableWindWY200
200
100
NotreesRenewableWindTX153
153
100
Campbell HillRenewableWindWY99
99
100
North AlleghenyRenewableWindPA70
70
100
Laurel Hill Wind EnergyRenewableWindPA69
69
100
OcotilloRenewableWindTX59
59
100
Kit CarsonRenewableWindCO51
51
100
Silver SageRenewableWindWY42
42
100
Happy JackRenewableWindWY29
29
100
ShirleyRenewableWindWI20
20
100
HighlanderRenewableSolarCA21
21
100
DogwoodRenewableSolarNC20
20
100
Halifax AirportRenewableSolarNC20
20
100
Colonial Eagle - PasquotankRenewableSolarNC20
20
100
BagdadRenewableSolarAZ15
15
100
TX SolarRenewableSolarTX14
14
100
Washington White PostRenewableSolarNC12
12
100
Other small solarRenewableSolarVarious54
54
100
Total Duke Energy Renewables   1,370
1,370
 
Duke Energy Ohio      
Stuart(a)(b)
Fossil SteamCoalOH2,308
900
39
Zimmer(a)
Fossil SteamCoalOH1,300
605
46.5
Hanging RockCombined CycleGasOH1,226
1,226
100
Miami Fort (Units 7 and 8)(a)
Fossil SteamCoalOH1,020
652
64
Conesville(a)(b)
Fossil SteamCoalOH780
312
40
WashingtonCombined CycleGasOH617
617
100
FayetteCombined CycleGasPA614
614
100
Killen(a)(b)
Fossil SteamCoalOH600
198
33
LeeCombustion TurbineGasIL568
568
100
Dick's CreekCombustion TurbineGasOH136
136
100
Miami FortCombustion TurbineOilOH56
56
100
Total Duke Energy Ohio(c)
   9,225
5,884
 
Totals By Facility Type      
Renewable - Wind   1,194
1,194
 
Renewable - Solar   176
176
 
Fossil Steam   6,008
2,667
 
Combined Cycle   2,457
2,457
 
Combustion Turbine   760
760
 
Total Commercial Power   10,595
7,254
 
(a)Jointly owned with American Electric Power Generation Resources and/or The Dayton Power & Light Company.
(b)Facility operated by Duke Energy Ohio
(c)Duke Energy Ohio facilities are included in the Disposal Group as Vice President – Transmission, from November 2003 toof December 2004 and as Vice President – Fossil Generation, from November 1998 to November 2003.31, 2014.

In addition to the above facilities, Commercial Power owns an equity interest in the 585 MW capacity Sweetwater wind projects located in Texas, the 299 MW capacity DS Cornerstone wind projects located in Kansas and the 17 MW capacity INDU Solar Holding Joint Venture. Commercial Power's ownership share is 442 MW of capacity in these projects.
OTHER
Duke Energy owns approximately 5.2 million square feet and leases 2.9 million square feet of corporate, regional and district office space spread throughout its service territories and in Houston, Texas.

29


PART I

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Before joining Progress Energy (formerly CP&L) in 1998, Mr. Yates was with PECO Energy for over 16 years in several line operations and management positions.

For information regarding legal proceedings, including regulatory and environmental matters, see Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters” and Note 5 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Commitments and Contingencies - Litigation” and “Commitments and Contingencies - Environmental.”
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Civil Enforcement
*Indicates individualDuke Energy Carolinas and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality are in negotiations regarding civil enforcement against Duke Energy Carolinas related to the February 2, 2014, coal ash release from Duke Energy Carolinas’ Dan River Steam Station. Monetary sanctions in excess of $100,000 appear likely.
Brazilian Transmission Fee Assessments
On July 16, 2008, Duke Energy International Geracao Paranapanema S.A. (DEIGP) filed a lawsuit in the Brazilian federal court challenging transmission fee assessments imposed under two new resolutions promulgated by the Brazilian electricity regulatory agency (ANEEL) (collectively, the Resolutions). The Resolutions purport to impose additional transmission fees on generation companies located in the State of Sao Paulo for utilization of the electric transmission system. The fees were retroactive to July 1, 2004, and effective through June 30, 2009. DEIGP's original assessment under these Resolutions amounts to approximately $56 million inclusive of interest through December 2014. Pending resolution of this dispute on the merits, DEIGP deposited the disputed portion, approximately $19 million, of the assessment into a court-monitored escrow, and paid the undisputed portion to the distribution companies. In a decision published on October 2, 2013, the trial court affirmed an additional fine imposed by ANEEL in the amount of $9 million for DEIGP’s failure to pay the disputed portion of the assessment. The $9 million was also deposited into a court-monitored escrow. In December 2014, the trial court ruled in favor of DEIGP on the merits of the original assessment. The merits of the original assessment and fine, as well as the contradiction between the trial court's ruling in favor of DEIGP on the original assessment but against DEIGP on its alleged failure to timely pay that assessment, will be addressed on appeal.
Brazilian Regulatory Citations
In September 2007, the State Environmental Agency of Parana (IAP) assessed seven fines against DEIGP, totaling $15 million for failure to comply with reforestation measures allegedly required by state regulations in Brazil. DEIGP has challenged the fines in administrative and judicial proceedings. Two of the seven fines have subsequently been dismissed or otherwise resolved in favor of DEIGP. A third fine was determined legitimate by the trial court, but is an executive officerunder appeal. The remaining fines are pending.
Additionally, DEIGP was assessed three fines by Brazil Institute of ProgressEnvironment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) for improper maintenance of existing reforested areas. One of these fines was determined legitimate by the trial court and is under appeal. The others are pending. The total current IBAMA assessment is approximately $500,000. DEIGP believes that it has properly maintained all reforested areas and has challenged the IBAMA assessments.
Gibson Notice of Violations
Pursuant to Notices of Violation dated June 23, 2011 and July 16, 2013, the EPA has asserted that, on several occasions between August 1, 2008 through March 31, 2013, Duke Energy Inc., butIndiana’s Gibson steam station violated opacity limits contained in its Title V permit. Duke Energy Indiana entered into a settlement agreement with the EPA in the fourth quarter of 2014, which required payment of a civil penalty of $199,000.
ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES
This is not PEC.
applicable for any of the Duke Energy Registrants.

30

50


PART II


ITEM 5. MARKET FOR REGISTRANT'S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES
MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES
PROGRESS ENERGY
Progress Energy’s Common StockDuke Energy's common stock is listed for trading on the New York Stock Exchange under the(NYSE) (ticker symbol PGN. The high and low intra-day stock prices for each quarter for the past two years, and the cash dividends declared per share, are as follows:
  High  Low  Dividends Declared 
2011          
First Quarter $46.83  $42.55  $0.620 
Second Quarter  49.03   45.20   0.620 
Third Quarter  52.42   42.05   0.620 
Fourth Quarter  56.33   49.37   0.259 
2010             
First Quarter $41.35  $37.04  $0.620 
Second Quarter  40.69   37.13   0.620 
Third Quarter  44.82   38.96   0.620 
Fourth Quarter  45.61   43.08   0.620 
             
DUK). As of February 24, 2015, there were approximately 172,448 common stockholders of record.
The December 31 closing price of our Common Stock was $56.02 for 2011 and $43.48 for 2010. At February 23Data by Quarter, 2012, we had 48,755 holders of record of Common Stock.
 2014 2013
   
Stock Price Range(a)
   
Stock Price Range(a)
 Dividends Declared Per Share
 High
 Low
 Dividends Declared Per Share
 High
 Low
First Quarter0.780
 $72.67
 $67.05
 0.765
 $72.68
 $64.44
Second Quarter(b)
0.780
 75.13
 68.81
 1.545
 75.46
 64.62
Third Quarter0.795
 75.21
 69.48
  ―  
 72.01
 64.16
Fourth Quarter0.795
 87.29
 74.33
 0.780
 73.53
 66.05
(a)Stock prices represent the intra-day high and low stock price.
(b)Two dividends were declared in the second quarter of 2013. The first was $0.765 per share and the second was $0.78 per share. 
ProgressDuke Energy expects to continue its policy of paying regular cash dividends; however, there is no assurance as to the amount of future dividends as they depend on future earnings, capital requirements, and financial condition, and are subject to declaration by the boardDuke Energy Board of directors, and the existing common stock dividend policy could change based upon business factors, including future earnings, capital requirements and financial condition. Additionally, the Merger Agreement restricts our ability, without Directors.
Duke Energy’s consent,operating subsidiaries have certain restrictions on their ability to increasetransfer funds in the common stock dividend rate until consummationform of dividends or terminationloans to Duke Energy. See Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters” for further information regarding these restrictions.
Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans
Duke Energy will provide information that is responsive to this Item 5 in its definitive proxy statement or in an amendment to this Annual Report not later than 120 days after the end of the Merger Agreement. See MD&A “Introduction – Merger.fiscal year covered by this Annual Report, in either case under the caption “Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters,Inand possibly elsewhere therein. That information is incorporated in this Item 5 by reference.
Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities for Fourth Quarter of 2014
There were no repurchases of equity securities during the fourth quarter of 2011, the board2014.

31


PART II

Stock Performance Graph
The performance graph below illustrates a five year comparison of directors declared a partial dividend of $0.259 per share in order to align our dividend payment schedule with thatcumulative total returns of Duke Energy suchCorporation common stock, as compared with the S&P 500 Stock Index and the Philadelphia Utility Index for the five-year period 2009 through 2014.
This performance graph assumes an initial investment of $100 invested on December 31, 2009, in Duke Energy common stock, in the S&P 500 Stock Index and in the Philadelphia Utility Index and that followingall dividends are reinvested.
NYSE CEO Certification
Duke Energy has filed the closingcertification of its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Merger, all stockholdersSarbanes-Oxley Act of the combined company would receive dividends under the Duke Energy dividend schedule. It is anticipated that the board will maintain2002 as exhibits to this alignment in anticipation of the closing of the Merger during 2012. On January 20, 2012, the Progress Energy board of directors declared a full quarterly dividend of $0.620 per share payable on March 16, 2012, to shareholders of record on February 17, 2012.
Neither Progress Energy’s Articles of Incorporation nor any of its debt obligations contain any restrictions on the payment of dividends, so long as no shares of preferred stock are outstanding. Our subsidiaries have provisions restricting dividends on their securities in certain limited circumstances (See Notes 10 and 12B).
Information regarding securities authorized for issuance under our equity compensation plans is included in Progress Energy’s definitive proxy statement for its 2012 Annual Meeting of Shareholders or will be filed as part of an amendment to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A.10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014.

32


RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AWARD PAYOUTS
(a)  
Securities Delivered. On October 17, 2011, December 8, 2011, and December 12, 2011, 1,108 shares, 3,500 shares and 916 shares, respectively, of our common stock were delivered to certain former employees pursuant to the terms of the Progress Energy 2007 Equity Incentive Plans (the EIP) which has been approved by Progress Energy’s shareholders. The shares of common stock delivered pursuant to the EIP were newly issued shares of Progress Energy.
(b)  
Underwriters and Other Purchasers. No underwriters were used in connection with the delivery of our common stock described above.
PART II

ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA
51

(c)  
(in millions, except per share amounts)
2014(c)

 
2013(c)

 
2012(c)

 
2011(c)

 
2010(c)

Statement of Operations(a)
         
Total operating revenues$23,925
 $22,756
 $17,912
 $12,412
 $12,220
Operating Income5,258
 4,854
 2,911
 2,475
 2,444
Income From Continuing Operations2,465
 2,590
 1,611
 1,508
 1,481
(Loss) Income From Discontinued Operations, net of tax(576) 86
 171
 206
 (157)
Net Income1,889
 2,676
 1,782
 1,714
 1,324
Net Income Attributable to Duke Energy Corporation1,883
 2,665
 1,768
 1,706
 1,320
Common Stock Data         
Income from continuing operations attributable to Duke Energy Corporation common shareholders(b)
         
Basic$3.46
 $3.64
 $2.77
 $3.34
 $3.34
Diluted3.46
 3.63
 2.77
 3.34
 3.33
(Loss) Income from discontinued operations attributable to Duke Energy Corporation common shareholders         
Basic$(0.80) $0.13
 $0.30
 $0.49
 $(0.34)
Diluted(0.80) 0.13
 0.30
 0.49
 (0.33)
Net Income attributable to Duke Energy Corporation common shareholders(b)
         
Basic$2.66
 $3.77
 $3.07
 $3.83
 $3.00
Diluted2.66
 3.76
 3.07
 3.83
 3.00
Dividends declared per common share(b)
3.15
 3.09
 3.03
 2.97
 2.91
Balance Sheet         
Total Assets$120,709
 $114,779
 $113,856
 $62,526
 $59,090
Long-term Debt including capital leases and redeemable preferred stock of subsidiaries, less current maturities37,213
 38,152
 36,444
 18,679
 17,935
Consideration. The restricted stock unit awards were granted to provide an incentive
(a)Significant transactions reflected in the results above include: (i) 2014 impairment of the Disposal Group (see Note 2 to the former employeesConsolidated Financial Statements, "Acquisitions, Dispositions and Sales of Other Assets"); (ii) 2014 incremental tax expense resulting from the decision to exert their utmost efforts on Progress Energy’s behalf and thus enhance our performance while aligningrepatriate all cumulative historical undistributed foreign earnings (see Note 22 to the employees’ interest with those of our shareholders.
(d)  
Exemption from Registration Claimed. The common shares describedConsolidated Financial Statements, "Income Taxes"); (iii) 2014 increase in this Item were delivered pursuantthe litigation reserve related to a broad-based involuntary, noncontributory employee benefit plan, and thus did not involve an offer to sell or sale of securities within the meaning of Section 2(3)criminal investigation of the Securities Act of 1933. Receipt ofDan River coal ash spill (see Note 5 to the shares of our common stock required no investment decision onConsolidated Financial Statements, “Commitments and Contingencies”); (iv) 2013 charges related to Crystal River Unit 3 and nuclear development costs (see Notes 4 and 25 to the part ofConsolidated Financial Statements, "Regulatory Matters" and "Quarterly Financial Data", respectively); (v) the recipient.
ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES FOR FOURTH QUARTER OF 2011
             
Period 
(a)
Total
Number of
Shares
(or Units)
Purchased
(1) to (5)
  
(b)
Average
Price
Paid
Per
Share
(or Unit)
  
(c)
Total Number of
Shares (or Units)
Purchased as Part
of Publicly
Announced Plans
or Programs (1)
  
(d)
Maximum Number (or
Approximate Dollar
Value) of Shares (or Units)
that May Yet Be
Purchased Under the
Plans or Programs (1)
 
October 1 – October 31  409,839  $49.9474   N/A   N/A 
November 1 – November 30  478,809   52.3253   N/A   N/A 
December 1 – December 31  84,927   54.1318   N/A   N/A 
Total  973,575  $51.4819   N/A   N/A 

(1)At December 31, 2011,2012 merger with Progress Energy does not have any publicly announced plans or programs to purchase shares of its common stock.
(2)The plan administrator purchased 554,000 shares of our common stock in open-market transactions to meet share delivery obligations under the Progress Energy 401(k) Savings & Stock Ownership Plan (401(k)).
(3)The plan administrator purchased 215,565 shares of our common stock in open-market transactions to meet share delivery obligations under the Savings Plan for Employees of Florida Progress Corporation.
(4)The plan administrator purchased 202,186 shares of our common stock in open-market transactions to meet share delivery obligations under the Progress Energy Investor Plus Plan (IPP).
(5)Progress Energy withheld 1,824 shares of our common stock during the fourth quarter of 2011 to pay taxes due upon the payout of certain Restricted Stock Unit awards pursuant(see Note 2 to the termsConsolidated Financial Statements, "Acquisitions, Dispositions and Sales of Other Assets"); (vi) 2012 and 2011 pretax impairment and other charges related to the EIP.Edwardsport Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) project of $628 million and $222 million, respectively; and (vii) 2010 pretax impairment of goodwill and other assets of $660 million. 

PEC
Since 2000, the Parent has owned all of PEC’s common stock, and as a result, there is no established public trading market for the stock. PEC has neither issued nor repurchased any equity securities since becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of the Parent. During 2011, 2010 and 2009, PEC paid dividends to the Parent totaling the amounts shown in PEC’s Consolidated Statements of Changes in Total Equity included in the financial statements in PART II, Item 8. PEC has provisions restricting dividends in certain circumstances (See Notes 10 and 12). PEC does not have any equity compensation plans under which its equity securities are issued.
PEF
All shares of PEF’s common stock are owned by Florida Progress and, as a result, there is no established public trading market for the stock. PEF has neither issued nor repurchased any equity securities since becoming an indirect subsidiary of the Parent. During 2011 and 2010, PEF paid dividends to Florida Progress totaling the amounts shown in PEF’s Statements of Changes in Common Stock Equity included in the financial statements in PART II, Item 8. During 2009, PEF paid no dividends to Florida Progress. PEF has provisions restricting dividends in certain circumstances (See Notes 10 and 12). PEF does not have any equity compensation plans under which its equity securities are issued.

52

ITEM 6.SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA
The selected financial data should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto included elsewhere in this report.
 PROGESS ENERGY
               
  Years Ended December 31 
 (in millions, except per share data)
 2011  2010  2009  2008  2007 
 OPERATING RESULTS
               
Operating revenues $8,907  $10,190  $9,885  $9,167  $9,153 
Income from continuing operations  587   867   840   778   702 
Net income  582   863   761   836   496 
Net income attributable to controlling interests  575   856   757   830   504 
                     
 PER SHARE DATA
                    
Basic and diluted earnings                    
Income from continuing operations attributable to controlling interests,
  net of tax
 $1.96  $2.96  $2.99  $2.95  $2.70 
Net income attributable to controlling interests  1.94   2.95   2.71   3.17   1.96 
                     
 TOTAL ASSETS
 $35,059  $33,054  $31,236  $29,873  $26,338 
                     
 CAPITALIZATION AND DEBT
                    
Common stock equity $10,021  $10,023  $9,449  $8,687  $8,395 
Noncontrolling interests  4   4   6   6   84 
Preferred stock of subsidiaries  93   93   93   93   93 
Long-term debt, net(a)
  11,991   12,137   12,051   10,659   8,737 
Current portion of long-term debt  950   505   406   -   877 
Short-term debt  671   -   140   1,050   201 
Capital lease obligations  211   221   231   239   247 
Total capitalization and debt $23,941  $22,983  $22,376  $20,734  $18,634 
Dividends declared per common share $2.119(b) $2.480  $2.480  $2.465  $2.445 
(a)Includes long-term debt to affiliated trust of $273 million at December 31, 2011 and 2010, $272 million at December 31, 2009 and 2008 and $271 million at December 31, 2007 (See Note 23).
(b)InOn July 2, 2012, immediately prior to the fourth quarter of 2011, the board of directors declaredmerger with Progress Energy, Duke Energy executed a partial dividend of $0.259one-for-three reverse stock split. All share and earnings per share in order to align our dividend payment schedule with that of Duke Energy, such that followingamounts are presented as if the closingone-for-three reverse stock split had been effective at the beginning of the Merger, all stockholdersearliest period presented.
(c)Operating results reflect reclassifications due to the impact of discontinued operations (see Note 2 to the combined company would receive dividends under the Duke Energy schedule.Consolidated Financial Statements, "Acquisitions, Dispositions and Sales of Other Assets").


33

53

PART II


ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
 PEC
               
  Years Ended December 31 
 (in millions)
 2011  2010  2009  2008  2007 
 OPERATING RESULTS
               
Operating revenues $4,528  $4,922  $4,627  $4,429  $4,385 
Net income  516   602   514   534   501 
Net income attributable to controlling interests  516   603   516   534   501 
Net income attributable to parent  513   600   513   531   498 
  
                    
 TOTAL ASSETS
 $16,102  $14,899  $13,502  $13,165  $11,955 
                     
 CAPITALIZATION AND DEBT
                    
Common stock equity $5,088  $5,180  $4,657  $4,301  $3,752 
Noncontrolling interests  -   -   3   4   4 
Preferred stock  59   59   59   59   59 
Long-term debt, net  3,693   3,693   3,703   3,509   3,183 
Current portion of long-term debt  500   -   6   -   300 
Short-term debt(a)
  219   -   -   110   154 
Capital lease obligations  12   14   15   16   17 
Total capitalization and debt $9,571  $8,946  $8,443  $7,999  $7,469 
(a)
Includes notes payable to affiliated companies related to the money pool program of $31 million at December 31, 2011, and $154 million at December 31, 2007.

PEF
The information called for by Item 6 is omitted for PEF pursuant to Instruction I(2)(a) to Form 10-K (Omission of Information by Certain Wholly Owned Subsidiaries).
54


MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
The following combined MD&A is separately filed by Progress Energy, PECManagement’s Discussion and PEF. Information contained herein relating to PEC and PEF individually is filed by such company on its own behalf. Neither of the Utilities makes any representation as to information related solely to Progress Energy or the subsidiaries of Progress Energy other than itself.
The following MD&A contains forward-looking statements that involve estimates, projections, goals, forecasts, assumptions, risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results or outcomes to differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements. Please review “Safe Harbor for Forward-Looking Statements” and Item 1A, “Risk Factors,” for a discussion of the factors that may impact any such forward-looking statements made herein.
MD&AAnalysis includes financial information prepared in accordance with GAAP,generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) in the United States (U.S.), as well as certain non-GAAP financial measures “Ongoing Earnings”such as adjusted earnings, adjusted earnings per share and “Base Revenues,”adjusted segment income, discussed below. Generally, a non-GAAP financial measure is a numerical measure of financial performance, financial position or cash flows that excludes (or includes) amounts that are included in (or excluded from) the most directly comparable measure calculated and presented in accordance with GAAP. The non-GAAP financial measures should be viewed as a supplement to, and not a substitute for, financial measures presented in accordance with GAAP. Non-GAAP measures as presented herein may not be comparable to similarly titled measures used by other companies.
The following combined Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations is separately filed by Duke Energy Corporation (collectively with its subsidiaries, Duke Energy) and its subsidiaries Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy Carolinas), Progress Energy, Inc. (Progress Energy), Duke Energy Progress, Inc. (Duke Energy Progress), Duke Energy Florida, Inc. (Duke Energy Florida), Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. (Duke Energy Ohio) and Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. (Duke Energy Indiana) (collectively referred to as the Subsidiary Registrants). However, none of the registrants makes any representation as to information related solely to Duke Energy or the Subsidiary Registrants of Duke Energy other than itself.
DUKE ENERGY
MD&ADuke Energy is an energy company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Duke Energy operates in the U.S. primarily through its wholly owned subsidiaries, Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Florida, Duke Energy Ohio, and Duke Energy Indiana, as well as in Latin America.
When discussing Duke Energy’s consolidated financial information, it necessarily includes the results of the Subsidiary Registrants, which, along with Duke Energy, are collectively referred to as the Duke Energy Registrants.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis should be read in conjunction with the accompanying financial statements found elsewhere in this report.Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012.
Executive Overview
PROGRESS ENERGY
INTRODUCTION
Our reportable business segments are PEC and PEF, and their primary operations are the generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electricity in portions of North Carolina and South Carolina and in portions of Florida, respectively. The Corporate and Other segment primarily includes the operations of the Parent, PESC and other miscellaneous nonregulated businesses that do not separately meet the quantitative requirements as a separate reportable business segment.
MERGER
Merger with Progress Energy
On January 8, 2011,July 2, 2012, Duke Energy merged with Progress Energy, with Duke Energy continuing as the surviving corporation, and Progress Energy entered into the Merger Agreement. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Progress Energy will be acquired by Duke Energy in a stock-for-stock transaction and becomebecoming a wholly owned subsidiary of Duke Energy. ConsummationDuke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida, Progress Energy’s regulated utility subsidiaries, are now indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Duke Energy. Duke Energy’s consolidated financial statements include Progress Energy, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida activity beginning July 2, 2012.
Immediately preceding the merger, Duke Energy completed a one-for-three reverse stock split with respect to the issued and outstanding shares of Duke Energy common stock. All share and per share amounts presented herein reflect the impact of the Merger isone-for-three reverse stock split.
For additional information on the details of this transaction including regulatory conditions and accounting implications, see Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Acquisitions, Dispositions and Sales of Other Assets.”
Disposition of the Nonregulated Midwest Generation Business
On August 21, 2014, Duke Energy entered into a purchase sale agreement (PSA) to sell its nonregulated Midwest generation business and Duke Energy Retail Sales LLC (Disposal Group) to Dynegy Inc. (Dynegy) for approximately $2.8 billion in cash subject to customary conditions, including, among others things, approvaladjustments at closing for changes in working capital and capital expenditures. The completion of the shareholders of each company, expiration or terminationtransaction, conditioned on approval by Federal Energy Regulatory Commissions (FERC), is expected by the end of the applicable Hart-Scott-Rodino Act waiting period,second quarter of 2015.
For additional information on the details of this transaction including regulatory conditions and receipt of approvals,accounting implications, see Note 2 to the extent required,Consolidated Financial Statements, “Acquisitions, Dispositions and Sales of Other Assets.”
2014 Financial Results
The following table summarizes adjusted earnings and net income attributable to Duke Energy.
 Years Ended December 31,
 2014 2013 2012
(in millions, except per share amounts)Amount
 Per diluted share
 Amount
 
Per
diluted share

 Amount
 Per diluted share
Adjusted earnings(a)
$3,218
 $4.55
 $3,080
 $4.36
 $2,489
 $4.33
Net income attributable to Duke Energy  1,883
 2.66
 2,665
 3.76
 1,768
 3.07
(a)See Results of Operations below for Duke Energy’s definition of adjusted earnings and adjusted earnings per diluted share as well as a reconciliation of this non-GAAP financial measure to net income attributable to Duke Energy and net income attributable to Duke Energy per diluted share.

34


PART II

Adjusted earnings increased from 2013 to 2014 primarily due to the impact of the revised rates and favorable weather, partially offset by higher depreciation and amortization expense. Adjusted earnings increased from 2012 to 2013 primarily due to the inclusion of a full year of Progress Energy results in 2013, the impact of the revised rates, net of higher depreciation and amortization expense and lower allowance for funds used during construction (AFUDC).
See “Results of Operations” below for a detailed discussion of the consolidated results of operations, as well as a detailed discussion of financial results for each of Duke Energy’s reportable business segments, as well as Other.
2014 Areas of Focus and Accomplishments
In 2014, Duke Energy focused on achieving financial objectives, completing important strategic initiatives, including the agreement to sell the non-regulated Midwest Generation business and completion of a strategic review of the international business, advancing a platform of growth initiatives, operational excellence, and the strengthening of coal ash management practices and plans to accelerate basin closure strategies resulting from the FERC,Dan River coal ash spill.
Sale of the Federal Communications Commission,Midwest Generation Business. In 2014, Duke Energy entered into a PSA to sell the NRC,Disposal Group to Dynegy for approximately $2.8 billion. This decision supports Duke Energy’s strategy to focus investments on businesses with more predictable and less volatile earnings.
International Energy Operations. Duke Energy completed the NCUC,strategic review of the Kentucky Public Service Commission andinternational operations. As a result of the SCPSC. Although there are no merger-specific regulatory approvals required in Indiana, Ohio or Florida, the companies will continue to update the public service commissions in those states on the Merger, as applicable and as required.
See Item 1A, “Risk Factors,” and Note 2 for risks and additional information related to the Merger.
The Merger Agreement includes certain restrictions, limitations and prohibitions as to actions we may or may not takereview, Duke Energy determined it is in the period prior to consummation ofshareholders’ best interest, at the Merger as discussed below. At thispresent time, we do not anticipate modifying our 2012 strategy discussed below but cannot predict the impact consummation of the Merger will have on our long-term strategy. The combined company’s expected balance sheet and credit metrics are anticipated to enhance our growth opportunities and strategic options.
We do not expect the Merger to have a significant impact on our cash requirements and sources of liquidity during 2012. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, only limited equity issuances through certain employee benefit plans and stock option plans are permitted. In the event the Merger does not close by the Merger Agreement termination date of July 8, 2012, we may also use equity offerings or ongoing sales of common stock through the IPP and/or
55

employee benefit and stock option plans to support our liquidity requirements. Additionally, the Merger Agreement restricts our ability, without Duke Energy’s consent, to increase the common stock dividend rate until consummation or termination of the Merger Agreement. Total capital spending and the extent to which we can obtain financing through long-term debt issuances are also limited.
After consummation of the Merger, Progress Energy intends to cease filing periodic reports with the SEC as soon as practicable. PEC and PEF intend to continue to file periodic reports withown, operate and create value through portfolio optimization and efficiency in the SEC.
Certain substantial changesInternational operations. In addition, Duke Energy declared a taxable dividend of historical foreign earnings in ownershipthe form of Progressnotes payable that will result in the repatriation of approximately $2.7 billion of cash held and expected to be generated by International Energy includingover a period of up to eight years. The cash will help support the Merger, can impactdividend and growth in the timinginvestment portfolio of the utilizationdomestic businesses.
Growth Initiatives. In 2014, Duke Energy announced new growth initiatives representing a total investment of tax credit carry forwardsapproximately $8 billion. These initiatives include:
Duke Energy Indiana proposed transmission and net operating loss carry forwards (See Note 15)distribution infrastructure improvement totaling $1.9 billion.
Duke Energy Florida proposed approximately $1.8 billion investment in three new generation projects, a combined-cycle plant in Citrus County, an uprate plan at the Hines Energy Complex (Hines) facility and acquisition of the Osprey plant from Calpine Corporation (Calpine).
Duke Energy Progress proposed the acquisition of North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency's (NCEMPA) ownership interest in some of Duke Energy Progress’s existing nuclear and coal generation and the acquisition of solar projects in eastern North Carolinas for a total amount of approximately $1.2 billion.
The companies are targetingDuke Energy Carolinas proposed construction of a combined-cycle natural gas plant at the William States Lee generation facility at a cost of approximately $600 million.
Commercial Power proposed construction of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline for a total investment of approximately $2 billion
Operational Excellence of the Nuclear Fleet. Duke Energy’s nuclear fleet set a company record for total electricity production and demonstrated a combined capacity factor at approximately 93 percent, the 16th consecutive year above 90 percent on this plant reliability measure.
Deliver Merger Benefits. Duke Energy continues to close during 2012. Untilfocus on realizing benefits of the Merger has received all necessary approvals and has closed, the companies will continue to operate as separate entities. Accordingly, the information presented in this Form 10-K is presented solely for themerger with Progress Registrants on a pre-merger basis.
STRATEGY
ProgressEnergy. Duke Energy is an integrated energy company with two electric utility subsidiaries that operate in regulated retail utility markets in North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida and have accesson-track to competitive wholesale markets inachieve the eastern United States. The Utilities have 23,000 MW$687 million of regulated generation capacity and serve approximately 3.1 million retail electric customers as well as other load-serving entities.
We are committed to pursuing the successful completion of the Merger with Duke Energy. We believe that the Merger will provide substantial strategic and financial benefits to shareholders, customers and most employees. These benefits include increased financial strength and flexibility, joint dispatch fuelguaranteed savings for customers in the Carolinas over five years. After two and a larger, more diversehalf years, Duke Energy Carolinas and better-positioned regulated utility business. We are working to address remaining regulatory conditions while preserving the valueDuke Energy Progress have generated over 60 percent of the Mergerguaranteed fuel and joint dispatch savings. In total 85 percent of the guaranteed benefit has been locked-in or delivered to Duke Energy’s customers in the Carolinas.
Dan River Coal Ash Spill and Other Coal Ash Management. Duke Energy has improved coal ash practices and accelerated plans to close its ash basins. Comprehensive engineering reviews were completed at each of the ash basins, and a central internal organization was formed to manage all coal combustion products. Duke Energy also established an independent national Coal Ash Management Advisory Board to help guide company strategy. Excavation plans have been filed for four high priority sites identified in connection with North Carolina coal ash management enacted in 2014 - Dan River, Asheville, Riverbend, and L.V. Sutton combined cycle facility (Sutton). Excavation plans have also been filed for the W.S. Lee site in South Carolina, and work is progressing on closure plans for the other ten North Carolina sites.
On February 20, 2015, Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Business Services LLC (DEBS), a wholly owned subsidiary of Duke Energy, each entered into a Memorandum of Plea Agreement (Plea Agreements) in connection with an investigation initiated by the USDOJ. The Plea Agreements are subject to the approval of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina and, if approved, will end the grand jury investigation related to the Dan River ash basin release and the management of coal ash basins at 14 plants in North Carolina with coal ash basins.
Under the Plea Agreements, the USDOJ charged DEBS and Duke Energy Progress with four misdemeanor CWA violations related to violations at Duke Energy Progress’ H.F. Lee Steam Electric Plant, Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant and Asheville Steam Electric Generating Plant. The United States Department Of Justice charged Duke Energy Carolinas and DEBS with five misdemeanor Clean Water Act violations related to violations at Duke Energy Carolinas’ Dan River Steam Station and Riverbend Steam Station. DEBS, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress also agreed (i) to a five-year probation period, (ii) to pay a total of approximately $68 million in fines and restitution and $34 million for community service and mitigation (the Payments), and (iii) to establish environmental compliance plans subject to the oversight of a court-appointed monitor paid for by the companies for the duration of the probation period (iii) for Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress each to maintain $250 million under their Master Credit Facility as security to meet their obligations under the Pleas Agreements, in addition to certain other conditions set out in the Plea Agreements. Payments under the Plea Agreements will be borne by shareholders and are not tax deductible. Duke Energy Corporation has agreed to issue a guarantee of all payments and performance due from the Companies, including but not limited to payments for fines, restitution, community service, mitigation and the funding of, and obligations under, the environmental compliance plans. As a result of the Plea Agreements, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress recognized charges of $72 million and $30 million, respectively, in the fourth quarter of 2014. The amounts are recorded in Operation, maintenance and other on the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income.

35


PART II

Duke Energy Objectives - 2015 and Beyond
Duke Energy is committed to creating value and trust, while transforming our energy future. Primary objectives for 2015 are:
Growing and adapting the business and achieving financial objectives, including delivering on the 2015 adjusted diluted earnings per share (EPS) guidance range of $4.55 to $4.75, and advancing viable future growth opportunities for regulated and nonregulated businesses
Excelling in safety, operational performance and environmental stewardship
Developing and engaging employees, while strengthening leadership
Improving the lives of our stakeholders.
We are focused on excelling incustomers and the fundamentalsvitality of our business including safety, operational excellence and customer service; consistently achieving our financial objectives; maintaining constructive relations with regulators, political leaderscommunities
Complete the Sale of the Nonregulated Midwest Generation Business.In January 2015, FERC requested additional information regarding the proposed sale of the nonregulated Midwest Generation business. The parties to the transaction responded to FERC on February 6, 2015, and the general public; as well as focusingcomment period expired on strong leadership that fully engages our workforce for high performance. In additionFebruary 23, 2015. FERC approval is the final regulatory approval required to these fundamentals, we are concentrating onclose the following four focus areas:
·  Achieve effective integration planning and merger approvals
·  Improve the performance of our nuclear fleet
·  Optimize our balanced solution strategy
·  Accelerate Continuous Business Excellence
EFFECTIVE INTEGRATION PLANNING AND MERGER APPROVALS
As more fully discussed in “Merger” we are pursuingtransaction, which is expected by the remaining required regulatory approvals for the Merger and have completed the majority of our merger integration processes. Our integration plans take advantageend of the strengthssecond quarter of both companies2015.
Proceeds from the sale are expected to be deployed to recapitalize Duke Energy in a balanced manner, with a combination of an accelerated share repurchase and reductions in holding company debt. However, this plan could change depending on circumstances at the best practices in the industry. Maintaining constructive relations with regulators, public leaders and the general public is fundamental to our business, which will be critical for obtaining the remaining merger approvals. Until the Merger closes, Progress Energy andtime of closing.
Growth Initiatives. Duke Energy will continue to operatepursue regulatory, state and federal approval of the growth projects. These projects will support long-term adjusted earnings growth of four to six percent and support Duke Energy’s ability to continue providing its customers affordable, reliable energy from an increasingly diverse generation portfolio.
In the Regulated Utilities business, Duke Energy does not anticipate any significant base rate cases through 2017. Growth is expected to be supported by retail and wholesale load growth and significant investments. Duke Energy expects to invest between $4 billion and $5 billion annually in Regulated business growth projects. Many of these projects will be recovered through riders such as two entirely separate companies.
IMPROVE NUCLEAR FLEET PERFORMANCE
We continue to implement a comprehensive, multi-year improvement plan designed to strengthentransmission and aligndistribution expenditures in Indiana and Ohio, as well as the performance of PEC’s nuclear fleet. We are committed to raising our nuclear fleet performance to a consistently high level of safety, reliabilityCrystal River 3 rider in Florida and value. To do that, we have made a number of organizational changes and have intensified our focus on plant operations, outage planning and execution, and continuous improvement. We are also leveraging the expertise and capabilities of our company as a whole to meet these nuclear fleet objectives. We have taken significant remediation steps to improve performance of PEC’s nuclear fleet after a number of unplanned outages in 2010, and the early signs of progress are evidentenergy efficiency riders in the results of 2011 operating statistics.Carolinas. The PEC nuclear fleet setregulated wholesale business is expected to grow in 2015.
The Commercial Power renewables business is a new generation record in 2011 with a capacity factor of 95.2 percent in 2011 compared to 2010’s
56

83.5 percent. The initial implementationsignificant component of the multi-year improvement plan for Robinson was a particular focusDuke Energy growth strategy. Renewable projects enable Duke Energy to respond to customer interest in 2011clean tech while increasing diversity in the generation portfolio. The portfolio of wind and resulted in higher O&M expense, as discussed in “Results of Operations.” We anticipate a lesser impact on O&M in subsequent years as we continue implementation of the improvement plan.
We are continuing in our process to resolve the extended outage of CR3. We have taken appropriate actions to maintain the unit’s containment in a safe condition throughout the course of the outage. Through the first quarter of 2012, we expectsolar is expected to continue analyzinggrowing as between $1 billion and refining information$2 billion is deployed over the next three years .Additionally, investments in the Atlantic Coast pipeline adds approximately $1 billion of capital spending through 2017.
Continue the Coal Ash Management Strategy. In December 2014, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) related to coal combustion residuals (CCR) associated with the generation of electricity from coal. The rules classify coal ash as non-hazardous waste and provide guidelines related to the engineering, costdisposal of coal ash. Duke Energy will continue the compliance strategy with the North Carolina Coal Ash Management Act of 2014 (Coal Ash Act) and schedulecomplete an evaluation of the provisions for the repair of CR3. We are continuingthis rule. Duke Energy will update ash management plans to workcomply with our insurersall state and federal regulations and state regulators. Additional developments with respect to the conditionbegin excavation or other compliance work once plans and permits are approved.
Results of the CR3 structures, costs that are greater than anticipated, recoverability that is less than anticipated, and/or the inability to return CR3 to service could all adversely affect our financial results and liquidity. As discussed in “Matters Impacting Future Results and Liquidity,” the FPSC has approved a comprehensive settlement agreement between PEF and consumer advocates in Florida that addresses recovery of CR3 replacement power and repair costs.
BALANCED SOLUTION STRATEGY
Our three-pronged balanced solution strategy seeks to meet future customer needs and evolving public policy in a way that creates long-term value for our customers and shareholders. Through a combination of investments and initiatives in energy efficiency, alternative and renewable energy and a state-of-the-art power system, we are addressing the challenge facing our industry of meeting demand and new environmental regulations while controlling costs. Expenditures to achieve our balanced solution are anticipated to be recoverable under base rates or cost-recovery mechanisms implemented in our state jurisdictions.
First, our DSM, EE and energy-conservation programs provide customers with incentives for efficiency improvements and include customer education and outreach efforts. In addition, we are a leader in the utility industry in promoting and preparing for plug-in electric vehicles. We operate a research fleet of plug-in vehicles; maintain partnerships with plug-in vehicle automakers including General Motors, Nissan and Ford; and are participating in a number of demonstration and research programs involving plug-in vehicles and the associated charging stations, including solar-powered charging stations.
Second, we are actively engaged in a variety of alternative energy projects. We have executed contracts to purchase approximately 380 MW of electricity generated from solar, biomass and municipal solid waste sources. The majority of these projects should be online within the next five years. While this currently represents a small percentage of our total capacity, we will continue to pursue additional contracts for these and other alternative energy sources. PEC is on track to meet the first of the targets set under North Carolina’s renewable energy portfolio standard, 3 percent of retail electric sales in 2012.
Third, we are pursuing numerous options for a state-of-the-art power system. Our objective is to have a diverse, flexible generation portfolio that enables us to provide reliable, affordable power with a smaller environmental footprint. Fleet modernization and a substantial smart grid program will help us meet this objective. We are also keeping our options open to build advanced nuclear plants.
We have made significant progress in the coal-to-gas fleet transition we announced in 2009. Our initial plans were to retire 11 North Carolina coal units that do not have scrubbers by no later than the end of 2017. These smaller, aging units represent approximately 30 percent (or 1,500 MW) of our North Carolina fleet. In 2011, we accelerated the final closure timetable to 2013 and retired the first of the units. To replace the coal-fired generation to be retired, we placed a 600-MW combined-cycle plant in service in mid-2011 and have broken ground on two other plants, which are projected to begin service in 2013. Of our approximately 7,500 MW of coal-fired generation, we have scrubbed and installed emission control equipment on almost 5,000 MW in the Carolinas and Florida at an investment of over $2 billion. As a result of the installation of environmental controls and the retirement of unscrubbed coal-fired plants, our emissions profile will be significantly reduced while strengthening our fuel diversification. We believe that these actions will help address growing environmental constraints on coal-fired generation and take advantage of favorable prices for U.S. natural gas as well as improvements in combined-cycle technology.
We are making a significant investment in smart grid technology with initiatives partially funded by $200 million of federal matching infrastructure funds. Reimbursements totaling $89 million have been received to date.
57

New nuclear generation is a vital long-term part of our balanced solution strategy. While we have not made a final determination on nuclear construction, we have taken steps to keep open the option of building one or more plants. The Utilities have each filed a COL application with the NRC for two additional reactors each at Harris and at Levy. We have focused on Levy given the need for more fuel diversity in Florida and anticipated federal and state policies to reduce GHG emissions, as well as existing state legislative policy that is supportive of nuclear projects. During 2011, the NRC approved the reactor design selected for Levy and Harris, and a decision on the Levy COL is expected in 2013. Once we have received the COL, we will assess the project and determine the schedule. As discussed in “Matters Impacting Future Results and Liquidity,” PEF’s comprehensive settlement agreement addresses recovery of Levy costs through 2017.
We are preparing for an energy future that includes, among other things, carbon reductions and emerging technologies such as smart grid and plug-in electric vehicles. We believe that our balanced solution strategy provides an effective, flexible framework that will prepare us for this new energy future.
CONTINUOUS BUSINESS EXCELLENCE
For the past several years, we have been applying a continuous improvement framework to our operations through our Continuous Business Excellence initiative. Through a disciplined approach to identifying and eliminating waste and continuously improving our business, we are developing sustainable process improvements. In addition, we have been applying the “Lean” process to our operations (Lean is a set of principles, tools and techniques for improving the operating performance of any business). In addition to the improvement events held across our company during 2011, we are applying Lean principles to our merger integration activities discussed above.
MATTERS IMPACTING FUTURE RESULTS AND LIQUIDITY
Our future financial results and liquidity can be impacted by a number of factors, as more fully discussed in Item 1, “Business,” and Item 1A, “Risk Factors.” Declines in demand for electricity can result from economic downturns as well as unseasonable weather. The Utilities are subject to regulation on the federal and state level. Changes in laws and regulation as well as changes in federal administrative policy are ongoing and the ultimate costs of compliance cannot be precisely estimated. Such changes could have an adverse impact on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows, particularly if the costs of those changes are not fully recoverable from our ratepayers.
As more fully discussed in Note 8C, the FPSC has approved a comprehensive settlement agreement between PEF and consumer advocates in Florida that provides customers a refund of $288 million, removes CR3 from base rates while we continue to analyze options for the plant, limits the costs customers will be charged through 2017 for Levy and allows for base rates to adjust in 2013. The settlement agreement will take effect with the first billing cycle of January 2013. When all the agreement provisions are factored in, the estimated 2013 total increase for the average PEF residential bill is approximately $4.93 per 1,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh), or 4 percent, over current rates. The total PEF customer bill for 2013 and beyond will change as the cost-recovery clause components of the customer bills change. Those expenses are filed and reviewed with the FPSC each year, separate from the base rate.
Despite the recent court-ordered stay of a new air pollution regulation that was slated to go into effect in 2012, we continue to work to lessen the environmental impact of our power plants through our balanced solution strategy. We expect environmental regulations to continue to evolve, including those regarding water quality and the reduction of emissions from coal-fired plants. Compliance is anticipated to require significant capital expenditures that could impact our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. However, we anticipate that such costs would be eligible for regulatory recovery through either base rates or cost-recovery clauses.
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Operations
In this section, we provideDuke Energy provides analysis and discussion of earnings and the factors affecting earnings on both a GAAP and non-GAAP basis. We introduce our
Management evaluates financial performance in part based on the non-GAAP financial measures, adjusted earnings and adjusted diluted EPS. These items are measured as income from continuing operations net of income (loss) attributable to noncontrolling interests, adjusted for the dollar and per share impact of mark-to-market impacts of economic hedges in the Commercial Power segment and special items including the operating results of the Disposal Group classified as discontinued operations for GAAP purposes. Special items represent certain charges and credits, which management believes will not be recurring on a regular basis, although it is reasonably possible such charges and credits could recur. As result of the agreement in August 2014 to sell the Disposal Group to Dynegy, the operating results of the Disposal Group are classified as discontinued operations, including a portion of the mark-to-market adjustments associated with derivative contracts. Management believes that including the operating results of the Disposal Group classified as discontinued operations better reflects its financial performance and therefore has included these results in adjusted earnings and adjusted diluted EPS. Derivative contracts are used in Duke Energy’s hedging of a portion of the economic value of its generation assets in the Commercial Power segment. The mark-to-market impact of derivative contracts is recognized in GAAP earnings immediately and, if associated with the Disposal Group, classified as discontinued operations, as such derivative contracts do not qualify for hedge accounting or regulatory treatment. The economic value of generation assets is subject to fluctuations in fair value due to market price volatility of input and output commodities (e.g., coal, electricity, natural gas). Economic hedging involves both purchases and sales of those input and output commodities related to generation assets. Operations of the generation assets are accounted for under the accrual method. Management believes excluding impacts of mark-to-market changes of the derivative contracts from adjusted earnings until settlement better matches the financial impacts of the derivative contract with the portion of economic value of the underlying hedged asset. Management believes the presentation of adjusted earnings and adjusted diluted EPS provides useful information to investors, as it provides them an overview section followed byadditional relevant comparison of Duke Energy’s performance across periods. Management uses these non-GAAP financial measures for planning and forecasting and for reporting results to the Duke Energy Board of Directors (Board of Directors), employees, shareholders, analysts and investors concerning Duke Energy’s financial performance. Adjusted diluted EPS is also used as a more detailed analysisbasis for employee incentive bonuses. The most directly comparable GAAP measures for adjusted earnings and discussion by businessadjusted diluted EPS are Net Income Attributable to Duke Energy Corporation and Diluted EPS Attributable to Duke Energy Corporation common shareholders, which include the dollar and per share impact of special items, mark-to-market impacts of economic hedges in the Commercial Power segment and discontinued operations.

36


PART II

Management evaluates segment performance based on segment income. Segment income is defined as income from continuing operations net of income (loss) attributable to noncontrolling interests. Segment income, as discussed below, includes intercompany revenues and expenses that are eliminated in the Consolidated Financial Statements. Management also uses adjusted segment income as a measure of historical and anticipated future segment performance. Adjusted segment income is a non-GAAP financial measure, as it is based upon segment income adjusted for the mark-to-market impacts of economic hedges in the Commercial Power segment and special items. Management believes the presentation of adjusted segment income as presented provides useful information to investors, as it provides them with an additional relevant comparison of a segment’s performance across periods. The most directly comparable GAAP measure for adjusted segment income is segment income, which represents segment income from continuing operations, including any special items and the mark-to-market impacts of economic hedges in the Commercial Power segment.
We compute our non-GAAP financial measurement “Ongoing Earnings” as GAAP netDuke Energy’s adjusted earnings, adjusted diluted EPS, and adjusted segment income attributable to controlling interests less discontinued operations and the effects of certain identified gains and charges, which are considered Ongoing Earnings adjustments. Some of the excluded gains and charges have occurred in more than one
58

reporting period but are not considered representative of fundamental core earnings. Ongoing Earnings is not a measure calculated in accordance with GAAP, and should be viewed as a supplement to, and not a substitute for, our results of operations presented in accordance with GAAP. Ongoing Earnings as presented here may not be comparable to similarly titled measures used byof another company because other companies.entities may not calculate the measures in the same manner.
See Note 3 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Business Segments,” for a discussion of Duke Energy’s segment structure.
A reconciliation of Ongoing EarningsOverview
The following table reconciles non-GAAP measures to the most directly comparable GAAP net income attributable to controlling interests follows:measure.
  Year Ended December 31, 2014
(in millions, except per share amounts)
Regulated
Utilities

 
International
Energy

 
Commercial
Power

 
Total Reportable
Segments

 Other
 Eliminations/ Discontinued Operations
 Duke Energy
 
Per
Diluted
Share

Adjusted segment income/Adjusted earnings$2,897
 $428
 $109
 $3,434
 $(216) $
 $3,218
 $4.55
International tax adjustment
 (373) 
 $(373) 
 
 (373) (0.53)
Costs to achieve Progress Energy merger
 
 
 
 (127) 
 (127) (0.18)
Midwest generation operations
 
 (114) (114) 
 114
 
 
Coal ash Plea Agreements reserve(102) 
 
 (102) 
 
 (102) (0.14)
Asset impairment
 
 (59) (59) 
 
 (59) (0.08)
Asset sales
 
 
 
 9
 
 9
 0.01
Economic hedges (mark-to-market)
 
 (6) (6) 
 
 (6) (0.01)
Discontinued operations
 
 15
 15
 
 (692) (677) (0.96)
Segment income (loss)/Net Income Attributable to Duke Energy Corporation$2,795
 $55
 $(55) $2,795
 $(334) $(578) $1,883
 $2.66
                
 (in millions except per share data)
 PEC  PEF  
Corporate
and Other
  Total  Per Share 
 Year ended December 31, 2011
               
 Ongoing Earnings
 $541  $530  $(200) $871  $2.95 
 Impairment, net of tax(a)
  (2)  -   -   (2)  (0.01)
 Plant retirement charge, net of tax(a)
  (1)  -   -   (1)  - 
 CVO mark-to-market, net of tax(a)
  -   -   (45)  (45)  (0.16)
 Merger and integration costs, net of tax(a)
  (25)  (21)  -   (46)  (0.16)
 CR3 indemnification charge, net of tax(a)
  -   (20)  -   (20)  (0.06)
 Amount to be refunded to customers, net of tax(b)
  -   (177)  -   (177)  (0.60)
 Discontinued operations attributable to
  controlling interests, net of tax
  -   -   (5)  (5)  (0.02)
 Net income (loss) attributable to
  controlling interests(c)
 $513  $312  $(250) $575  $1.94 
                     
 Year ended December 31, 2010
                    
 Ongoing Earnings
 $618  $462  $(191) $889  $3.06 
 Impairment, net of tax(a)
  (5)  (1)  -   (6)  (0.02)
 Plant retirement charge, net of tax(a)
  (1)  -   -   (1)  - 
 Change in the tax treatment of the Medicare
  Part D subsidy
  (12)  (10)  -   (22)  (0.08)
 Discontinued operations attributable to
  controlling interests, net of tax
  -   -   (4)  (4)  (0.01)
 Net income (loss) attributable to
  controlling interests(c)
 $600  $451  $(195) $856  $2.95 
  
                    
 Year ended December 31, 2009
                    
 Ongoing Earnings
 $540  $460  $(154) $846  $3.03 
 Impairment, net of tax(a)
  -   -   (2)  (2)  (0.01)
 Plant retirement charge, net of tax(a)
  (17)  -   -   (17)  (0.06)
 CVO mark-to-market
  -   -   19   19   0.07 
 Cumulative prior period adjustment related
  to certain employee life insurance benefits, net
  of tax(a)
  (10)  -   -   (10)  (0.04)
 Discontinued operations attributable to
  controlling interests, net of tax
  -   -   (79)  (79)  (0.28)
 Net income (loss) attributable to
  controlling interests(c)
 $513  $460  $(216) $757  $2.71 
(a)Calculated using assumed tax rate of 40 percent to the extent items are tax deductible.
(b)Calculated using PEF's statutory tax rate of 38.6 percent.
(c)Net income attributable to controlling interests is shown net of preferred stock dividend requirement of $3 million and $2 million at PEC and PEF, respectively.
Management uses the non-GAAP financial measure Ongoing Earnings (i) as a measure of operating performance to assist in comparing performance from period to period on a consistent basis and to readily view operating trends; (ii)
  Year Ended December 31, 2013
(in millions, except per share amounts)
Regulated
Utilities

 
International
Energy

 
Commercial
Power

 
Total Reportable
Segments

 Other
 Eliminations/ Discontinued Operations
 Duke Energy
 
Per
Diluted
Share

Adjusted segment income/Adjusted earnings$2,776
 $408
 $15
 $3,199
 $(119) $
 $3,080
 $4.36
Crystal River Unit 3 charges(215) 
 
 (215) 
 
 (215) (0.31)
Costs to achieve Progress Energy merger
 
 
 
 (184) 
 (184) (0.26)
Midwest generation operations
 
 (88) (88) 14
 74
 
 
Nuclear development charges(57) 
 
 (57) 
 
 (57) (0.08)
Litigation reserve
 
 
 
 (14) 
 (14) (0.02)
Asset sales
 
 (15) (15) 65
 
 50
 0.07
Discontinued operations
 
 
 
 
 5
 5
 
Segment income (loss)/Net Income Attributable to Duke Energy Corporation$2,504
 $408
 $(88) $2,824
 $(238) $79
 $2,665

$3.76
  Year Ended December 31, 2012
(in millions, except per share amounts)
Regulated
Utilities

 
International
Energy

 
Commercial
Power

 
Total Reportable
Segments

 Other
 Eliminations/ Discontinued Operations
 Duke Energy
 
Per
Diluted
Share

Adjusted segment income/Adjusted earnings$2,086
 $439
 $93
 $2,618
 $(129) $
 $2,489
 $4.33
Edwardsport impairment and other charges(402) 
 
 (402) 
 
 (402) (0.70)
Costs to achieve Progress Energy merger
 
 
 
 (397) 
 (397) (0.70)
Midwest generation operations
 
 (149) (149) 9
 140
 
 
Economic hedges (mark-to-market)
 
 (3) (3) 
 
 (3) (0.01)
Democratic National Convention Host Committee support
 
 
 
 (6) 
 (6) (0.01)
Employee severance and office consolidation60
 
 
 60
 
 
 60
 0.11
Discontinued operations
 
 
 
 
 27
 27
 0.05
Segment income (loss)/Net Income Attributable to Duke Energy Corporation$1,744
 $439
 $(59) $2,124
 $(523) $167
 $1,768

$3.07

59
37



PART II

as a measure for planning and forecasting overall expectations and for evaluating actual results against such expectations; (iii) as a measure for determining levels of incentive compensation; and (iv)The variance in communications with our board of directors, employees, shareholders, analysts and investors concerning our financial performance. Management believes this non-GAAP measure is appropriateadjusted earnings for understanding the business and assessing our potential future performance, because excluded items are limited to those that management believes are not representative of our fundamental core earnings (See Note 20).
OVERVIEW
FOR 2011 AS COMPARED TO 2010 and 2010 AS COMPARED TO 2009
For the year ended December 31, 2011, our net income attributable to controlling interests was $575 million, or $1.94 per share,2014, compared to net income attributable to controlling interests of $856 million, or $2.95 per share, for the same period in 2010. The decrease as compared to prior year2013, was primarily due to:
Increased retail pricing and riders primarily resulting from the implementation of revised rates in most jurisdictions;
·  the charge recorded for the amount to be refunded to customers through the fuel clause in accordance with PEF’s 2012 settlement agreement (Ongoing Earnings adjustment);
Favorable weather in 2014 compared to 2013;
·  less favorable impact of weather at the Utilities;
Higher PJM capacity revenues for the nonregulated Midwest generation business due to higher prices; and
·  loss recorded due to mark-to-market change in fair value of contingent value obligations (CVOs) (Ongoing Earnings adjustment) and
·  lower wholesale base revenues at the Utilities.

Higher results of the renewables business due to higher production from the wind and solar portfolios, lower costs and additional renewables investments.
Partially offsetting these items was:offset by:
·  lowerHigher depreciation and amortization expense recoverable through base rates in accordance with PEF's 2010 settlement agreement.

For the year ended December 31, 2010, our net income attributable to controlling interests was $856 million, or $2.95 per share, compared to net income attributable to controlling interests of $757 million, or $2.71 per share, for the same period in 2009. The increase as compared to prior year was primarily due to:
·  favorable weather at the Utilities and
·  lower loss from discontinued non-utility businesses (Ongoing Earnings adjustment).

Partially offsetting these items was:
·  higher O&M expenses at the Utilities.

PROGRESS ENERGY CAROLINAS
PEC contributed net income available to parent totaling $513 million, $600 million and $513 million in 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. The decrease in net income available to parent for 2011 as compared to 2010 was primarily due to the less favorable impact of weather and merger and integration costs. The increase in net income available to parent for 2010 as compared to 2009 was primarily due to the favorable impact of weather, favorable allowance for funds used during construction (AFUDC) equity and favorable retail customer growth and usage, partially offset by higher O&M expenses.
PEC contributed Ongoing Earnings of $541 million, $618 million and $540 million for 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. The 2011 Ongoing Earnings adjustments to net income available to parent were a $25 million charge, net of tax, for merger and integration costs, a $2 million impairment of certain miscellaneous investments, net of tax, and a $1 million plant retirement charge, net of tax, related to PEC’s decision to retire certain coal-fired generating units prior to the end of their estimated useful lives. The 2010 Ongoing Earnings adjustments to net income available to parent were a $12 million charge for the change in the tax treatment of the Medicare Part D subsidy, a $5 million impairment of certain miscellaneous investments and other assets, net of tax, and a $1 million plant retirement charge, net of tax. The 2009 Ongoing Earnings adjustments to net income available to parent were a $17 million plant retirement charge, net of tax, and recording a $10 million charge, net of tax, for a cumulative prior
60

period adjustment related to certain employee life insurance benefits. Management does not consider these items to be representative of PEC’s fundamental core earnings and excluded these items in computing PEC’s Ongoing Earnings.
REVENUES
The revenue tables that follow present the total amount and percentage change of total operating revenues and its components. “Base Revenues" is a non-GAAP measure and is defined as operating revenues excluding clause-recoverable regulatory returns, miscellaneous revenues, fuel and other pass-through revenues and refunds, if any. We and PEC consider Base Revenues a useful measure to evaluate PEC’s electric operations because fuel and other pass-through revenues primarily represent the recovery of fuel, applicable portions of purchased power expenses and other pass-through expenses through cost-recovery clauses and, therefore, do not have a material impact on earnings. PEC’s clause-recoverable regulatory returns include renewable energy clause revenues and the return on asset component of DSM and EE. The reconciliation and analysis that follows is a complement to the financial information provided in accordance with GAAP.
A reconciliation of PEC’s Base Revenues to GAAP operating revenues, including the percentage change by customer class and by year, follows:
               
(in millions)        
Customer Class 2011   % Change  2010   % Change  2009 
Residential$ 1,185    (4.6) $ 1,242    10.1  $ 1,128 
Commercial  712    (1.9)   726    2.7    707 
Industrial  365    -    365    2.5    356 
Governmental  65    -    65    10.2    59 
Unbilled  (34)  NM   10   NM   5 
Total retail base revenues  2,293    (4.8)   2,408    6.8    2,255 
Wholesale base revenues  285    (6.6)   305    (1.0)   308 
Total Base Revenues  2,578    (5.0)   2,713    5.9    2,563 
Clause-recoverable regulatory returns  31    138.5    13    44.4    9 
Miscellaneous  129    (6.5)   138    21.1    114 
Fuel and other pass-through revenues  1,790   NM   2,058   NM   1,941 
Total operating revenues$ 4,528    (8.0) $ 4,922    6.4  $ 4,627 
NM - not meaningful
PEC’s total Base Revenues were $2.578 billion and $2.713 billion for 2011 and 2010, respectively. The $135 million decrease in Base Revenues was due primarily to the $107 million unfavorable impact of weather and $20 million lower wholesale base revenues. The unfavorable impact of weather was driven by 20 percent lower heating-degree days and 5 percent lower cooling-degree days than 2010. Cooling-degree days were 19 percent higher than normal and heating-degree days were 9 percent lower than normal in 2011. See “Seasonality and the Impact of Weather” in Item 1, “Business,” for a summary of degree days and weather estimation. The lower wholesale base revenues was primarily due to the $15 million impact of lower demand driven by the unfavorable impact of weather and the $7 million impact of a contract that expired in early 2011.
PEC’s clause-recoverable regulatory returns increased $18 million in 2011 primarily due to recovery of increased spending on DSM programs.
PEC’s total Base Revenues were $2.713 billion and $2.563 billion for 2010 and 2009, respectively. The $150 million increase in Base Revenues was due primarily to the $115 million favorable impact of weather and the $36 million favorable impact of retail customer growth and usage. The favorable impact of weather was driven by 15 percent higher heating-degree days and 24 percent higher cooling-degree days than 2009. Additionally, cooling degree-days were 30 percent higher and heating degree-days were 14 percent higher than normal. The favorable impact of retail customer growth and usage was driven by an increase in the average usage per retail customer and a net 10,000 increase in the average number of customers for 2010 compared to 2009.
61

PEC’s miscellaneous revenues increased $24 million in 2010, which includes $10 million higher transmission revenues driven by higher rates resulting from transmission asset additions.
PEC’s electric energy sales in kWh and the percentage change by customer class and by year were as follows:
                
(in millions of kWh)               
Customer Class 2011  % Change  2010  % Change  2009 
Residential  18,148   (5.0)  19,108   11.6   17,117 
Commercial  13,844   (2.4)  14,184   4.0   13,639 
Industrial  10,613   (0.5)  10,665   2.9   10,368 
Governmental  1,610   2.3   1,574   5.1   1,497 
Unbilled  (597) NM   172  NM   360 
Total retail kWh sales  43,618   (4.6)  45,703   6.3   42,981 
Wholesale  12,605   (10.0)  13,999   0.2   13,966 
Total kWh sales  56,223   (5.8)  59,702   4.8   56,947 
The decrease in retail kWh sales in 2011 was primarily due to unfavorable impact of weather, as previously discussed.
The decrease in wholesale kWh sales in 2011 was primarily due to unfavorable impact of weather, as previously discussed, and a contract that expired in early 2011.
The increase in retail kWh sales in 2010 was primarily due to favorable weather, as previously discussed.
EXPENSES
Fuel and Purchased Power
Fuel and purchased power costs represent the costs of generation, which include fuel purchases for generation and energy purchased in the market to meet customer load. Fuel and a portion of purchased power expenses are recovered primarily through cost-recovery clauses, and as such, changes in these expenses do not have a material impact on earnings. The difference between fuel and purchased power costs incurred and associated fuel revenues that are subject to recovery is deferred for future collection from or refund to customers and is recorded as deferred fuel expense, which is included in fuel used in electric generation on the Consolidated Statements of Income.
Fuel and purchased power expenses were $1.702 billion for 2011, which represents a $286 million decrease compared to 2010. This decrease was primarily due to the $169 million impact of lower fuel rates and the $112 million impact of lower system requirements resulting from the unfavorable impact of weather compared to 2010. See “Electric Utility Regulated Operating Statistics – PEC” in Item 1, “Business,” for a summary of average fuel costs.
Fuel and purchased power expenses were $1.988 billion for 2010, which represents a $79 million increase compared to 2009. This increase was primarily due to the $324 million impact of higher system requirements resulting from favorable weather and the impact of nuclear plant outages on PEC’s generation mix, partially offset by $151 million decreased fuel costs in 2010 driven by lower coal and gas prices and $104 million lower deferred fuel expense. The decrease in deferred fuel expense was primarily due to higher fuel and purchased power expenses and lower fuel rates in North Carolina.
Operation and Maintenance
O&M expense was $1.182 billion for 2011, which represents a $24 million increase compared to 2010. This increase was primarily due to $48 million higher nuclear plant O&M costs, $41 million of merger and integration costs, $23 million higher storm costs, $12 million higher fossil generation outage and maintenance costs, $7 million higher vegetation management expense, and a $6 million prior-year nuclear insurance refund, partially offset by $91 million lower nuclear plant outage costs, the $27 million noncapital portion of a judgment from spent fuel litigation (See Note 22D) and the $2 million prior-year impairment of other assets. The higher nuclear plant O&M costs are
62

primarily due to increased spending to improve the performance of Robinson and higher spent fuel storage costs in 2011 as compared to 2010. The lower nuclear plant outage costs are primarily due to two nuclear refueling and maintenance outages in 2011 compared to three in 2010. There were $2 million and $1 million of coal plant retirement charges recognized in 2011 and 2010, respectively. Management does not consider merger and integration costs, impairments and charges recognized for the retirement of generating units prior to the end of their estimated useful lives to be representative of PEC’s fundamental core earnings. Therefore, the impacts of these items are excluded in computing PEC’s Ongoing Earnings. Certain O&M expenses such as the cost of reagents for emission control equipment and wheeling charges are recoverable through cost-recovery clauses. In aggregate, O&M expenses primarily recoverable through base rates increased $15 million compared to the same period in 2010.
O&M expense was $1.158 billion for 2010, which represents an $86 million increase compared to 2009. This increase was primarily due to $78 million higher nuclear plant outage and maintenance costs, $11 million higher employee benefits expense driven by revised actuarial estimates, $7 million higher emission expense primarily due to sales of NOx emission allowances in the prior year and the $2 million impairment of other assets, partially offset by $27 million lower coal plant retirement charges. The higher nuclear plant outage and maintenance costs are primarily due to three nuclear refueling and maintenance outages in 2010 compared to two in 2009 as well as extended outages and more emergent work in 2010 as compared to 2009. As previously discussed, management does not consider impairments and charges recognized for the retirement of generating units prior to the end of their estimated useful lives to be representative of PEC’s fundamental core earnings. Therefore, the impacts of these items are excluded in computing PEC’s Ongoing Earnings. Also, as previously discussed, certain O&M expenses are recoverable through cost-recovery clauses. In aggregate, O&M expenses primarily recoverable through base rates increased $69 million compared to the same period in 2009.
Depreciation, Amortization and Accretion
Depreciation, amortization and accretion expense was $514 million, $479 million and $470 million for 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. The $35 million increase in 2011 was primarily due to higher depreciable asset base and lower reductions to cost of removal reserves;
Higher operations and maintenance expense due to higher storm costs, the timing of fossil plant outages and the impact of nuclear outage cost levelization;
Lower post in-service debt returns due to projects added to customer rates; and
Higher property and other non-income taxes.
The variance in adjusted earnings for the year ended December 31, 2013, compared to 2012, was primarily due to:
The inclusion of Progress Energy results for the first six months of 2013;
Increased retail pricing and riders resulting primarily from the implementation of revised rates in all jurisdictions; and
Lower operating and maintenance expense resulting primarily from the adoption of nuclear outage cost levelization in the Carolinas, lower benefit costs and merger synergies.
Partially offsetting these increases was:
Higher depreciation and amortization expense;
Lower AFUDC;
Lower nonregulated Midwest gas generation results; and
Incremental shares issued to complete the Progress Energy merger (impacts per diluted share amounts only).

38


PART II

Segment Results
The remaining information presented in this discussion of results of operations is on a GAAP basis.
Regulated Utilities
  Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)  2014
 2013
 Variance 2014 vs. 2013
 2012
 Variance 2013 vs. 2012
Operating Revenues  $22,271
 $20,910
 $1,361
 $16,080
 $4,830
Operating Expenses  17,026
 16,126
 900
 12,943
 3,183
Gains on Sales of Other Assets and Other, net  4
 7
 (3) 15
 (8)
Operating Income  5,249
 4,791
 458
 3,152
 1,639
Other Income and Expense, net  267
 221
 46
 341
 (120)
Interest Expense  1,093
 986
 107
 806
 180
Income Before Income Taxes  4,423
 4,026
 397
 2,687
 1,339
Income Tax Expense  1,628
 1,522
 106
 941
 581
Less: Income Attributable to Noncontrolling Interest  
 
 
 2
 (2)
Segment Income  $2,795
 $2,504
 $291
 $1,744
 $760
          
Duke Energy Carolinas' GWh sales87,645
 85,790
 1,855
 81,362
 4,428
Duke Energy Progress' GWh sales(a)
62,871
 60,204
 2,667
 58,390
 1,814
Duke Energy Florida GWh sales(b)
38,703
 37,974
 729
 38,443
 (469)
Duke Energy Ohio GWh sales  24,735
 24,557
 178
 24,344
 213
Duke Energy Indiana GWh sales  33,433
 33,715
 (282) 33,577
 138
Total Regulated Utilities GWh sales  247,387
 242,240
 5,147

236,116

6,124
Net proportional MW capacity in operation  49,600
 49,607
 (7) 49,654
 (47)
(a)For Duke Energy Progress, 26,634 Gigawatt-hours (GWh) sales for the year ended December 31, 2012, occurred prior to the merger between Duke Energy and Progress Energy.
(b)For Duke Energy Florida, 18,348 GWh sales for the year ended December 31, 2012, occurred prior to the merger between Duke Energy and Progress Energy.
Year Ended December 31, 2014 as Compared to 2013
Regulated Utilities’ results were positively impacted by higher retail pricing and rate riders, favorable weather, an increase in wholesale power margins, higher weather-normal sales volumes, and 2013 impairments and other charges. These impacts were partially offset by higher depreciation and amortization expense, higher operation and maintenance costs, higher interest expense, and higher income tax expense. The following is a detailed discussion of the variance drivers by line item.
Operating Revenues. The variance was driven primarily by:
A $614 million increase in fuel revenues driven primarily by increased demand from electric retail customers resulting from favorable weather conditions, and higher fuel rates for electric retail customers for all jurisdictions, except North Carolina. Fuel revenues represent sales to retail and wholesale customers;
A $556 million net increase in retail pricing primarily due to retail rate changes and updated rate riders;
A $216 million increase in electric sales (net of fuel revenue) to retail customers due to more favorable weather conditions. (i) For the year ended December 31, 2014 in the Carolinas, cooling degree days were 4 percent below normal as compared with 15 percent below normal during the same period in 2013, and heating degree days were 11 percent above normal as compared with 4 percent above normal during the same period in 2013. (ii) For the year ended December 31, 2014 in the Midwest, cooling degree days were 21 percent below normal as compared with 8 percent below normal during the same period in 2013, and heating degree days were 18 percent above normal as compared with 7 percent above normal during the same period in 2013. (iii) For the year ended December 31, 2014 in Florida, cooling degree days were 3 percent below normal as compared with 2 percent above normal during the same period in 2013, and heating degree days were 4 percent above normal as compared with 35 percent below normal during the same period in 2013;
A $63 million increase in wholesale power revenues, net of sharing, primarily due to additional volumes and capacity charges for customers served under long-term contracts; and
A $21 million increase in weather-normal sales volumes to retail customers (net of fuel revenue) reflecting increased demand.
Partially offset by:
A $139 milliondecrease in gross receipts tax revenue due to the NC Tax Simplification and Rate Reduction Act which terminated the collection of the North Carolina gross receipts tax effective July 1, 2014.

39


PART II

Operating Expenses. The variance was driven primarily by:
A $611 million increase in fuel expense (including purchased power and natural gas purchases for resale) primarily related to (i) higher volumes of coal, and oilused in electric generation due primarily to increased generation resulting from favorable weather conditions, (ii) higher natural gasprices, and (iii) the application of the Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (NEIL) settlement proceeds in 2013 for Duke Energy Florida;
A $436 million increase in depreciation and amortization expense primarily due to increases in depreciation as a result of additional plant in service and amortization of regulatory assets, and higher 2013 reductions to cost of removal reserves in accordance with regulatory orders; and
A $292 million increase in operating and maintenance expense primarily due to a litigation reserve related to the criminal investigation of the Dan River coal ash spill (See Note 5 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Commitments and Contingencies,” for additional information), higher storm costs, repairs and remediation expenses associated with the Dan River coal ash discharge and other ash basin related assessment costs, and higher nuclear costs, including nuclear outage levelization costs, and higher environmental and operational costs that are recoverable in rates; partially offset by a 2013 Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Station (Crystal River Unit 3) related settlement matter, decreased benefits costsand 2013 donations for low-income customers and job training in accordance with 2013 North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC) and Public Service Commission of South Carolina (PSCSC) rate case orders.
Partially offset by:
A $346 million decrease due to the 2013 impairment and other charges primarily related to Crystal River Unit 3 and the proposed Levy Nuclear Station (Levy). See Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters,” for additional information;
A $42 million decrease in property and other taxes primarily due to the termination of the collection of the North Carolina gross receipts tax as mentioned above; partially offset by a sales tax reserve as a result of an Indiana sales tax audit, and higher property taxes; and
A $22 million decrease due to the 2013 impairment resulting from the decision to suspend the application for two proposed nuclear units at Shearon Harris Nuclear Station (Harris).
Other Income and Expenses, net. The varianceis primarily due to recognition of post in-service equity returns for projects that had been completed prior to being reflected in customer rates, partially offset by lower AFUDC – equity, primarily due to placing the newly constructed combined-cycle unit at the Smith Energy ComplexSutton plant into service in mid-2011.late 2013.
Other
Other operating expense was $34 million for 2011, which represents a $26 million increase compared to 2010.Interest Expense. The $34 million expense in 2011 variancewas primarily due to no longer recording post in-service debt returns on projects now reflected in customer ratesand a reduction in debt return on the $28 million retail disallowance of replacement power costs resulting from the prior-year performance of nuclear plants (See Note 8B). Crystal River 3 regulatory asset now recovered through fuel revenues.
Income Tax Expense. The $8 million expense in 2010variance was primarily due to the $7 million impairmenthigher pretax income and partially offset by a lower effective tax rate of certain miscellaneous investments. Management does not consider impairments to be representative of PEC’s fundamental core earnings. Therefore, the impacts of impairments are excluded in computing PEC’s Ongoing Earnings.
Total Other Income, Net
Total other income, net was $71 million for 2011, which represents a $4 million increase36.8 percent compared to 2010. This increase was37.8 percent, respectively, for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013. The decrease in effective tax rate is primarily due to favorable AFUDC equity of $7 million resulting from increased construction project costs,audit settlements, a higher manufacturing deduction due to prior year limitations based on taxable income, and changes in income apportionment for state income tax, partially offset by $4 millionthe non-deductible litigation reserve related to the criminal investigation of the Dan River coal ash spill.
Year Ended December 31, 2013 as Compared to 2012
Regulated Utilities’ results were positively impacted by 2012 impairment and other charges related to the Edwardsport Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plant, higher retail pricing and rate riders, the inclusion of certain miscellaneous investments. Management does not consider impairments to be representativeProgress Energy results for the first six months of PEC’s fundamental core earnings. Therefore,2013, a net increase in wholesale power revenues, and higher weather-normal sales volumes. These impacts were partially offset by higher income tax expense, Crystal River Unit 3 charges, lower AFUDC – equity and higher depreciation and amortization expense. The following is a detailed discussion of the impacts of impairments are excluded in computing PEC’s Ongoing Earnings.variance drivers by line item.
Operating Revenues. The variance was driven primarily by:
Total other income, net was $67 million for 2010, which represents a $47A $4,339 million increase compareddue to 2009. Thisthe inclusion of Progress Energy for the first six months of 2013,
A $434 million net increase wasin retail pricing primarily due to favorable AFUDC equityrevised rates approved in all jurisdictions;
A $76 million net increase in wholesale power revenues, net of $31sharing, primarily due to additional volumes and charges for capacity for customers served under long-term contracts; and
A $72 million resulting fromincrease in weather-normal sales volumes to retail customers (net of fuel revenue) reflecting increased construction project costs and a $16 million cumulative prior period adjustment charge recorded in 2009 related to certain employee life insurance benefits. The prior period adjustment was not material to 2009 or previously issued financial statements. Management determined that the adjustment should be excluded in computing PEC’s Ongoing Earnings.demand.
Partially offset by:
Income Tax Expense
Income tax expense was $256 million, $350 million and $277 million in 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. The $94A $132 million decrease in 2011 comparedfuel revenues (including emission allowances) driven primarily by (i) the impact of lower Florida residential fuel rates, including amortization associated with the settlement agreement approved by the Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC) in 2012 (2012 Settlement), (ii) lower fuel rates for electric retail customers in the Carolinas, Florida and Ohio, and (iii) lower revenues for purchased power, partially offset by (iv) increased demand from electric retail customers. Fuel revenues represent sales to 2010retail and wholesale customers.
Operating Expenses. The variance was driven primarily by:
A $3,393 million increase due to the $72inclusion of Progress Energy for the first six months of 2013,
A $346 million impact of lower pre-tax income and
63

the $12 million prior-year impact of the change in the tax treatment of the Medicare Part D subsidy resulting from federal health care reform enacted in 2010 (See Note 17). The $73 million income tax expense increase in 2010 comparedimpairment and other charges in 2013 primarily related to 2009 was primarily due to the $64Crystal River Unit 3 and Levy, and

40


PART II

A $102 million impact of higher pre-tax income and the $12 million impact of the Medicare Part D subsidy previously discussed. Management does not consider the changeincrease in the tax treatment of the Medicare Part D subsidy to be representative of PEC’s fundamental core earnings and, therefore, the amount is excluded in computing PEC’s Ongoing Earnings.
PROGRESS ENERGY FLORIDA
PEF contributed net income available to parent totaling $312 million, $451 million and $460 million in 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. The decrease in net income available to parent for 2011 as compared to 2010 was primarily due to the charge for the amount to be refunded to customers through the fuel clause in accordance with the 2012 settlement agreement and the less favorable impact of weather, partially offset by lower depreciation and amortization expense recoverable through base rates. The decrease in net income available to parent for 2010 compared to 2009 was primarily due to unfavorable AFUDC equity and higher O&M expenses, partially offset by the favorable impact of weather and higher clause-recoverable regulatory returns.
PEF contributed Ongoing Earnings of $530 million, $462 million and $460 million in 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. The 2011 Ongoing Earnings adjustments to net income available to parent were a $177 million charge, net of tax, for the amount to be refunded to customers through the fuel clause, a $21 million charge, net of tax, for merger and integration costs and a $20 million charge, net of tax, for indemnification for the estimated future years’ joint owner replacement power costs for CR3. The 2010 Ongoing Earnings adjustments to net income available to parent were a $10 million charge for the change in the tax treatment of the Medicare part D subsidy and a $1 million impairment of other assets, net of tax. Management does not consider these charges to be representative of PEF’s fundamental core earnings and excluded these charges in computing PEF’s Ongoing Earnings. There were no Ongoing Earnings adjustments in 2009.
REVENUES
The revenue tables that follow present the total amount and percentage change of total operating revenues and its components. “Base Revenues” is a non-GAAP measure and is defined as operating revenues excluding clause-recoverable regulatory returns, miscellaneous revenues, fuel and other pass-through revenues and refunds, if any. We and PEF consider Base Revenues a useful measure to evaluate PEF’s electric operations because fuel and other pass-through revenues primarily represent the recovery of fuel, applicable portions of purchased power and other pass-through expenses through cost-recovery clauses and, therefore, do not have a material impact on earnings. PEF’s clause-recoverable regulatory returns include the revenues associated with the return on asset component of nuclear cost-recovery and environmental cost recovery clause (ECRC) revenues. The reconciliation and analysis that follows is a complement to the financial information we provide in accordance with GAAP.

64

A reconciliation of PEF’s Base Revenues to GAAP operating revenues, including the percentage change by customer class and by year follows:
               
(in millions)        
Customer Class 2011   % Change  2010   % Change  2009 
Residential$ 983    (5.9) $ 1,045    10.5  $ 946 
Commercial  356    (0.8)   359    5.6    340 
Industrial  74    (1.3)   75    4.2    72 
Governmental  90    (2.2)   92    5.7    87 
Unbilled  (24)  NM   17   NM   9 
Total retail base revenues  1,479    (6.9)   1,588    9.2    1,454 
Wholesale base revenues  110    (31.3)   160    (22.7)   207 
Total Base Revenues  1,589    (9.1)   1,748    5.2    1,661 
Clause-recoverable regulatory returns  182    5.2    173    98.9    87 
Miscellaneous  209    (3.2)   216    14.3    189 
Amount to be refunded to customers  (288)  NM   -    -    - 
Fuel and other pass-through revenues  2,677   NM   3,117   NM   3,314 
Total operating revenues$ 4,369    (16.8) $ 5,254    0.1  $ 5,251 
PEF’s total Base Revenues were $1.589 billion and $1.748 billion for 2011 and 2010, respectively. The $159 million decrease in Base Revenues was due primarily to the $112 million unfavorable impact of weather and $50 million lower wholesale base revenues. The unfavorable impact of weather was driven by 61 percent lower heating-degree days than 2010. Additionally, heating-degree days were 12 percent lower than normal. See “Seasonality and the Impact of Weather” in Item 1, “Business,” for a summary of degree days and weather estimation. The lower wholesale base revenues were primarily due to decreased revenues from contracts that expired in 2010.
PEF’s amount to be refunded to customers of $288 million in 2011 represents the refund to customers through the fuel clause in accordance with the 2012 settlement agreement (See Note 8C). PEF will refund $129 million in each of 2013 and 2014, and an additional $10 million annually to residential and small commercial customers in 2014, 2015 and 2016. Management does not consider the amount to be refunded to customers to be representative of PEF’s fundamental core earnings. Therefore, the impact of this item is excluded in computing PEF’s Ongoing Earnings.
PEF’s total Base Revenues were $1.748 billion and $1.661 billion for 2010 and 2009, respectively. The $87 million increase in Base Revenues was due primarily to the $88 million favorable impact of weather and the $50 million impact of increased retail base rates associated with the repowered Bartow Plant, partially offset by $47 million lower wholesale base revenues and the $5 million unfavorable impact of net retail customer growth and usage. The favorable impact of weather was driven by 89 percent higher heating-degree days than 2009. Additionally, heating-degree days were 124 percent higher than normal. The lower wholesale base revenues were primarily due to an amended contract with a major customer. The unfavorable impact of net retail customer growth and usage was driven by a decrease in the average usage per retail customer, partially offset by a net 4,000 increase in the average number of customers for 2010 compared to 2009.
PEF’s clause-recoverable regulatory returns increased $86 million in 2010 primarily due to higher returns on ECRC assets due to placing approximately $1 billion of CAIR projects into service in late 2009 and mid-2010.
PEF’s miscellaneous revenues increased $27 million in 2010 primarily due to $20 million higher transmission revenues driven by favorable weather and $8 million higher right-of-use revenues related to the use of easements and land.
65


PEF’s electric energy sales in kWh and the percentage change by customer class and by year were as follows:
                
(in millions of kWh)               
Customer Class 2011  % Change  2010  % Change  2009 
Residential  19,238   (6.3)  20,524   5.8   19,399 
Commercial  11,892   -   11,896   0.1   11,884 
Industrial  3,243   0.7   3,219   (2.0)  3,285 
Governmental  3,224   (1.9)  3,286   0.9   3,256 
Unbilled  (629) NM   458  NM   131 
Total retail kWh sales  36,968   (6.1)  39,383   3.8   37,955 
Wholesale  2,610   (32.3)  3,857   0.6   3,835 
Total kWh sales  39,578   (8.5)  43,240   3.5   41,790 
The decrease in retail kWh sales in 2011 was primarily due to unfavorable impact of weather, as previously discussed.
Wholesale kWh sales decreased in 2011 primarily due to decreased sales from contracts that expired in 2010.
The increase in retail kWh sales in 2010 was primarily due to the favorable impact of weather as previously discussed.
Wholesale kWh sales increased in 2010 primarily due to the favorable impact of weather, which resulted in increased deliveries under a certain capacity contract that has high demand and low energy charges. Despite the increase in sales, wholesale base revenues decreased primarily due to a contract amendment as previously discussed.
EXPENSES
Fuel and Purchased Power
Fuel and purchased power costs represent the costs of generation, which include fuel purchases for generation and energy purchased in the market to meet customer load. Fuel and a portion of purchased power expenses are recovered primarily through cost-recovery clauses, and as such, changes in these expenses do not have a material impact on earnings. The difference between fuel and purchased power costs incurred and associated fuel revenues that are subject to recovery is deferred for future collection from or refund to customers and is recorded as deferred fuel expense, which is included in fuel used in electric generation on the Consolidated Statements of Income.
Fuel and purchased power expenses totaled $2.284 billion in 2011, which represents a $307 million decrease compared to 2010. This decrease was primarily due to lower current year fuel and purchased power costs of $366 million and a decrease in the recovery of deferred capacity costs of $158 million, partially offset by an increase in deferred fuel expense of $217 million. The lower fuel and purchased power costs were driven by the $385 million impact of lower system requirements in 2011 as a result of the unfavorable impact of weather as previously discussed and lower natural gas prices in 2011, partially offset by the $32 million CR3 indemnification charge for the estimated joint owner replacement power costs for future years (through the expiration of the indemnification provisions of the joint owner agreement) that was recorded in 2011 (See Note 8C for a discussion of the CR3 outage and Note 22C for a discussion of the related indemnification). The decrease in the recovery of deferred capacity costs was due to decreased current year rates. Deferred fuel expense increased due to the higher under-recovered fuel costs in 2010 as a result of higher system requirements due to extreme weather. See “Electric Utility Regulated Statistics - PEF” in Item 1, “Business,” for a summary of average fuel costs. Management does not consider the CR3 indemnification of future years’ joint owner replacement power costs to be representative of PEF’s fundamental core earnings. Therefore, the impact of this item is excluded in computing PEF’s Ongoing Earnings.
Fuel and purchased power expenses totaled $2.591 billion in 2010, which represents a $163 million decrease compared to 2009. This decrease was primarily due to lower deferred fuel expense of $520 million resulting from lower fuel rates, which assumed the CR3 outage was completed in 2009, partially offset by increased fuel and purchased power costs in 2010 of $189 million and an increase in the recovery of deferred capacity costs of $167 million. The increased fuel and purchased power costs were primarily driven by higher system requirements
66

resulting from the favorable impact of weather and CR3 replacement power costs net of insurance recovery. The increase in the recovery of deferred capacity costs was primarily due to increased rates and higher system requirements due to favorable weather.
Operation and Maintenance
O&M expense was $881 million in 2011, which represents a $31 million decrease compared to 2010. This decrease was primarily due to $19 million lower ECRC costs resulting from a refund of the 2010 over-recovery, $14 million lower employee-related expenses, $11 million lower vegetation management expense, $7 million lower uncollectible account expense, $5 million lower environmental remediation expense and $2 million prior-year impairment of other assets, partially offset by $35 million of merger and integration costs. Management does not consider impairments and merger and integration costs to be representative of PEF’s fundamental core earnings. Therefore, the impact of these items is excluded in computing PEF’s Ongoing Earnings. The ECRC costs and certain other O&M expenses are recoverable through cost-recovery clauses and, therefore, have no material impact on earnings. In aggregate, O&M expenses primarily recoverable through base rates decreased $15 million compared to the same period in 2010.
O&M expense was $912 million in 2010, which represents a $73 million increase compared to 2009. This increase was primarily due to the $34 million prior-year pension deferral in accordance with an FPSC order; $22 million higher employee benefits expense driven by revised actuarial estimates; $18 million higher Energy Conservation Cost Recovery Clause (ECCR) costs driven by higher deferred expenses due to higher rates, increased energy sales and increased customer usage of load management programs and home improvement incentives; the $11 million prior-year impact of a change in vacation benefits policy; and the $2 million impairment of other assets. These increases are partially offset by $22 million favorable ECRC costs due to lower NOx allowances used resulting from a scrubber placed in service in December 2009. The ECCR and ECRC expenses are recovered through cost-recovery clauses and, therefore, have no material impact on earnings. Management does not consider impairments to be representative of PEF’s fundamental core earnings. Therefore, the impacts of impairments are excluded in computing PEF’s Ongoing Earnings. In aggregate, O&M expenses primarily recoverable through base rates increased $80 million compared to the same period in 2009.
Depreciation, Amortization and Accretion
Depreciation, amortization and accretion expense was $169 million for 2011, which represents a $257 million decrease compared to 2010. This decrease was primarily due to the $190 million increase in the reduction of the cost of removal component of amortization expense as allowed under the 2012 Settlement.
Partially offset by:
A $600 million decrease due to 2012 impairment and other charges related to the Edwardsport IGCC plant. See Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Regulatory Matters," for additional information, and
A $120 million decrease in accordancefuel expense (including purchased power and natural gas purchases for resale) primarily related to (i) the application of the NEIL settlement proceeds in Florida, including amortization associated with the 2010 settlement agreement (See Note 8C)2012 Settlement; (ii) lower purchased power costs in (a) the Carolinas, primarily due to additional generating capacity placed in service in late 2012 and $45 million lower nuclear cost-recovery amortization.market conditions, (b) Ohio, primarily due to reduced sales volumes, and (c) Indiana, reflective of market conditions; partially offset by (iii) higher volumes of natural gas used in electric generation due primarily to additional generating capacity placed in service; (iv) higher prices for natural gas and coal used in electric generation; and (v) higher volumes of coal used in electric generation primarily due to generation mix.
Other Income and Expenses, net. The decrease in the nuclear cost-recovery amortization is primarily due to lower approvedAFUDC equity, resulting from major projects that were placed into service in late 2012 and the implementation of new customer rates related to the IGCC rider, partially offset by the inclusion of Progress Energy for the first six months of 2013.
Interest Expense. The variance was primarily driven by the inclusion of Progress Energy for the first six months of 2013.
Income Tax Expense. The variance was primarily due to an increase in pretax income. The effective tax rates for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012 were 37.8 percent and 35 percent, respectively. The increase in the effective tax rate was primarily due to an increase in pretax income and a reduction in AFUDC equity.
Matters Impacting Future Regulated Utilities Results
On February 2, 2014, a break in a stormwater pipe beneath an ash basin at the retired Dan River steam station caused a release of ash basin water and ash into the Dan River. On February 8, 2014, a permanent plug was installed in the stormwater pipe, stopping the release of materials into the river. Duke Energy is a party to multiple lawsuits filed in regards to the Dan River coal ash release and operations at other North Carolina facilities with ash basins. The outcome of these lawsuits could have an adverse impact to Regulated Utilities’ financial position, results of operations and cash flows. See Note 5 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Commitments and Contingencies,” for additional information.
An order from regulatory authorities disallowing recovery of preconstructioncosts related to closure of ash basins could have an adverse impact to the Regulated Utilities' financial position, results of operations and carrying costscash flows. See Notes 5 and 9 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Commitments and Contingencies” and "Asset Retirement Obligations," respectively, for additional information.
In 2015, the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) is examining intervenors' allegations that the Edwardsport IGCC was not properly placed in commercial operation in June 2013 and intervenors’ allegations regarding plant performance. In addition, the Indiana Court of Appeals remanded the IURC order in the ninth IGCC rider proceeding back to the IURC for further findings concerning approximately $61 million of financing charges Joint Intervenors claimed were caused by construction delay and a ratemaking issue concerning the in-service date determination for tax purposes. The outcome of these proceedings could have an adverse impact to Regulated Utilities' financial position, results of operations and cash flows. Duke Energy cannot predict on the outcome of these proceedings. See Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters,” for additional information.

41


PART II

International Energy
   Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)   2014
 2013
 Variance 2014 vs. 2013
 2012
 Variance 2013 vs. 2012
Operating Revenues   $1,417
 $1,546
 $(129) $1,549
 $(3)
Operating Expenses   1,007
 1,000
 7
 1,043
 (43)
Gains (Losses) on Sales of Other Assets and Other, net   6
 3
 3
 
 3
Operating Income   416
 549
 (133) 506
 43
Other Income and Expense, net   190
 125
 65
 171
 (46)
Interest Expense   93
 86
 7
 76
 10
Income Before Income Taxes   513
 588
 (75) 601
 (13)
Income Tax Expense   449
 166
 283
 149
 17
Less: Income Attributable to Noncontrolling Interests   9
 14
 (5) 13
 1
Segment Income   $55
 $408
 $(353) $439
 $(31)
           
Sales, GWh   18,629
 20,306
 (1,677) 20,132
 174
Net proportional MW capacity in operation   4,340
 4,600
 (260) 4,584
 16
Year Ended December 31, 2014 as Compared to 2013
International Energy’s results were negatively impacted by higher tax expense resulting from schedule shiftsthe decision to repatriate historical undistributed foreign earnings, unfavorable hydrology and exchange rates in Brazil and an unplanned outage in Chile, partially offset by higher equity earnings in National Methanol Company (NMC) and a 2013 net currency remeasurement loss in Latin America. The following is a detailed discussion of the variance drivers by line item.
Operating Revenues. The variance was driven primarily by:
A $44 million decrease in Peru as a result of lower sales volumes and unfavorable exchange rates;
A $35 million decrease in Brazil due to unfavorable exchange rates and lower sales volumes partially offset by higher average prices;
A $27 million decrease in Chile as a result of lower sales volumes due to an unplanned outage, and lower average prices; and
A $25 million decrease in Argentina due to unfavorable exchange rates and lower average prices.
Operating Expenses. The variance was driven primarily by:
A $75 million increase in Brazil due to higher purchased power as a result of unfavorable hydrology, partially offset by favorable exchange rates.
Partially offset by:
A $38 million decrease in Peru as a result of lower purchased power, transmission, and royalty costs; and
A $26 million decrease in Argentina due to favorable exchange rates and lower purchased power and fuel consumption.
Other Income and Expenses, net. The variance is primarily due to a 2013 net currency remeasurement loss in Latin America, higher interest income in Brazil, and higher equity earnings in NMC as a result of increased methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) and methanol sales volumes, partially offset by lower average prices and higher butane costs.
Income Tax Expense. The variance was primarily due to approximately $373 million of incremental tax expense resulting from the decision to repatriate all cumulative historical undistributed foreign earnings at that time. The effective tax rate for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013 was 87.3 percent and 28.3 percent, respectively. The increase in the Levy project (Seeeffective tax rate was also primarily due to the tax expense associated with the repatriation decision.
Year Ended December 31, 2013 as Compared to 2012
International Energy’s results were negatively impacted by an extended outage at NMC and unfavorable exchange rates in Latin America, partially offset by the acquisition of Iberoamericana de Energía Ibener, S.A. (Ibener) in 2012 and higher average prices and lower purchased power costs in Brazil. The following is a detailed discussion of the variance drivers by line item.

42


PART II

Operating Revenues. The variance was driven primarily by:
A $67 million decrease in Brazil due to weakening of the Real to the U.S. dollar,
A $53 million decrease in Central America due to lower average prices and volumes, and
An $18 million decrease in Argentina as a result of unfavorable exchange rates.
Partially offset by:
A $67 million increase in Brazil due to higher average prices, net of lower volumes, and
A $65 million increase in Chile as a result of asset acquisitions in 2012.
Operating Expenses. The variance was driven primarily by:
A $65 million decrease in Central America due to lower fuel costs, partially offset by higher purchased power and coal consumption, and
A $20 million decrease in Brazil due to weakening of the Real to the U.S. dollar and lower purchased power partially offset by higher variable costs.
Partially offset by:
A $36 million increase in Chile as a result of acquisitions in 2012.
Other Income and Expenses, net. The decrease was primarily driven by a net currency remeasurement loss in Latin America due to strengthening of the dollar, and lower equity earnings at NMC as a result of lower MTBE average prices and lower volumes due to extended maintenance, partially offset by lower butane costs.
Interest Expense. The variance was primarily due to the Chile acquisitions in 2012, partially offset by favorable exchange rates and lower inflation in Brazil.
Income Tax Expense. The variance was primarily due to a decrease in pretax income. The effective tax rates for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012 were 28.3 percent and 24.8 percent, respectively. The increase in the effective tax rate is primarily due to a higher proportion of earnings in countries with higher tax rates.
Matters Impacting Future International Energy Results
International Energy's operations include conventional hydroelectric power generation facilities located in Brazil where water reservoirs are currently at abnormally low levels due to a lack of rainfall.  In addition, International Energy’s equity earnings from NMC reflect sales of methanol and MTBEs, which generates margins that are directionally correlated with crude oil prices. International Energy's earnings and future cash flows could be adversely impacted by either a sustained period of low reservoir levels, especially if the government of Brazil were to implement rationing or some other mandatory conservation program, or a significant decrease in crude oil prices.

43


PART II

Commercial Power
  Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)  2014
 2013
 Variance 2014 vs. 2013
 2012
 Variance 2013 vs. 2012
Operating Revenues  $255
 $260
 $(5) $307
 $(47)
Operating Expenses  441
 425
 16
 419
 6
(Losses) Gains on Sales of Other Assets and Other, net  
 (23) 23
 2
 (25)
Operating Loss(186) (188) 2
 (110) (78)
Other Income and Expense, net  18
 13
 5
 33
 (20)
Interest Expense  58
 61
 (3) 63
 (2)
Loss Before Income Taxes  (226) (236) 10
 (140) (96)
Income Tax Benefit  (171) (148) (23) (82) (66)
Less: Income Attributable to Noncontrolling Interests  
 
 
 1
 (1)
Segment Loss$(55) $(88) $33
 $(59) $(29)
          
Coal-fired plant production, GWh  867
 1,644
 (777) 2,096
 (452)
Renewable plant production, GWh  5,462
 5,111
 351
 3,452
 1,659
Total Commercial Power production, GWh  6,329
 6,755
 (426) 5,548
 1,207
Net proportional MW capacity in operation  1,370
 2,031
 (661) 2,222
 (191)
Year Ended December 31, 2014 as Compared to 2013
Commercial Power’s results were impacted by higher production tax credits generation, higher production and lower operating costs by the renewables business and a prior-year loss recognized on certain renewables projects, partially offset by an impairment recorded for an intangible asset. The following is a detailed discussion of the variance drivers by line item.
Operating Revenues. The variance was driven primarily by:
An $8 million decrease in electric revenues for the Beckjord station, which is not included in the Disposal Group, driven from lower production as units have been retired;
A $7 million decrease in net mark-to-market revenues on non-qualifying power hedge contracts.
Partially offset by:
A $16 million increase in electric revenues from higher production in the renewables portfolio.
Operating Expenses. The variance was driven primarily by:
A $94 million increase driven by an impairment taken related to Ohio Valley Electric Corporation (OVEC). See Note 8C)11 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Goodwill and Intangible Assets” for additional information.
Partially offset by:
An $18 million decrease in depreciation driven by discontinued amortization of an intangible asset that was impaired and written off in 2014 and extensions on the projected useful lives of assets in the renewable portfolio;
A $17 million decrease in fuel expense for the Beckjord station driven by lower cost of coal from decreased production as units have been retired;
A $16 million decrease related to a 2013 legal settlement reserve related to previously disposed businesses;
A $10 million decrease in general and administrative costs;
A $9 million decrease in operations and maintenance expense for the renewables portfolio driven primarily by development cost reductions; and
A $6 million decrease in property tax expense driven by cost reductions in the renewables portfolio resulting from a property tax abatement that went into effect in the current year.
Losses on Sales of Other Assets and Other, net. The variance is attributable to a loss recognized on the sale of certain renewable development projects in 2013.
Other Income and Expense. The variance was primarily due to a net gain recognized for the sale of certain renewable development assets and increased equity earnings from higher production in the renewable wind portfolio.
Income Tax Benefit. The variance was primarily due to changes in state deferred taxes and higher production tax credits in 2014 for the Renewables portfolio. The effective tax rate for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013 was 75.5 percent and 62.8 percent, respectively.

44


PART II

Year Ended December 31, 2013 as Compared to 2012
Commercial Power’s results were negatively impacted by the sale of non-core business operations and lower income from the renewables portfolio and Beckjord generating station. These impacts are partially offset by higher income tax benefits. The following is a detailed discussion of the variance drivers by line item.
Operating Revenues. The variance was driven primarily by:
An $81 million decrease due primarily to the sale of non-core businesses in 2012; and
A $35 million decrease in electric revenues for the Beckjord station driven from lower production as units were prepared for retirement;
Partially offset by:
A $67 million increase due to higher volumes in the renewables portfolio.
Operating Expenses. The variance was driven primarily by:
A $34 million increase in operations and maintenance expense for the renewables portfolio driven primarily by commercial operation of certain assets and costs to run the renewables services company acquired in 2012;
A $25 million increase in depreciation driven by renewable portfolio assets put in service;
A $17 million increase related to Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO) and PJM Transmission System Enhancement obligations; and
A $16 million increase related to a 2013 legal settlement reserve related to previously disposed businesses.
Partially offset by:
A $56 million decrease due primarily to the sale of non-core businesses in 2012;
A $17 million decrease in general and administrative costs; and
A $16 million decrease in fuel expense for the Beckjord station, which is not included in the Disposal Group, driven by lower cost of coal from decreased production as units were prepared for retirement;
(Losses) Gains on Sales of Other Assets and Other, net. The variance is attributable to a loss recognized on the sale of certain renewable development projects in 2013 and a gain on the 2012 contribution of certain renewable assets to a joint venture.
Other Income and Expense, net. The variance is primarily due to the sale of non-core businesses in 2012, lower equity earnings from the renewables portfolio, and lower interest income.
Income Tax Benefit. The variance was primarily due to an increase in pretax loss and a decrease in manufacturing deductions combined with higher production tax credits in 2013. The effective tax rates for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012 were 62.8 percent and 58.4 percent, respectively. The increase in the effective tax rate for the period was primarily due to higher production tax credits in 2013 for the Renewable portfolio.
Other
  Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)  2014
 2013
 Variance 2014 vs. 2013
 2012
 Variance 2013 vs. 2012
Operating Revenues  $105
 $175
 $(70) $84
 $91
Operating Expenses  322
 457
 (135) 704
 (247)
Gains (Losses) on Sales of Other Assets and Other, net  6
 (3) 9
 (7) 4
Operating Loss  (211) (285) 74
 (627) 342
Other Income and Expense, net  45
 131
 (86) 19
 112
Interest Expense  400
 416
 (16) 299
 117
Loss Before Income Taxes  (566) (570) 4
 (907) 337
Income Tax Benefit  (237) (335) 98
 (386) 51
Less: Income (Loss) Attributable to Noncontrolling Interests  5
 3
 2
 2
 1
Net Expense  $(334) $(238) $(96) $(523) $285
Year Ended December 31, 2014 as Compared to 2013
Other’s results were negatively impacted by a decrease in income tax benefit. The following is a detailed discussion of the variance drivers by line item.
Operating Revenues. The decrease was primarily due to mark-to-market activity of mitigation sales related to the Progress Energy merger.

45


PART II

Operating Expenses. The decrease was primarily due to lower charges related to the Progress Energy merger and prior year Crescent Resources LLC (Crescent) litigation reserve, partially offset by unfavorable loss experience at Bison.
Other Income and Expenses. The decrease was primarily due to a gain on the sale of Duke Energy’s 50 percent ownership in DukeNet Communications Holdings, LLC (DukeNet) in 2013, partially offset by a current year investment sale gain and higher investment income at Bison Insurance Company Limited (Bison).
Interest Expense. The variance was due primarily to lower interest on long-term debt resulting from debt maturities and new debt issued at lower rates.
Income Tax Benefit. The variance was primarily due to a state tax benefit recognized in 2013. The effective tax rate for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013 was 41.9 percent and 58.6 percent, respectively.
Year Ended December 31, 2013 as Compared to 2012
Other’s results were positively impacted by lower charges related to the Progress Energy merger, the sale of DukeNet, and increased current year activity from mitigation sales related to the Progress Energy merger. These impacts were partially offset by increased interest expense, lower income tax benefit and the Crescent litigation reserve in 2013. The following is a detailed discussion of the variance drivers by line item.
Operating Revenues. The variance was driven primarily by increased activity from mitigation sales related to the Progress Energy merger and higher premiums earned at Bison as a result of the addition of Progress Energy.
Operating Expenses. The variance was driven primarily by lower charges related to the Progress Energy merger, and prior year donations, partially offset by the Crescent litigation reserve in 2013 and unfavorable loss experience at Bison as a result of the addition of Progress Energy.
Other Income and Expense, net. The variance was driven primarily by a gain on the sale of Duke Energy’s 50 percent ownership in DukeNet in 2013.
Interest Expense. The variance was due primarily to the inclusion of Progress Energy for the first six months of 2013 and additional debt issuances.
Income Tax Benefit. The variance was primarily due to a decrease in pretax loss. The effective tax rates for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012 were 58.6 percent and 42.5 percent, respectively.
Matters Impacting Future Other Results
Duke Energy previously held an effective 50 percent interest in Crescent Resources, LLC (Crescent). Crescent was a real estate joint venture formed by Duke Energy in 2006 that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in June 2009. On June 9, 2010, Crescent restructured and emerged from bankruptcy and Duke Energy forfeited its entire 50 percent ownership interest to Crescent debt holders. This forfeiture caused Duke Energy to recognize a loss, for tax purposes, on its interest in the second quarter of 2010. Although Crescent has reorganized and emerged from bankruptcy with creditors owning all Crescent interest, there remains uncertainty as to the tax treatment associated with the restructuring. Based on this uncertainty, it is possible that Duke Energy could incur a future tax liability related to the tax losses associated with its partnership interest in Crescent and the resolution of issues associated with Crescent’s emergence from bankruptcy.
In 2013, a FERC Administrative Law Judge issued an initial decision holding that Duke Energy is responsible for costs associated with Multi Value Projects (MVP), a type of Transmission Expansion Planning (MTEP) cost, approved by MISO prior to the date of Duke Energy’s withdrawal. The nuclear cost-recovery amortizationinitial decision will be reviewed by FERC. If FERC upholds the initial decision, Duke Energy intends to file an appeal in federal court. If Duke Energy is recovered throughdeemed responsible for these costs, and if a cost-recovery clauseportion of these costs are not eligible for recovery, there may be an adverse impact to its financial position, results of operations and therefore, has no material impact on earnings. In aggregate, depreciation, amortization and accretion expenses recoverable through base rates orcash flows. See Note 4 to the ECRCConsolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters,” for additional information.
INCOME (LOSS) FROM DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS, NET OF TAX
Discontinued Operations decreased $178$662 million for the year ended December 31, 2014, compared to the same period in 2010. Inthe prior year, primarily due to a $929 million pretax write-down of the carrying amount of the assets to the estimated fair value of the Disposal Group, based on the transaction price included in the PSA, less estimated costs to sell and a $134 million pretax mark-to-market loss on economic hedges for the Disposal Group. Included in the variance is the $117 million impact of ceasing depreciation on the assets of the Disposal Group beginning in the second quarter of 2014.
Discontinued Operations decreased $85 million for the year ended December 31, 2013 compared to the same period in the prior year, primarily due to a reduction in PJM capacity revenues related to lower average cleared capacity auction pricing for the Disposal Group.

46


PART II

DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS
Introduction
Management’s Discussion and Analysis should be read in conjunction with the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012.
Basis of Presentation
The results of operations and variance discussion for Duke Energy Carolinas is presented in a reduced disclosure format in accordance with PEF’s 2010General Instruction (I)(2)(a) of Form 10-K.
Results of Operations
  Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)  2014
 2013
 Variance
Operating Revenues  $7,351
 $6,954
 $397
Operating Expenses  5,456
 5,145
 311
Operating Income  1,895
 1,809
 86
Other Income and Expense, net  172
 120
 52
Interest Expense  407
 359
 48
Income Before Income Taxes  1,660
 1,570
 90
Income Tax Expense  588
 594
 (6)
Net Income  $1,072
 $976
 $96
The following table shows the percent changes in GWh sales and 2012average number of customers for Duke Energy Carolinas. The below percentages for retail customer classes represent billed sales only. Total sales includes billed and unbilled retail sales, and wholesale sales to incorporated municipalities and to public and private utilities and power marketers. Amounts are not weather normalized.
Increase (decrease) over prior year  2014 2013
Residential sales  4.0 % 2.3%
General service sales  2.4 % 1.0%
Industrial sales  2.4 % 0.4%
Wholesale and other  (4.7)% 62.1%
Total sales  2.2 % 5.4%
Average number of customers  1.0 % 0.7%
Year Ended December 31, 2014 as Compared to 2013
Operating Revenues. The variance was driven primarily by:
A $180 million increase in retail pricing and updated rate riders, which primarily reflects the impact of the 2013 North Carolina and South Carolina retail rate cases;
A $151 million increase in fuel revenues driven primarily by increased demand from retail customers, mainly due to favorable weather conditions. Fuel revenues represent sales to retail and wholesale customers;
A $99 million increase in electric sales (net of fuel revenues) to retail customers due to favorable weather conditions. Heating degree days in 2014 were 11 percent above normal compared to 5 percent above normal during the same period in 2013 and cooling degree days were 6 percent below normal as compared to 17 percent below normal in 2013;
A $19 million increase in wholesale power revenues, net of sharing, primarily due to new customers; and
An $18 million increase in weather-normal sales volumes to retail customers reflecting increased demand.
Partially offset by:
A $79 million decrease in gross receipts tax revenue due to the NC Tax Simplification and Rate Reduction Act which terminated the collection of the North Carolina gross receipts tax effective July 1, 2014.
Operating Expenses. The variance was driven primarily by:
A $151 million increase in fuel expense (including purchased power) primarily due to increased retail demand resulting from favorable weather conditions;
A $127 million increase in operating and maintenance expenses primarily due to a litigation reserve related to the criminal investigation of the Dan River coal ash spill (See Note 5 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Commitments and Contingencies,” for additional information), repairs and remediation expenses associated with the Dan River coal ash discharge and other ash basin related assessment costs, higher non-outage costs at generation plants, higher storm costs, higher distribution costs, higher nuclear outage expense including the impacts of nuclear levelization, and higher energy efficiency program costs, partially offset by decreased corporate costs and lower costs associated with the Progress Energy merger; and

47


PART II

An $88 million increase in depreciation and amortization primarily due to higher depreciation as a result of additional plant in service and amortization of certain regulatory assets, partially offset by lower depreciation expense due to reductions for costs of removal in accordance with the 2013 North Carolina and South Carolina rate case orders.
Partially offset by:
A $58 million decrease in property and other tax expenses primarily due to lower revenue related taxes driven by the elimination of North Carolina gross receipts tax effective July 1, 2014, partially offset by higher property tax expense.
Other Income and Expenses, net. The variance was primarily due to the recognition of post in-service equity returns for projects that had been completed prior to being reflected in customer rates.
Interest Expense. The variance was primarily due to no longer recording post in-service debt returns on projects now reflected in customer rates, partially offset by lower interest on bonds.
Income Tax Expense. The effective tax rate for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013 was 35.4 percent and 37.8 percent, respectively. The decrease in the effective tax rate is primarily due to favorable audit settlements, changes in apportionment related to state income tax and the tax benefit related to the manufacturing deduction in 2014 as the prior year deduction was limited by taxable income, partially offset by the non-deductible litigation reserve related to the criminal investigation of the Dan River coal ash spill.
Matters Impacting Future Results
On February 2, 2014, a break in a stormwater pipe beneath an ash basin at the retired Dan River steam station caused a release of ash basin water and ash into the Dan River. On February 8, 2014, a permanent plug was installed in the stormwater pipe, stopping the release of materials into the river. Duke Energy is a party to multiple lawsuits filed in regards to the Dan River coal ash release and operations at other North Carolina facilities with ash basins. The outcome of these lawsuits could have an adverse impact to Duke Energy Carolinas’ financial position, results of operations and cash flows. See Note 5 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Commitments and Contingencies,” for additional information.
An order from regulatory authorities disallowing recovery of costs related to closure of ash basins could have an adverse impact to Duke Energy Carolinas' financial position, results of operations and cash flows. See Notes 5 and 9 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Commitments and Contingencies” and "Asset Retirement Obligations," respectively, for additional information.
PROGRESS ENERGY
Introduction
Management’s Discussion and Analysis should be read in conjunction with the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012.
Basis of Presentation
The results of operations and variance discussion for Progress Energy is presented in a reduced disclosure format in accordance with General Instruction (I)(2)(a) of Form 10-K.
Results of Operations
  Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)  2014
 2013
 Variance
Operating Revenues  $10,166
 $9,533
 $633
Operating Expenses  8,159
 7,918
 241
Gains (Losses) on Sales of Other Assets and Other, net  11
 3
 8
Operating Income  2,018
 1,618
 400
Other Income and Expense, net  77
 94
 (17)
Interest Expense  675
 680
 (5)
Income Before Income Taxes  1,420
 1,032
 388
Income Tax Expense  540
 373
 167
Income from Continuing Operations  880
 659
 221
Discontinued Operations, net of tax  (6) 16
 (22)
Net Income  874
 675
 199
Less: Net Income Attributable to Noncontrolling Interests  5
 3
 2
Net Income Attributable to Parent  $869
 $672
 $197
Year Ended December 31, 2014 as Compared to 2013
Operating Revenues. The variance was driven primarily by:

48


PART II

A $341 million increase in fuel revenues (including emission allowances) driven primarily by increased demand from wholesale and retail customers, partially resulting from favorable weather conditions, and higher fuel rates for wholesale customers reflective of higher fuel costs for Duke Energy Progress; and to a higher fuel rate in the current year related to lower NEIL insurance reimbursements and accelerated Crystal River Unit 3 regulatory asset cost recovery in 2014 as allowed by the 2013 Settlement for Duke Energy Florida. Fuel revenues represent sales to retail and wholesale customers;
A $149 million increase in retail pricing, which primarily reflects the impact of the 2013 North Carolina retail rate case in North Carolina and the 2014 base rate increase in Florida; and
A $114 million increase (net of fuel revenue) in GWh sales to retail customers due to favorable weather conditions. For Duke Energy Progress, heating degree days in 2014 were 11 percent above normal compared to 2 percent above normal in 2013 and cooling degree days were 2 percent below normal compared to 13 percent below normal in 2013. For Duke Energy Florida, heating degree days in 2014 were 51 percent higher and cooling degree days were 4 percent lower compared to the same period in 2013
Operating Expenses. The variance was driven primarily by:
A $344 million increase in fuel expenses (including purchased power). For Duke Energy Florida the increase is due to the application of the NEIL settlement agreements, PEF will haveproceeds in 2013 and higher sales volumes driven by increased demand and higher fuel prices in the discretioncurrent year. For Duke Energy Progress the increase is primarily due to reduceincreased sales volumes;
A $245 million increase in depreciation and amortization. For Duke Energy Florida the increase is primarily due to a reduction of the cost of removal component of amortization expense in 2013 as allowed under the 2012 Settlement, increased environmental cost recovery clause amortization related to prior year under-recovery and beyond,nuclear cost recovery clause amortization due to an increase in recoverable nuclear assets in the current year. For Duke Energy Progress the increase is primarily due to higher depreciation as well, subjecta result of additional plant in service and amortization of certain regulatory assets and a prior year reversal of a portion of cost of removal reserves in accordance with the 2013 NCUC rate case order; and
An $88 million increase in operations, maintenance and other expense primarily due to limitationsa litigation reserve related to the criminal investigation of the management of North Carolina coal ash basins (See Note 8C)5 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Commitments and Contingencies,” for additional information).
Partially offset by:
Depreciation,A $346 million decrease due to 2013 impairment and other charges at Duke Energy Florida primarily related to Crystal River Unit 3 and Levy; and
A $49 million decrease at Duke Energy Progress due to a current year $18 million reduction to a 2012 impairment charge related to the disallowance of transmission project costs, which are a portion of the Long-Term FERC Mitigation and a $22 million prior-year impairment charge resulting from the decision to suspend the application for two proposed nuclear units at the Harris nuclear station.
Other Income and Expense, net. The variance was primarily due to lower AFUDC – equity as a result of assets placed into service, partially offset by post in-service equity returns for projects that had been completed prior to being reflected in customer rates.
Income Tax Expense. The variance was primarily due to an increase in pretax income. The effective tax rate for the 12 months ended December 31, 2014 and 2013 was 38.0 percent and 36.2 percent, respectively. The increase in the effective tax rate is primarily due to a decrease in AFUDC – equity and the non-deductible litigation reserve related to the criminal investigation of the management of North Carolina coal ash basins.
Matters Impacting Future Results
On February 2, 2014, a break in a stormwater pipe beneath an ash basin at Duke Energy Carolinas' retired Dan River steam station caused a release of ash basin water and ash into the Dan River. On February 8, 2014, a permanent plug was installed in the stormwater pipe, stopping the release of materials into the river. Duke Energy is a party to multiple lawsuits filed in regards to the Dan River coal ash release and operations at other North Carolina facilities with ash basins. The outcome of these lawsuits could have an adverse impact to Progress Energy's financial position, results of operations and cash flows. See Note 5 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Commitments and Contingencies,” for additional information. 
An order from regulatory authorities disallowing recovery of costs related to closure of ash basins could have an adverse impact to Progress Energy's financial position, results of operations and cash flows. See Notes 5 and 9 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Commitments and Contingencies” and "Asset Retirement Obligations," respectively, for additional information.

49


PART II

DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS
Introduction
Management’s Discussion and Analysis should be read in conjunction with the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012.
Basis of Presentation
The results of operations and variance discussion for Duke Energy Progress is presented in a reduced disclosure format in accordance with General Instruction (I)(2)(a) of Form 10-K.
Results of Operations
  Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)  2014
 2013
 Variance
Operating Revenues  $5,176
 $4,992
 $184
Operating Expenses  4,244
 4,061
 183
Gains on Sales of Other Asset and Other, net  3
 1
 2
Operating Income  935
 932
 3
Other Income and Expense, net  51
 57
 (6)
Interest Expense  234
 201
 33
Income Before Income Taxes  752
 788
 (36)
Income Tax Expense  285
 288
 (3)
Net Income  $467
 $500
 $(33)
The following table shows the percent changes in GWh sales and average number of customers for Duke Energy Progress. The below percentages for retail customer classes represent billed sales only. Total sales includes billed and unbilled retail sales, and wholesale sales to incorporated municipalities and to public and private utilities and power marketers. Amounts are not weather normalized.
Increase (decrease) over prior year  2014
 2013
Residential sales  5.1 % 4.0%
General service sales  2.1 % %
Industrial sales  (2.9)% 1.1%
Wholesale and other  10.1 % 7.6%
Total sales  4.4 % 3.1%
Average number of customers  1.1 % 0.9%
Year Ended December 31, 2014 as Compared to 2013
Operating Revenues. The variance was driven primarily by:
A $104 million increase in fuel revenues (including emission allowances) driven primarily by increased demand from wholesale and retail customers, partially resulting from favorable weather conditions, and higher fuel rates for wholesale customers reflective of higher fuel costs. Fuel revenues represent sales to retail and wholesale customers;
An $82 million increase (net of fuel revenue) in electric sales to retail customers due to favorable weather conditions. Heating degree days in 2014 were 11 percent above normal compared to 2 percent above normal in 2013 and cooling degree days were 2 percent below normal compared to 13 percent below normal in 2013; and
An $80 million increase in retail pricing, which primarily reflects the impact of the 2013 North Carolina retail rate case.
Partially offset by:
A $60 million decrease in gross receipts tax revenue due to the NC Tax Simplification and Rate Reduction Act which terminated the collection of the North Carolina gross receipts tax effective July 1, 2014; and
A $19 million decrease in weather-normal sales volumes to retail customers reflecting decreased demand.
Operating Expenses. The variance was driven primarily by:
A $111 million increase in fuel expenses (including purchased power) primarily due to increased sales volumes;
A $113 million increase in operations and maintenance expenses primarily due to a litigation reserve related to the criminal investigation of the management of North Carolina coal ash basins (See Note 5 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Commitments and Contingencies,” for additional information), the impacts of amortization on nuclear levelization outage deferrals and accretionhigher storm costs, partially offset by prior year donations for low-income customers and job training in accordance with the 2013 NCUC rate case order and lower costs to achieve the merger with Duke Energy including severance and employee relocation expenses; and

50


PART II

A $48 million increase in depreciation and amortization expenses primarily due to higher depreciation as a result of additional plant in service and amortization of certain regulatory assets and a prior year reversal of a portion of cost of removal reserves in accordance with the 2013 NCUC rate case order.
Partially offset by:
A $49 million decrease in property and other tax expenses primarily due to lower revenue related taxes driven by the elimination of North Carolina gross receipts tax effective July 1, 2014, partially offset by higher property tax expense; and
A $40 million decrease due to a current year $18 million reduction to a 2012 impairment charge related to the disallowance of transmission project costs, which are a portion of the Long-Term FERC Mitigation and a $22 million prior-year impairment charge resulting from the decision to suspend the application for two proposed nuclear units at the Harris nuclear station.
Interest Expense. The variance was primarily due to a new debt issuance, no longer recording post in-service debt returns on projects now reflected in customer rates and lower AFUDC – debt due to projects placed in service.
Income Tax Expense. The variance was primarily due to a decrease in pretax income. The effective tax rate for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013 was 37.9 percent and 36.5 percent, respectively. The increase in the effective tax rate is primarily due to the non-deductible litigation reserve related to the criminal investigation of the management of North Carolina coal ash basins.
Matters Impacting Future Results
On February 2, 2014, a break in a stormwater pipe beneath an ash basin at Duke Energy Carolinas' retired Dan River steam station caused a release of ash basin water and ash into the Dan River. On February 8, 2014, a permanent plug was installed in the stormwater pipe, stopping the release of materials into the river. Duke Energy is a party to multiple lawsuits filed in regards to the Dan River coal ash release and operations at other North Carolina facilities with ash basins. The outcome of these lawsuits could have an adverse impact to Duke Energy Progress’ financial position, results of operations and cash flows. See Note 5 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Commitments and Contingencies,” for additional information.
An order from regulatory authorities disallowing recovery of costs related to closure of ash basins could have an adverse impact to Duke Energy Progress' financial position, results of operations and cash flows. See Notes 5 and 9 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Commitments and Contingencies” and "Asset Retirement Obligations," respectively, for additional information.
DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA
Introduction
Management’s Discussion and Analysis should be read in conjunction with the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012.
Basis of Presentation
The results of operations and variance discussion for Duke Energy Florida is presented in a reduced disclosure format in accordance with General Instruction (I)(2)(a) of Form 10-K.
Results of Operations
  Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)  2014
 2013
 Variance
Operating Revenues  $4,975
 $4,527
 $448
Operating Expenses  3,898
 3,840
 58
Gains on Sales of Other Asset and Other, net  1
 1
 
Operating Income  1,078
 688
 390
Other Income and Expense, net  20
 30
 (10)
Interest Expense  201
 180
 21
Income Before Income Taxes  897
 538
 359
Income Tax Expense  349
 213
 136
Net Income  $548
 $325
 $223
The following table shows the percent changes in GWh sales and average number of customers for Duke Energy Florida. The below percentages for retail customer classes represent billed sales only. Wholesale power sales include both billed and unbilled sales. Total sales includes billed and unbilled retail sales, and wholesale sales to incorporated municipalities and to public and private utilities and power marketers. Amounts are not weather normalized.
Increase (decrease) over prior year  2014
 2013
Residential sales  2.7 % 1.4 %
General service sales  0.5 % (0.5)%
Industrial sales  1.9 % 1.5 %
Wholesale and other  (5.9)% (13.8)%
Total sales  1.9 % (1.2)%
Average number of customers  1.5 % 1.1 %

51


PART II

Year Ended December 31, 2014 as Compared to 2013
Operating Revenues. The variance was driven primarily by:
A $237 million increase in fuel and capacity revenues primarily due to a higher fuel rate in the current year related to lower NEIL insurance reimbursements and accelerated Crystal River Unit 3 regulatory asset cost recovery in 2014 as allowed by the 2013 Settlement. Fuel revenues represent sales to retail and wholesale customers;
A $69 million net increase in base revenues due primarily to the 2014 base rate increase;
A $63 million increase in nuclear cost recovery clause and energy conservation cost recovery clause revenues due to higher recovery rates in the current year;
A $32 million increase in electric sales (net of fuel revenue) to retail customers due to favorable weather conditions. Heating degree days in 2014 were 51 percent higher and cooling degree days were 4 percent lower compared to the same period in 2013; and
A $29 million increase in wholesale power revenues primarily driven by increased capacity rates partially offset by the impact of contracts that expired in 2013.
Operating Expenses. The variance was driven primarily by:
A $231 million increase in fuel used in electric generation and purchased power due to the application of the NEIL settlement proceeds in 2013 and higher sales volumes driven by increased demand and higher fuel prices in the current year;
A $215 million increase in depreciation and amortization primarily due to a reduction of the cost of removal component of amortization expense in 2013 as allowed under the 2012 Settlement, increased environmental cost recovery clause amortization related to prior year under-recovery and nuclear cost recovery clause amortization due to an increase in recoverable nuclear assets in the current year; and
A $16 million increase in property and other taxes primarily driven by higher revenue-related taxes in 2014 due to the higher revenues.
Partially offset by:
A $346 million decrease due to 2013 impairment and other charges primarily related to Crystal River Unit 3 and Levy; and
A $48 million decrease in operations and maintenance costs primarily due to prior year Crystal River Unit 3 related settlement matters and lower costs associated with Progress Energy’s merger with Duke Energy. These costs were partially offset by increased expenses that are recoverable under the energy conservation and environmental cost recovery clauses.
Other Income and Expense, net. The variance is driven by lower AFUDC return on the Levy projects in the current year.
Interest Expense. The increase is due to a lower debt return in 2014 driven by the Crystal River Unit 3 regulatory asset impairment in 2013 and accelerated Crystal River Unit 3 regulatory asset cost recovery in 2014 as allowed by the 2013 Settlement.
Income Tax Expense. The variance was $426primarily due to an increase in pretax income. The effective tax rate for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013 was 38.9 percent and 39.6 percent, respectively.

52


PART II

DUKE ENERGY OHIO
Introduction
Management’s Discussion and Analysis should be read in conjunction with the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012.
Basis of Presentation
The results of operations and variance discussion for Duke Energy Ohio is presented in a reduced disclosure format in accordance with General Instruction (I)(2)(a) of Form 10-K.
Results of Operations
  Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)  2014
2013
Variance
Operating Revenues  $1,913
$1,805
$108
Operating Expenses  1,727
1,627
100
Gains on Sales of Other Assets and Other, net  1
4
(3)
Operating Income  187
182
5
Other Income and Expense, net  10
2
8
Interest Expense  86
74
12
Income from Continuing Operations Before Income Taxes  111
110
1
Income Tax Expense from Continuing Operations43
43

Income from Continuing Operations68
67
1
(Loss) Income from Discontinued Operations, net of tax(563)35
(598)
Net (Loss) Income  $(495)$102
$(597)
The following table shows the percent changes in Regulated Utilities' GWh sales and average number of customers for Duke Energy Ohio. The below percentages for retail customer classes represent billed sales only. Total sales includes billed and unbilled retail sales, and wholesale sales to incorporated municipalities and to public and private utilities and power marketers. Amounts are not weather normalized.
Increase (decrease) over prior year  2014
 2013
Residential sales  1.3 % 1.5%
General service sales  0.8 % 0.8%
Industrial sales  3.3 % 0.2%
Wholesale power sales  (24.9)% 20.9%
Total sales  0.7 % 0.9%
Average number of customers  0.6 % 0.4%
Year Ended December 31, 2014 as Compared to 2013
Operating Revenues. The variance was driven primarily by:
A $56 million increase in regulated fuel revenues primarily driven by higher fuel costs and increased sales volumes;
A $51 million increase in retail pricing and rate riders primarily due to 2013 rate increases; and
A $9 million increase in volumes to retail customers.
Partially offset by:
An $8 million decrease in electric revenues for the Beckjord station driven from lower production as units have been retired; and
A $7 million decrease in net mark-to-market revenue on non-qualifying power hedge contracts.
Operating Expenses. The variance was driven primarily by:
A $94 million impairment taken related to OVEC. See Note 11 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Goodwill and Intangible Assets” for additional information; and
A $64 million increase in regulated fuel expense driven primarily by higher fuel costs and increased volumes.
Partially offset by:
A $30 million decrease in operating and maintenance expenses primarily due to lower corporate governance costs;
A $16 million decrease in nonregulated fuel expense for the Beckjord station driven by lower cost of coal from decreased production as units have been retired; and
An $8 million decrease in property and other taxes driven primarily by an Ohio gas excise tax settlement in 2014.

53


PART II

Interest Expense. The increase was primarily due to higher regulated average debt balances in 2014 compared to 2013 and higher intercompany interest expense related to the funds loaned from Cinergy to Duke Energy Commercial Asset Management, Inc. (DECAM).
Income Tax Expense. The effective tax rate for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013 was 38.9 percent and 39.1 percent, respectively.
Discontinued Operations, Net of Tax. The variance was primarily due to the impairment recognized for the nonregulated Midwest generation business.
Matters Impacting Future Results
On February 17, 2014, Duke Energy Ohio announced it had initiated a process to exit its nonregulated Midwest generation business. Duke Energy Ohio expects to dispose of the nonregulated Midwest generation business in the second quarter of 2015. Duke Energy Ohio recognized a pretax impairment charge of $886 million for 2010,the year ended December 31, 2014, which represents the excess of the carrying value over the estimated fair value of the business based on the transaction price included in the PSA, less estimated costs to sell. The transaction is expected to close by the end of the second quarter of 2015 and the impairment will be updated, if necessary, based on the final sales price, after any adjustments at closing for working capital and capital expenditures.
In 2013, a $76FERC Administrative Law Judge issued an initial decision that Duke Energy Ohio is responsible for costs associated with certain MVP costs, a type of MTEP cost, approved by MISO prior to the date of Duke Energy Ohio’s withdrawal. The initial decision will be reviewed by FERC. If FERC upholds the initial decision, Duke Energy Ohio intends to file an appeal in federal court. If Duke Energy Ohio is deemed responsible for these costs, and if a portion of these costs are not eligible for recovery, there may be an adverse impact to its financial position, results of operations and cash flows. See Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters,” for additional information.
DUKE ENERGY INDIANA
Introduction
Management’s Discussion and Analysis should be read in conjunction with the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012.
Basis of Presentation
The results of operations and variance discussion for Duke Energy Indiana is presented in a reduced disclosure format in accordance with General Instruction (I)(2)(a) of Form 10-K.
Results of Operations
  Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)  2014
2013
Variance
Operating Revenues  $3,175
$2,926
$249
Operating Expenses  2,470
2,193
277
Operating Income (Loss)  705
733
(28)
Other Income and Expense, net  22
18
4
Interest Expense  171
170
1
Income (Loss) Before Income Taxes  556
581
(25)
Income Tax Expense (Benefit)  197
223
(26)
Net Income (Loss)  $359
$358
$1
The following table shows the percent changes in GWh sales and average number of customers for Duke Energy Indiana. The below percentages for retail customer classes represent billed sales only. Total sales includes billed and unbilled retail sales, and wholesale sales to incorporated municipalities and to public and private utilities and power marketers. Amounts are not weather normalized.
Increase (decrease) over prior year  2014
 2013
Residential sales  2.1 % 3.2 %
General service sales   % 0.5 %
Industrial sales  2.5 % (0.3)%
Wholesale power sales  (8.8)% (1.4)%
Total sales  (0.8)% 0.4 %
Average number of customers  0.6 % 0.7 %
Year Ended December 31, 2014 as Compared to 2013
Operating Revenues. The variance was driven primarily by:
A $138 million increase in fuel revenues (including emission allowances) due to an increase in fuel rates as a result of higher fuel and purchased power costs;
An $86 million net increase in rate riders primarily due to updates to the IGCC rider; and
A $17 million increase in wholesale power revenues primarily due to higher customer rates.

54


PART II

Operating Expenses. The variance was driven primarily by:
A $128 million increase in fuel costs primarily driven by higher fuel and purchased power costs;
A $71 million increase in depreciation and amortization primarily as a result of the Edwardsport IGCC plant being placed into service in the second quarter of 2013;
A $57 million increase in property and other taxes, primarily as a result of amounts recorded related to an Indiana sales tax audit; and
A $21 million increase in operation and maintenance primarily due to higher operation and maintenance costs, higher outage costs at generation plants, partially offset by decreased corporate costs.
Income Tax Expense. The effective tax rate for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013 was 35.5 percent and 38.4 percent, respectively. The decrease compared to 2009. This decreasein the effective tax rate was primarily due to a reduction in the costIndiana statutory corporate state income tax rate, a more favorable state tax credit, and a prior period adjustment.
Matters Impacting Future Results
Duke Energy Indiana is evaluating converting Wabash River Unit 6 to a natural gas-fired unit or retiring the unit earlier than its current estimated useful life. If Duke Energy Indiana elects early retirement of removal componentthe unit, recovery of amortization expenseremaining book values and associated carrying costs totaling approximately $40 million could be subject to future regulatory approvals and therefore cannot be assured.
In 2015, the IURC is examining intervenors' allegations that the Edwardsport IGCC was not properly placed in commercial operation in June 2013 and intervenors’ allegations regarding plant performance. In addition, the Indiana Court of $60 million in accordance withAppeals remanded the 2010 settlement agreement, the lower depreciation rate impact of $43 million and other adjustments requiredIURC order in the 2010 settlement agreement of $13 million, partially offset by the $46 million impact of depreciable asset base increases. The lower depreciation rate resulted from a depreciation study in conjunction with the 2009 base rate case.
Taxes Other Than on Income
Taxes other than on income was $350 million for 2011, which represents a $12 million decrease compared to 2010. This decrease was primarily due to lower gross receipts and franchise taxes of $21 million resulting from lower operating revenues, partially offset by higher property taxes of $12 million resulting primarily from an increase in taxable plant basis. Taxes other than on income was $362 million for 2010, which represents an increase of $15
67

million compared to 2009, primarily due to higher property taxes of $14 million resulting primarily from placing the repowered Bartow Plant in service in mid-2009. Gross receipts and franchise taxes are collected from customers and recorded as revenues and then remittedninth IGCC rider proceeding back to the applicable taxing authority. Therefore,IURC for further findings concerning approximately $61 million of financing charges Joint Intervenors claimed were caused by construction delay and a ratemaking issue concerning the in-service date determination for tax purposes. The outcome of these taxesproceedings could have no materialan adverse impact on earnings.
Other
Other operating expense was incometo Duke Energy Indiana’s financial position, results of $13 million in 2011operations and expense of $4 million and $7 million in 2010 and 2009, respectively. The $13 million income in 2011 was primarily due to a favorable litigation judgment. The $7 million expense in 2009 was primarily due to regulatory disallowance of fuel costs.
Total Other Income, Net
Total other income, net was $35 million for 2011, which represents a $7 million increase compared to 2010. This increase was primarily due to $4 million favorable AFUDC equity related to higher eligible construction project costs.
Total other income, net was $28 million for 2010, which represents a $72 million decrease compared to 2009. This decrease was primarily due to $63 million unfavorable AFUDC equity related to lower eligible construction project costs, primarily due to placing the repowered Bartow Plant and CAIR projects into service in mid- and late 2009, respectively.
Total Interest Charges, Net
Total interest charges, net was $239 million for 2011, which represents a $19 million decrease compared to 2010. This decrease was primarily due to the 2011 settlement of 2004 and 2005 income tax audits.
Total interest charges, net was $258 million in 2010, which represents a $27 million increase compared to 2009. This increase was primarily due to $16 million higher interest driven by higher average long-term debt outstanding and $14 million unfavorable AFUDC debt related to costs associated with eligible construction projects as discussed above.
Income Tax Expense
Income tax expense was $180 million, $276 million and $209 million in 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. The $96 million decrease in 2011 compared to 2010 was primarily due to the $91 million impact of lower pre-tax income and the $10 million prior-year impact of the change in the tax treatment of the Medicare Part D subsidy resulting from federal health care reform enacted in 2010 (See Note 17). The $67 million income tax expense increase in 2010 compared to 2009 was primarily due to the $24 million impact of the unfavorable AFUDC equity discussed above, the $23 million impact of higher pre-tax income and the $10 million impact of the Medicare Part D subsidy previously discussed. AFUDC equity is excluded from the calculation of income tax expense. Management does not consider the change in the tax treatment of the Medicare Part D subsidy to be representative of PEF’s fundamental core earnings. Accordingly, the impact of the change is excluded in computing PEF’s Ongoing Earnings.
CORPORATE AND OTHER
The Corporate and Other segment primarily includes the operations of the Parent, PESC and other miscellaneous nonregulated businesses that do not separately meet the quantitative disclosure requirements as a reportable business segment. A discussion of the items excluded from Corporate and Other’s Ongoing Earnings is included in the detailed discussion and analysis that follows. Management believes the excluded items are not representative of our
68


fundamental core earnings. The following table reconciles Corporate and Other’s Ongoing Earnings to GAAP net income attributable to controlling interests:
                
(in millions) 2011  Change  2010  Change  2009 
Other interest expense $(302) $(4) $(298) $(52) $(246)
Other income tax benefit  117   1   116   19   97 
Other expense  (15)  (6)  (9)  (4)  (5)
Ongoing Earnings  (200)  (9)  (191)  (37)  (154)
CVO mark-to-market, net of tax  (45)  (45)  -   (19)  19 
Impairment, net of tax  -   -   -   2   (2)
Discontinued operations attributable to
  controlling interests, net of tax
  (5)  (1)  (4)  75   (79)
Net loss attributable to controlling interests $(250) $(55) $(195)  21  $(216)
OTHER INTEREST EXPENSE
Other interest expense was $302 million, $298 million and $246 million for 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. The $52 million increase for 2010 compared to 2009 was primarily due to higher average debt outstanding at the Parent.
OTHER INCOME TAX BENEFIT
Other income tax benefit was $117 million, $116 million and $97 million for 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. The $19 million increase for 2010 compared to 2009 was primarily due to the favorable tax impact of higher pre-tax loss.
OTHER EXPENSE
Other expense was $15 million, $9 million and $5 million for 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. The $6 million increase in 2011 was primarily due to higher stock-based compensation expense resulting from the increase in Progress Energy’s stock price.
ONGOING EARNINGS ADJUSTMENTS
CVO Mark-to-Market
Progresscash flows. Duke Energy issued 98.6 million CVOs in connection with the acquisition of Florida Progress in 2000. Each CVO represents the right of the holder to receive contingency payments basedcannot predict on the performanceoutcome of four synthetic fuels facilities purchased by subsidiaries of Florida Progress in October 1999. The payments are based on the net after-tax cash flows the facilities generate (See Note 16). As a result of a settlement agreement with a CVO holder and a tender offer to CVO holders at a purchase price of $0.75 per CVO (See Note 16), Progress Energy repurchased 80.1 million CVOs in 2011. Progress Energy recorded a pre-tax loss of $59 million in 2011 and a gain of $19 million in 2009 to record the change in fair value of the CVOs, which had average unit prices of $0.75 at December 31, 2011 and $0.16 at December 31, 2010 and 2009. The 18.5 million outstanding CVOs not held by Progress Energy at December 31, 2011, had a fair value of $14 million. The 98.6 million CVOs outstanding at December 31, 2010 and 2009 had a fair value of $15 million. The gain/loss recognized due to changes in fair value is recorded in other, net on the Consolidated Statements of Income. Because Progress Energy is unable to predict the changes in the fair value of the CVOs, management does not consider this adjustment to be representative of our fundamental core earnings. Therefore, the impact of changes in the fair value of CVOs is excluded in computing our Ongoing Earnings.
Impairment, Net of Tax
We recorded a $3 million impairment of investments in 2009. The impairment was recorded in other, net on the Consolidated Statements of Income. Management does not consider impairments to be representative of our fundamental core earnings. Therefore, the impacts of impairments are excluded in computing our Ongoing Earnings.
69

Discontinued Operations Attributable to Controlling Interests, Net of Tax
We completed our business strategy of divesting of nonregulated businesses to reduce our business risk and focus on core operations of the Utilities.these proceedings. See Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters,” for additional information related to discontinued operations. We recognized $5 million, $4 million and $79 million of losses from discontinued operations attributable to controlling interests, net of tax, for 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. Management does not consider operating results of discontinued operations to be representative of our fundamental core earnings. Therefore, the impacts of operating results of discontinued operations are excluded in computing our Ongoing Earnings.information.
In 2009, we recognized $79 million of expense from discontinued operations attributable to controlling interests, net of tax, which was primarily due to a jury delivering a verdict in a lawsuit against Progress Energy and a number of our subsidiaries and affiliates previously engaged in coal-based solid synthetic fuels operations (See Note 22D). As a result, we recorded an after-tax charge of $74 million to discontinued operations, which was net of a previously recorded indemnification liability.
APPLICATION OF CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES AND ESTIMATES
We prepared our Consolidated Financial Statements in accordance with GAAP. In doing so, we made certain estimates that were critical in nature toPreparation of financial statements requires the resultsapplication of operations. The following discusses those significant accounting policies, judgments, assumptions and estimates that may havecan significantly affect the reported results of operations and the amounts of assets and liabilities reported in the financial statements. Judgments made include the likelihood of success of particular projects, possible legal and regulatory challenges, earnings assumptions on pension and other benefit fund investments and anticipated recovery of costs. 
Management discusses these policies, estimates and assumptions with senior members of management on a material impactregular basis and provides periodic updates on our financial results and are subjectmanagement decisions to the greatest amountAudit Committee of subjectivity. We have discussed the development and selectionBoard of these critical accounting policies and estimates withDirectors. Management believes the Audit and Corporate Performance Committee (Audit Committee) of our board of directors.
IMPACT OF UTILITY REGULATION
Our regulated utilities segments are subject to regulation that setsareas described below require significant judgment in the rates (prices) we are permitted to charge customers based on the costs that regulatory agencies determine we are permitted to recover. At times, regulators permit the future recovery through rates of costs that would be currently charged to expense by a nonregulated company. The application of GAAP foraccounting policy or in making estimates and assumptions that are inherently uncertain and that may change in subsequent periods.
Regulatory Accounting
A substantial majority of Regulated Utilities, Duke Energy’s regulated operations, to this ratemaking process results in deferral of expense recognition andmeet the recordingcriteria for application of regulatory assets based on anticipated future cash inflows.accounting treatment. As a result, Duke Energy records assets and liabilities that would not be recorded for nonregulated entities. Regulatory assets generally represent incurred costs that have been deferred because such costs are probable of the ratemaking processesfuture recovery in each state in which we operate, a significant amount ofcustomer rates. Regulatory liabilities generally represent obligations to make refunds or reduce rates to customers for previous collections or for costs that have yet to be incurred.
Management continually assesses whether recorded regulatory assets has been recorded. We continually review theseare probable of future recovery by considering factors such as applicable regulatory assetsenvironment changes, historical regulatory treatment for similar costs in Duke Energy’s jurisdictions, litigation of rate orders, recent rate orders to assess their ultimate recoverability withinother regulated entities, and the approvedstatus of any pending or potential deregulation legislation. If future recovery of costs ceases to be probable, asset write-offs would be recognized in operating income. Additionally, regulatory guidelines. Impairment risk associated with these assets relates to potentially adverse legislative, judicial or regulatory actions in the future. Additionally, the state regulatory agencies’ ratemaking processes oftenagencies can provide flexibility in the manner and timing of the depreciation of property, plant and equipment, recognition of nuclear decommissioning costs and amortization of the regulatory assets.
Our conclusion that we and the Utilities meet the criteria to apply GAAP for regulated operations isassets or may disallow recovery of all or a material assumption in the presentation and evaluationportion of our and the Utilities’ financial position and results of operations. The Utilities’ ability to continue to meet the criteria for application of GAAP for regulated operations could be affected in the future by actions of our regulators, competitive forces and restructuring in the electric utility industry. State regulators may not allow the Utilities to increase future retail rates required to recover their operating costs or provide an adequate returncertain assets. For further information on investment, or in the manner requested. State regulators may also seek to reduce or freeze retail rates. Such events occurring over a sustained period could result in the Utilities no longer meeting the criteria for the continued application of GAAP for regulated operations. In the event that GAAP for regulated operations no longer applies to one or both of the Utilities, we are subject to the risk that regulatory assets and liabilities, wouldsee Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters.”
As required by regulated operations accounting, significant judgment can be eliminatedrequired to determine if an otherwise recognizable cost is considered to be an entity specific cost recoverable in future rates and utilitytherefore a regulatory asset. Significant judgment can also be required to determine if revenues previously recognized are for entity specific costs that are no longer expected to be incurred and are therefore a regulatory liability.
Regulatory accounting rules also require recognition of a loss if it becomes probable that part of the cost of a plant assets mayunder construction (or a recently completed plant or an abandoned plant) will be impaired, unless an appropriate recovery mechanism was provided. Additionally, our financial condition, resultsdisallowed for ratemaking purposes and a reasonable estimate of operations and cash flows maythe amount of the disallowance can be materially impacted.made. For example, if a cost cap is set for a plant still under construction, the amount of the disallowance is a result of a judgment as to the ultimate cost of the plant. Other disallowances can require judgments on allowed future rate recovery. See Note 84 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters,” for additional informationa discussion of disallowances recorded related to the impact of utility regulation on our operations.
We evaluate the carrying value of long-lived assets and intangible assets with definite lives for impairment whenever impairment indicators exist. If an impairment indicator exists, the asset group held and used is tested for recoverability by comparing the carrying value to the sum of undiscounted expected future cash flows directly attributable to the asset group. If the asset group is not recoverable through undiscounted cash flows or if the asset group is to be disposed of, an impairment loss is recognized for the difference between the carrying valueEdwardsport IGCC plant and the retired Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Station.
70

fair valueWhen it becomes probable that regulated generation, transmission or distribution assets will be abandoned, the cost of the asset group. Our exposure to potential impairment losses for utilityis removed from plant net is mitigated by the factin service. The value that our regulated ratemaking process generally allows for recovery of our investment in utility plant plusmay be retained as an allowed returnasset on the investment, as long asbalance sheet for the costs are prudently incurred. The carrying values of our total utility plant, net at December 31 were as follows:
       
(in millions) 2011  2010 
Progress Energy $22,497  $21,240 
PEC  11,887   10,961 
PEF  10,523   10,189 

abandoned property is dependent upon amounts that may be recovered through regulated rates, including any return. As discussed in Note 14, our financial assets and liabilities are primarily comprised of derivative financial instruments and marketable debt and equity securities held in our nuclear decommissioning trusts. Substantially all unrealized gains and losses on derivatives and all unrealized gains and losses on nuclear decommissioning trust investments are deferred as regulatory liabilities or assets consistent with ratemaking treatment. Therefore, the impact of fair value measurements from recurring financial assets and liabilities on our or the Utilities’ earnings is not significant.
ASSET RETIREMENT OBLIGATIONS
Asset Retirement Obligations (AROs) represent legal obligations associated with the retirement of certain tangible long-lived assets. The present values of retirement costs for which we have a legal obligation are recorded as liabilities withsuch, an equivalent amount added to the asset cost and depreciated over the useful life of the associated asset. The liability is then accreted over time by applying an interest method of allocation to the liability.
AROs have no impact on the income of the Utilities as the effects areimpairment charge could be offset by the establishment of a regulatory assetsasset if rate recovery is probable. The impairment for a disallowance of costs for regulated plants under construction, recently completed or abandoned is based on discounted cash flows.

55


PART II

As discussed in Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Acquisitions, Dispositions and regulatory liabilitiesSales of Other Assets,” Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress recorded disallowance charges in 2012 in order to reflect the ratemaking treatmentgain FERC approval of the related costs.merger between Duke Energy and Progress Energy. In addition to the disallowances, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress guaranteed total fuel savings to customers in North Carolina and South Carolina of $687 million over the five years in order to gain NCUC and PSCSC approval of the merger between Duke Energy and Progress Energy. Based on current estimates of future fuel costs, Duke Energy anticipates that it will meet the guaranteed fuel savings. However, if actual fuel costs are higher than expected, Duke Energy could record a charge for the unmet guaranteed savings.
Goodwill Impairment Assessments
Progress Energy’s, PEC’sDuke Energy allocates goodwill to reporting units, which are determined to be an operating segment or one level below based on how the segment is managed. Duke Energy is required to test goodwill for impairment at the reporting unit level at least annually and PEF’s total AROs at December 31, 2011, were $1.265 billion, $896 million, and $369 million, respectively. We calculatedmore frequently if it is more likely than not that the presentfair value of our AROsa reporting unit is less than its carrying value. Duke Energy performs its annual impairment test as of August 31.
Application of the goodwill impairment test requires management judgment, including determining the fair value of the reporting unit, which management estimates using a weighted combination of the income approach, which estimates fair value based on estimates which are dependent on subjective factors such as management’s estimated retirement costs, the timing of futurediscounted cash flows, and the selectionmarket approach, which estimates fair value based on market comparables within the utility and energy industries. Significant assumptions used in these fair value analyses include discount and growth rates, future rates of return expected to result from ongoing rate regulation, utility sector market performance and transactions, projected operating and capital cash flows for Duke Energy’s business and the fair value of debt.
Estimated future cash flows under the income approach are based to a large extent on Duke Energy’s internal business plan, and adjusted as appropriate for Duke Energy’s views of market participant assumptions. Duke Energy’s internal business plan reflects management’s assumptions related to customer usage and attrition based on internal data and economic data obtained from third-party sources, projected commodity pricing data and potential changes in environmental regulations. The business plan assumes the occurrence of certain events in the future, such as the outcome of future rate filings, future approved rates of returns on equity, anticipated earnings/returns related to significant future capital investments, continued recovery of cost of service, the renewal of certain contracts and the future of renewable tax credits. Management also makes assumptions regarding operation, maintenance and general and administrative costs based on the expected outcome of the aforementioned events. In estimating cash flows, Duke Energy incorporates expected growth rates, regulatory and economic stability, the ability to renew contracts and other factors, into its revenue and expense forecasts.
One of the most significant assumptions that Duke Energy utilizes in determining the fair value of its reporting units under the income approach is the discount rate applied to the estimated future cash flows. Management determines the appropriate discount rate for each of its reporting units based on the weighted average cost of capital (WACC) for each individual reporting unit. The WACC takes into account both the after-tax cost of debt and cost escalation rates. Theseof equity. A major component of the cost of equity is the current risk-free rate on 20-year U.S. Treasury bonds. In the 2014 impairment tests, Duke Energy considered implied WACCs for certain peer companies in determining the appropriate WACC rates to use in its analysis. As each reporting unit has a different risk profile based on the nature of its operations, including factors such as regulation, the WACC for each reporting unit may differ. Accordingly, the WACCs were adjusted, as appropriate, to account for company specific risk premiums. The discount rates used for calculating the fair values as of August 31, 2014, for each of Duke Energy’s domestic reporting units ranged from 5.3 percent to 6.9 percent.
For Duke Energy’s international operations, a country-specific risk adder based on the average risk premium for each separate country in which International Energy operates was added to the base discount rate to reflect the differing risk profiles. This resulted in a discount rate for the August 31, 2014 goodwill impairment test for the international operations of 10.5 percent.
The underlying assumptions and estimates are made as of a point in time and are subject to change. Thesetime. Subsequent changes, could materially affect the AROs, althoughparticularly changes in such estimates should not affect earnings, because these costs are expected to be recovered through rates.
Nuclear decommissioning AROs represent 95 percent, 97 percent, and 90 percent, respectively, of Progress Energy’s, PEC’s and PEF’s total AROs at December 31, 2011. To determine nuclear decommissioning AROs, we utilize periodic site-specific cost studies in order to estimate the nature, cost and timing of planned decommissioning activities for our nuclear plants. Our regulators require updated cost estimates for nuclear decommissioning every five years. These cost studies are subject to change based on a variety of factors including, but not limited to, cost escalation, changes in technology applicable to nuclear decommissioning and changes in federal, state or local regulations. Changes in PEC’s and PEF’s nuclear decommissioning site-specific cost estimates or the use of alternative cost escalation or discount rates could be material to the nuclear decommissioning liabilities recognized.
PEC obtained updated cost studies for its nuclear plants in 2009, using 2009 cost factors, which PEC filed with the NCUC in 2010. If the site-specific cost estimates increased by 10 percent, PEC’s AROs would have increased by $77 million. If the inflation adjustment increased 25 basis points, PEC’s AROs would have increased by $169 million. Similarly, an increase in the discount raterates, authorized regulated rates of 25 basis points would have decreased PEC’s AROs by $56 million.
PEF obtained an updated cost study for its nuclear plantreturn or growth rates inherent in 2008, using 2008 cost factors, which was updated with the most currently available escalation rates in 2010 (See Note 5C). If the site-specific costmanagement’s estimates increased by 10 percent, PEF’s AROs would have increased by $32 million. If the inflation adjustment increased 25 basis points, PEF’s AROs would have increased by $25 million. Similarly, an increase in the discount rate of 25 basis points would have decreased PEF’s AROs by $21 million. 
71

GOODWILL
As discussed in Note 9, goodwill is required to be tested for impairment at least annually and more frequently when indicators of impairment exist. All of our goodwill is allocated to our utility reporting units and our goodwill impairment tests are performed at the utility reporting unit level. The carrying amounts of goodwill at December 31, 2011 and 2010, for the PEC and PEF reporting units were $1.922 billion and $1.733 billion, respectively.
We calculate the fair value of our utility reporting units by considering various factors, including valuation studies based primarily on income and market approaches. Generally, more emphasis is applied to the income approach as substantially all of the Utilities’future cash flows, could result in future impairment charges.
The majority of Duke Energy’s business is in environments that are from rate-regulated operations.either fully or partially rate-regulated. In such environments, revenue requirements are adjusted periodically by regulators based on factors including levels of costs, sales volumes and costs of capital. Accordingly, the UtilitiesDuke Energy’s regulated utilities operate to some degree with a buffer from the direct effects, positive or negative, of significant swings in market or economic conditions. However, changes in discount rates may have a significant impact on the fair value of equity.
As of August 31, 2014, all of the reporting units’ estimated fair value of equity exceeded the carrying value of equity by more than 10 percent.
The income approach uses discountedLong-Lived Asset Impairment Assessments, Excluding Regulated Operations
Property, plant and equipment, excluding plant held for sale, is stated at the lower of carrying value (historical cost less accumulated depreciation and previously recorded impairments) or fair value, if impaired. Duke Energy evaluates property, plant and equipment for impairment when events or changes in circumstances (such as a significant change in cash flow analysesprojections, the determination that it is more likely than not an asset or asset group will be sold) indicate the carrying value of such assets may not be recoverable. The determination of whether an impairment has occurred is based on an estimate of undiscounted future cash flows attributable to determinethe assets, as compared with their carrying value.
Performing an impairment evaluation involves a significant degree of estimation and judgment in areas such as identifying circumstances that indicate an impairment may exist, identifying and grouping affected assets, and developing the undiscounted future cash flows associated with the asset. If an impairment has occurred, the amount of the impairment recognized is determined by estimating the fair value of the utility reporting units. The estimated future cash flows from operations are based onasset and recording a loss if the Utilities’ business plans, which reflect management’s assumptions related to customer usage based on internal data and economic data obtained from third-party sources. The business plans assumecarrying value is greater than the occurrence of certain events in the future, such as the outcome of future rate filings, future approved rates of returns on equity, the timing of anticipated significant future capital investments, the anticipated earnings and returns related to such capital investments, continued recovery of cost of service and the renewal of certain contracts. Management also determines the appropriate discount rate for the utility reporting units based on the weighted average cost of capital for each utility, which takes into account both the cost of equity and pre-tax cost of debt. As each utility reporting unit has a different risk profile based on the nature of its operations, the discount rate for each reporting unit may differ.
The market approach uses implied market multiples derived from comparable peer utilities and market transactions to estimate thefair value. Additionally, determining fair value of the utility reporting units. Peer utilitiesasset requires probability weighting future cash flows to reflect expectations about possible variations in their amounts or timing and the selection of an appropriate discount rate. Although cash flow estimates are evaluated based on percentage of revenues generated by regulated utility operations; percentage of revenues generated by electric operations; generation mix, including coal, gas, nuclear and other resources; market capitalization as ofrelevant information available at the valuation date; and geographic location. Comparable market transactionstime the estimates are evaluated based on the availability of financial transaction data and the nature and geographic location of the businesses or assets acquired, including whether the target company had a significant electric component. The selection of comparable peer utilities and market transactions, as well as the appropriate multiples from within a reasonable range, is a matter of professional judgment.
The calculations in both the income and market approaches are highly dependent on subjective factors such as management’s estimatemade, estimates of future cash flows are, by nature, highly uncertain and may vary significantly from actual results. For assets identified as held for sale, the selectioncarrying value is compared to the estimated fair value less cost to sell to determine if an impairment loss is required. Until the assets are disposed of, appropriate discounttheir estimated fair value is re-evaluated when circumstances or events change.
When determining whether an asset or asset group has been impaired, management groups assets at the lowest level that has discrete cash flows.

56


PART II

For further information related to the impairment recorded in conjunction with planned sale of Duke Energy's Disposal Group to Dynegy, see Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Acquisition, Disposals and growth ratesSales of Other Assets,"
Accounting for Loss Contingencies
Preparation of financial statements and related disclosures require judgments regarding the future outcome of contingent events. Duke Energy is involved in certain legal and environmental matters arising in the normal course of business. Estimating probable losses requires analysis of multiple forecasts and scenarios that often depend on judgments about potential actions by third parties, such as federal, state and local courts and other regulators. Contingent liabilities are often resolved over long periods of time. Amounts recorded in the consolidated financial statements may differ from a marketplace participant’s perspective, and the selection of peer utilities and marketplace transactions for comparative valuation purposes. These underlying assumptions and estimates are made as of a point in time. If these assumptions change or should the actual outcome of some or all of these assumptions differ significantly fromonce the current assumptions, the fair value of the utility reporting units could be significantly different in future periods,contingency is resolved, which could result inhave a material impact on future impairment charge to goodwill.results of operations, financial position and cash flows of Duke Energy.
Our 2011 annual test relied primarily on a market approach, which was based on the allocation of the fair value of the consideration to be received in the pending MergerFor further information, see Notes 4 and 5 to the utility reporting units. In addition, in response to uncertainty regarding CR3, management performed an additional analysis forConsolidated Financial Statements, "Regulatory Matters" and “Commitments and Contingencies.”
Revenue Recognition
Revenues on sales of electricity and gas are recognized when either the PEF reporting unit based primarily on income and market approaches as previously described. The results of our 2011 annual test of goodwill indicated that the fair values of the PEC and PEF reporting units substantially exceeded their respective carrying values, and therefore the carrying amounts of goodwill for the PEC and PEF reporting units were not impaired.
We monitor for events or circumstances, including financial market conditions and economic factors, that may indicate an interim goodwill impairment test is necessary. We would perform an interim impairment test should any events occur or circumstances change that would more likely than not reduce the fair value of a utility reporting unit below its carrying value.
72

UNBILLED REVENUE
As discussed in Note 1, we recognize electric utility revenues as service is rendered to customers.provided or the product is delivered. Operating revenues include unbilled electric utilities base revenues, primarily related to retail baseand gas revenues earned when service has been delivered but not billed by the end of the accounting period. The determination of electricity sales to individual customers is based on meter readings, which occur on a systematic basis throughout the month. At the end of each month, electricity delivered to customers since the last meter reading is estimated and a corresponding accrual for the electric utility revenues associated with unbilled sales is recognized. Unbilled retail revenues are estimated by applying a weightedan average revenue/kWhrevenue per kilowatt-hour (kWh) or per thousand cubic feet (Mcf) for all customer classes to the number of estimated kWh or Mcf delivered but not billed. Unbilled wholesale energy revenues are calculated by applying the contractual rate per megawatt-hour (MWh) to the number of estimated MWh delivered but not yet billed. Unbilled wholesale demand revenues are calculated by applying the contractual rate per megawatt (MW) to the MW volume delivered but not yet billed. The calculationamount of unbilled revenue is affected byrevenues can vary significantly from period to period as a result of numerous factors, that include fluctuations in energy demand for the unbilled period,including seasonality, weather, customer usage patterns, customer mix and the average price in effect for each customer classclasses.
Pension and estimated transmissionOther Post-Retirement Benefits
The calculation of pension expense, other post-retirement benefit expense and distribution line losses.
Amounts recorded as receivables on the Balance Sheets at December 31 related to unbilled revenues were as follows:
(in millions) 2011  2010 
Progress Energy $157  $223 
PEC  102   136 
PEF  55   87 
         
INCOME TAXES
Judgmentnet pension and other post-retirement assets or liabilities require the use of estimates are requiredassumptions and election of permissible accounting alternatives. Changes in developing the provision for income taxes and reporting of tax-related assets and liabilities. As discussed in Note 15, deferred income tax assets and liabilities represent the future effects on income taxes for temporary differences between the bases of assets and liabilities for financial reporting and tax purposes. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using enacted tax rates expected to apply to taxable income in the years in which those temporary differences are expected to be recovered or settled. The probability of realizing deferred tax assets is based on forecasts of future taxable income and the availability of tax-planning strategies thatassumptions can be implemented, if necessary, to realize deferred tax assets. We establish a valuation allowance when it is more likely than not that all, or a portion of, a deferred tax asset will not be realized.
The interpretation of tax laws involves uncertainty. Ultimate resolution of income tax matters may result in favorabledifferent expense and reported asset or unfavorable impacts to net incomeliability amounts, and cash flows,future actual experience can differ from the assumptions. Duke Energy believes the most critical assumptions for pension and adjustments to tax-related assets and liabilities could be material. In accordance with GAAP,other post-retirement benefits are the uncertainty and judgment involved in the determination and filing of income taxes are accounted for by prescribing a minimum recognition threshold that a tax position is required to meet before being recognized in the financial statements. A two-step process is required: recognition of the tax benefit based on a “more-likely-than-not” threshold, and measurement of the largest amount of tax benefit that is greater than 50 percent likely of being realized upon ultimate settlement with the taxing authority.
PENSION COSTS
As discussed in Note 17A, we maintain qualified noncontributory defined benefit retirement (pension) plans. We also have supplementary defined benefit pension plans that provide benefits to higher-level employees. Our reported costs are dependent on numerous factors resulting from actual plan experience and assumptions of future experience. For example, such costs are impacted by employee demographics, changes made to plan provisions, actual plan asset returns and key actuarial assumptions, such as expected long-term ratesrate of return on plan assets and the assumed discount rates usedrate. Additionally, the health care cost trend rate assumption is critical to Duke Energy’s estimate of other post-retirement benefits.
Duke Energy has historically utilized the Society of Actuaries’ (SOA) published mortality data in determiningdeveloping a best estimate of mortality as part of the calculation of the pension obligation (qualified and non-qualified) and other post-retirement benefit obligation. On October 27, 2014, the SOA published updated mortality tables for U.S. plans (RP-2014) and an updated improvement scale, which both reflect improved longevity. Based on an evaluation of the mortality experience of Duke Energy's pension plan participants, the updated SOA study of mortality tables and recent additional studies of mortality improvement, Duke Energy adopted an adjusted version of the SOA's new RP-2014 mortality tables with an updated generational improvement scale (BB-2D) previously published by the SOA for purposes of measuring its U.S. pension (qualified and non-qualified) and other post-retirement benefit obligations as of December 31, 2014. The change to the mortality assumption increased Duke Energy's pension obligation (qualified and annual costs.non-qualified) and other post-retirement benefit obligation by $201 million and $7 million, respectively, as of December 31, 2014.
We have pensionDuke Energy elects to amortize net actuarial gains or losses in excess of the corridor of 10 percent of the greater of the market-related value of plan assets withor plan projected benefit obligation, into net pension or other post-retirement benefit expense over the average remaining service period of active covered employees. Prior service cost or credit, which represents the effect on plan liabilities due to plan amendments, is amortized over the average remaining service period of active covered employees.
Duke Energy maintains non-contributory defined benefit retirement plans. The plans cover most U.S. employees using a fair valuecash balance formula. Under a cash balance formula, a plan participant accumulates a retirement benefit consisting of approximately $2.2 billionpay credits based upon a percentage of current eligible earnings based on age and years of service and current interest credits. Certain employees are covered under plans that use a final average earnings formula.
Duke Energy provides some health care and life insurance benefits for retired employees on a contributory and non-contributory basis. Certain employees are eligible for these benefits if they have met age and service requirements at retirement, as defined in the plans.
As of December 31, 2011. For 2011, our expected rate of return on2014, Duke Energy assumes pension and other post-retirement plan assets was 8.50%. The expected rate of return used in pension cost recognition iswill generate a long-term rate of return; therefore, we do not adjust that rate of return frequently. In 2011, we lowered the expected rate of return from the previously used 8.75%, due primarily to a shift in our investment strategy. A 25 basis point change in the expected rate of return for 2011 would have changed 2011 pension costs by approximately $5 million. For 2012, we have assumed an expected rate of return of 8.25%, which is reflected in the estimates of total 2012 pension costs discussed within this section.
73

Another factor affecting our pension costs, and sensitivity of the costs to plan asset performance, is the method selected to determine the market-related value of assets, i.e., the asset value to which the6.50 percent. The expected long-term rate of return is applied. Entities may use either fair value or an averaging method that recognizes changes in fair value overwas developed using a period not to exceed five years, withweighted average calculation of expected returns based primarily on future expected returns across asset classes considering the method selected applied on a consistent basis from year to year. We have historically used a five-year averaging method. When we acquired Florida Progress in 2000, we retained the Florida Progress historical use of fair valueactive asset managers, where applicable. Equity securities are held for their higher expected returns. Debt securities are primarily held to determine market-related valuehedge the pension liability. Hedge funds, real estate and other global securities are held for Florida Progressdiversification. Investments within asset classes are to be diversified to achieve broad market participation and reduce the impact of individual managers on investments. In 2013, Duke Energy adopted a de-risking investment strategy for its pension assets. ChangesAs the funded status of the plans increase, over time the targeted allocation to return seeking assets will be reduced and the targeted allocation to fixed-income assets will be increased to better manage Duke Energy's pension liability and reduced funded status volatility. Based on the current funded status of the plans, the asset allocation for the Duke Energy pension plans has been adjusted to 65 percent fixed-income assets and 35 percent return-seeking assets and the asset allocation for the Progress Energy pension plans has been adjusted to 60 percent fixed-income assets and 40 percent return-seeking assets. Duke Energy regularly reviews its actual asset allocation and periodically rebalances its investments to the targeted allocations when considered appropriate.
The assets for Duke Energy’s pension and other post-retirement plans are maintained in plan asset performance are reflecteda master trust. Duke Energy also invests other post-retirement assets in pension costs sooner under the fair value method than the five-year averaging method, and, therefore, pension costs tendDuke Energy Corporation Employee Benefits Trust (VEBA I). The investment objective of VEBA I is to be more volatile using the fair value method. Approximately 50 percent of our pension plan assets areachieve sufficient returns, subject to eacha prudent level of portfolio risk, for the two methods.purpose of promoting the security of plan benefits for participants. VEBA I is passively managed.

57


PART II

DueDuke Energy discounted its future U.S. pension and other post-retirement obligations using a rate of 4.1 percent as of December 31, 2014. Discount rates used to a decrease in the market interestmeasure benefit plan obligations for financial reporting purposes reflect rates for high-quality (AAA/AA) debt securities,at which are used as the benchmark for setting thepension benefits could be effectively settled. As of December 31, 2014, Duke Energy determined its discount rate for U.S. pension and other post-retirement obligations using a bond selection-settlement portfolio approach. This approach develops a discount rate by selecting a portfolio of high quality corporate bonds that generate sufficient cash flow to calculatematch the timing of projected benefit payments. The selected bond portfolio is derived from a universe of non-callable corporate bonds rated Aa quality or higher. After the bond portfolio is selected, a single interest rate is determined that equates the present value of future benefit payments, we decreased the discount rate to 4.75% at December 31, 2011, from 5.65% at December 31, 2010, which will increase 2012 pension costs, all other factors remaining constant. Our discount rates are selected based on a plan-by-plan study, which matches ourplan’s projected benefit payments to a high-quality corporate yield curve. Consistentdiscounted at this rate with generalthe market conditions, ourvalue of the bonds selected.
Future changes in plan assets experienced returns of approximately 5% in 2011. That negative asset performance, as compared to our expected asset returns, will result in increased pension costs in 2012, allassumed discount rates and various other factors remaining constant. In addition, contributionsrelated to the participants in Duke Energy’s pension plan assets in 2011 and in 2012post-retirement plans will result in decreasedimpact future pension costs in 2012 due to increased asset balancesexpense and resulting expected earnings on those assets, all otherliabilities. Duke Energy cannot predict with certainty what these factors remaining constant.
Evaluations of our 2012 pension costs have not been completed, but we estimate that the total cost recognized for pensions in 2012 will be $110 millionin the future. The following table presents the approximate effect on Duke Energy’s 2014 pretax pension expense, pretax other post-retirement expense, pension obligation and other post-retirement benefit obligation if a 0.25 percent change in rates were to $120 million, compared with $88 million recognizedoccur.
  Qualified and Non-Qualified Pension Plans Other Post-Retirement Plans
(in millions)0.25% (0.25)% 0.25% (0.25)%
Effect on 2014 pretax pension and other post-retirement expense           
Expected long-term rate of return$(19) $19
 $(1) $1
Discount rate(17) 16
 (2) 2
Effect on pension and other post-retirement benefit obligation at December 31, 2014  
   
   
   
Discount rate(198) 203
 (20) 21
Duke Energy’s U.S. other post-retirement plan uses a health care trend rate covering both pre- and post-age 65 retired plan participants, which is comprised of a medical care trend rate, which reflects the near- and long-term expectation of increases in 2011. A portionmedical costs, and a prescription drug trend rate, which reflects the near and long-term expectation of net periodicincreases in prescription drug costs. As of December 31, 2014, the health care trend rate was 6.75 percent, trending down to 4.75 percent by 2023. The following table presents the approximate effect on Duke Energy’s 2014 pretax other post-retirement expense and other post-retirement benefit cost is capitalized as part of construction work in progress.
Since PEC and PEF participate in our pension plans, the general discussion above applies to PEC and PEF. PEC and PEF have not completed evaluating their 2012 pension costs. PEC estimates that the total cost recognized for pensions in 2012 will be $30 million to $35 million, compared with $24 million recognized in 2011. A 25 basisobligation if a 1 percentage point change in the expectedhealth care trend rate of return for 2011 would have changed PEC’s 2011 pension costs by approximately $3 million. PEF estimates thatwere to occur.
  Other Post-Retirement Plans
(in millions)1% (1)%
Effect on 2014 other post-retirement expense$7
 $(6)
Effect on other post-retirement benefit obligation at December 31, 201436
 (31)
For further information, see Note 21 to the total cost recognized for pensions in 2012 will be $50 million to $55 million, compared with $39 million recognized in 2011. A 25 basis point change in the expected rate of return for 2011 would have changed PEF’s 2011 pension costs by approximately $2 million.Consolidated Financial Statements, “Employee Benefit Plans.”
LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES
Sources and Uses of Cash
OVERVIEW
Our significantDuke Energy relies primarily upon cash flows from operations, debt issuances and its existing cash and cash equivalents to fund its domestic liquidity and capital requirements. Duke Energy’s capital requirements arise primarily from capital and investment expenditures, repaying long-term debt and paying dividends to shareholders. Duke Energy’s projected primary sources and uses for the capital-intensive naturenext three fiscal years are included in the table below.
(in millions)  2015
 2016
 2017
Uses:  
  
   
   
Capital expenditures  $7,025-7,425
 $8,600-9,375
 $7,050-7,825
Debt maturities and reduction in short-term debt(a)
3,300
 1,850
 2,150
Dividend payments  2,250
 2,300
 2,350
Share repurchases1,400
 
 
Sources:  
  
   
  
Cash flows from operations(b) 
$7,115
 $7,525
 $8,100
Debt issuances  3,100
 6,000
 4,000
Proceeds from the sale of the Disposal Group2,800
 
 
(a)Excludes capital leases and securitized receivables maturities in 2016 and 2017 expected to be renewed. Amounts represent Duke Energy's financing plan, which accelerates certain contractual maturities.
(b)Cash flows from operations includes expenditures related to ash basin closures.
Duke Energy expects the sale of the Utilities’ operations, including expendituresDisposal group to Dynegy to be completed by the end of the second quarter of 2015. The sale price is $2.8 billion in cash subject to adjustments at closing for environmental compliance. We typically rely upon our operatingchanges in working capital and capital expenditures. Upon closing of the transaction, Duke Energy intends to execute a balanced recapitalization strategy with the proceeds. The recapitalization is expected to include a combination of an accelerated share repurchase and debt reduction through avoidance of holding company debt issuances in 2015. The ultimate use of proceeds will depend on facts and circumstances at the time of the closing. For further information on the Midwest Generation Exit, refer to Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Acquisitions, Dispositions and Sales of Other Assets."

58


PART II

In December 2014, Duke Energy declared a taxable dividend of historical foreign earnings in the form of notes payable that will result in the repatriation of approximately $2.7 billion of cash flow, substantially all of which isheld and expected to be generated by International Energy over a period of up to eight years. Between $1.2 billion and $1.4 billion will be remitted in 2015, with the Utilities,remaining amount remitted by 2022. The proceeds of the dividend will principally be used to support Duke Energy's dividend and growth in the domestic business.
The Subsidiary Registrants generally maintain minimal cash balances and use short-term borrowings to meet their working capital needs and other cash requirements. The Subsidiary Registrants, excluding Progress Energy, support their short-term borrowing needs through participation with Duke Energy and certain of its other subsidiaries in a money pool arrangement. The companies with short-term funds may provide short-term loans to affiliates participating under this arrangement. See Note 6 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Debt and Credit Facilities,” for additional discussion of the money pool arrangement.
Duke Energy and the Subsidiary Registrants, excluding Progress Energy, may also use short-term debt, including commercial paper and credit facilities, and our abilitythe money pool, as a bridge to access the long-term debt and equity capital markets for sourcesfinancings. The levels of liquidity. As discussed in “Future Liquidity and Capital Resources” below, synthetic fuels tax credits will provide an additional source of liquidity as those credits are realized.
The majority of our operating costs are related toborrowing may vary significantly over the Utilities. Most of these costs are recovered from ratepayers in accordance with various rate plans. We are allowed to recover certain fuel, purchased power and other costs incurred by PEC and PEF through their respective recovery clauses. The types of costs recovered through clauses vary by jurisdiction. Fuel price volatility and plant performance can lead to over- or under-recovery of fuel costs, as changes in fuel expense are not immediately reflected in fuel surcharges due to regulatory lag in setting the surcharges. As a result, fuel price volatility and plant performance can be both a source of and a use of liquidity resources, depending on what phasecourse of the cycle of price volatility we are experiencing and/or how our plants are performing. Changes in the Utilities’ fuel and purchased power costs may affectyear due to the timing of long-term debt financings and the impact of fluctuations in cash flows but not materially affect net income. In addition,from operations. From time to time, Duke Energy’s current liabilities exceed current assets resulting from the use of short-term debt as discussed in “Future Liquidity and Capital Resources” below, the amount and timinga funding source to meet scheduled maturities of applicable CR3 repair and associated replacement power recovery from NEIL could impact borrowing needs.
74

As a registered holding company, our establishment of intercompany extensions of credit is subject to regulation by the FERC. Our subsidiaries participate in internal money pools, administered by PESC, to more effectively utilize cash resources and reduce external short-term borrowings. The utility money pool allows the Utilities to lend to and borrow from each other. A non-utility money pool allows our nonregulated operations to lend to and borrow from each other. The Parent can lend money to the utility and non-utility money pools but cannot borrow funds.
The Parent is a holding company and,long-term debt, as such, has no revenue-generating operations of its own. The primarywell as cash needs, at the Parent level are our common stock dividend, interest and principal payments on the Parent’s $4.0 billion of senior unsecured debt and potentially funding the Utilities’ capital expenditures through equity contributions. The Parent’s ability to meet these needs is typically funded with dividends from the Utilities generated from their earnings and cash flows and, to a lesser extent, dividends from other subsidiaries; repayment of fundswhich can fluctuate due to the Parent byseasonality of its subsidiaries;business.
Credit Facilities and Registration Statements
Master Credit Facility Summary
At December 31, 2014, Duke Energy had a Master Credit Facility with a capacity of $6 billion. In January 2015, Duke Energy amended the Parent’s credit facility; and/Master Credit Facility to increase its capacity to $7.5 billion through January 2020. The Duke Energy Registrants, excluding Progress Energy, each have borrowing capacity under the Master Credit Facility up to specified sublimits for each borrower. Duke Energy has the unilateral ability at any time to increase or decrease the Parent’s abilityborrowing sublimits of each borrower, subject to accessa maximum sublimit for each borrower. The amount available under the short-term and long-term debt and equity capital markets. During 2011, PEC paid dividendsMaster Credit Facility has been reduced to backstop the issuances of $585 million and PEF paid dividends of $510 million to the Parent. PEC and PEF expect to pay dividends to the Parent in 2012. There are a number of factors that impact the Utilities’ decision or ability to pay dividends to the Parent or to seek equity contributions from the Parent, including capital expenditure decisions and the timing of recovery of fuel and other pass-through costs. Therefore, we cannot predict the level of dividends or equity contributions between the Utilities and the Parent from year to year. The Parent could change its existing common stock dividend policy based upon these and other business factors.
Cash from operations, commercial paper, issuances, borrowings under our credit facilities and/or long-term debt financings are expected to fund capital expenditures, long-term debt maturities and common stock dividends for 2012. In the event the Merger does not close by the Merger Agreement termination date of July 8, 2012, we may also use equity offerings or ongoing sales of common stock through the IPP and/or employee benefit and stock option plans to support our liquidity requirements (See “Financing Activities”).
We have 23 financial institutions that support our combined $1.978 billion revolving credit facilities for the Parent, PEC and PEF, thereby limiting our dependence on any one institution. The credit facilities serve as back-ups to our commercial paper programs. To the extent amounts are reserved for commercial paper orcertain letters of credit outstanding, they are not available for additional borrowings. At December 31, 2011,and variable-rate demand tax-exempt bonds that may be put to the Parent had no outstanding borrowings under its credit facility, $250 million of outstanding commercial paper and had issued $2 million of letters of credit supported byDuke Energy Registrants at the revolving credit facility. At December 31, 2011, PEC and PEF had no outstanding borrowings under their respective credit facilities and $184 million and $233 million of outstanding commercial paper, respectively. Based on these outstanding amounts at December 31, 2011, there was a combined $1.309 billion available for additional borrowings.
At December 31, 2011, PEC and PEF had limited counterparty mark-to-market exposure for financial commodity hedges (primarily gas and oil hedges) due to spreading our concentration risk over a number of counterparties. In the event of default by a counterparty, the exposure in the transaction is the cost of replacing the agreements at current market rates. At December 31, 2011, the majorityoption of the Utilities’ open financial commodity hedges were in net mark-to-market liability positions. See Note 18A for additional information with regard to our commodity derivatives.
At December 31, 2011, we had limited mark-to-market exposure to certain financial institutions under pay-fixed forward starting swaps to hedge cash flow risk with regard to future financing transactions forholder. The table below includes the Parent, PECcurrent borrowing sublimits and PEF. In the event of default by a counterparty, the exposure in the transaction is the cost of replacing the agreements at current market rates. At December 31, 2011, the sums of the Parent’s, PEC’s and PEF’s open pay-fixed forward starting swaps were each in a net mark-to-market liability position. See Note 18B for additional information with regard to our interest rate derivatives.
The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (H.R. 4173) includes, among other things, provisions related to the swaps and over-the-counter derivatives markets. Regulations related to these provisions to address items such as mandatory clearing and trading, reporting and capital and margin requirements have not yet been finalized. Given that we use commodity and interest rate hedges to mitigate commercial risk, we expect that we will be considered end users of these productsavailable capacity under the law. Therefore, we expect that we will be exempt from the law’s mandatory clearing and trading provisions, subject to certain reporting requirements. Capital and margin requirements for our
75

interest rate and commodity hedges, as well as the law’s impact on our counterparties and other market participants, are expected to be determined as more detailed rules and regulations are published. At this time, we do not expect the law to have a material impact on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. However, we cannot determine the impact until the final regulations are issued.
Our pension and nuclear decommissioning trust funds are managed by a number of financial institutions, and the assets being managed are diversified in order to limit concentration risk in any one institution or business sector.
We believe our internal and external liquidity resources will be sufficient to fund our current business plans. We will continue to monitor the credit markets to maintain an appropriate level of liquidity. Our ability to access the capital markets on favorable terms may be negatively impacted by credit rating actions. Risk factors associated with the capital markets and credit ratings are discussed below and in Item 1A, “Risk Factors.”
The following discussion of our liquidity and capital resources is on a consolidated basis.
HISTORICAL FOR 2011 AS COMPARED TO 2010 AND 2010 AS COMPARED TO 2009
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATIONS
Net cash provided by operations is the primary source used to meet operating requirements and a portion of capital expenditures. The Utilities produced substantially all of our consolidated cash from operations for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009. Net cash provided by operating activities for the three years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, was $1.615 billion, $2.537 billion and $2.271 billion, respectively.
Net cash provided by operating activities for 2011 decreased when compared to 2010. The $922 million decrease in operating cash flow was primarily due to $308 million higher cash used for inventory, the $219 million less favorable impact of weather as previously discussed, a $205 million increase in pension plan funding, $86 million paid for interest rate hedges terminated in conjunction with the issuance of long-term debt in 2011 and $72 million decrease in NEIL reimbursements for replacement power costs due to the CR3 extended outage (See “Future Liquidity and Capital Resources – Regulatory Matters and Recovery of Costs – CR3 Outage”). The increase in cash used for inventory was primarily due to the higher coal purchases in 2011 reflecting anticipated winter consumption and inventory levels that remained high at year-end (due to lower natural gas prices), combined with higher 2010 consumption of existing inventory levels to meet system requirements resulting from favorable weather.
Net cash provided by operating activities increased $266 million for 2010, when compared to 2009. The increase was primarily due to the $203 million favorable impact of weather, partially offset by $78 million higher nuclear plant outage and maintenance costs included in O&M, both as previously discussed; $197 million lower cash used for inventory, primarily due to higher coal consumption in 2010 as a result of favorable weather that was fulfilled through the 2010 usage of inventory from year-end 2009; $154 million payment in 2009 due to a verdict in a lawsuit against Progress Energy and a number of our subsidiaries and affiliates previously engaged in coal-based solid synthetic fuels operations (See Note 22D); $56 million net cash receipts for income taxes in 2010 compared to $87 million net cash payments for income taxes in 2009; and $121 million lower cash used for pension and other benefits, primarily due to a reduction of contributions made in 2010. These amounts were partially offset by a $2 million under-recovery of fuel in 2010 compared to a $290 million over-recovery of fuel in 2009 due to higher fuel costs and lower fuel rates in 2010 and $23 million of net payments of cash collateral to counterparties on derivative contracts in 2010 compared to $200 million net refunds of cash collateral in 2009.
The Utilities file annual requests with their respective state commissions seeking rate increases or decreases for fuel cost under- or over-recovery.
INVESTING ACTIVITIES
Net cash used by investing activities for the three years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, was $2.212 billion, $2.400 billion and $2.532 billion, respectively.
76

Net cash used by investing activities decreased by $188 million for 2011, when compared to 2010. This decrease was primarily due to a $155 million decrease in gross property additions, primarily due to lower spending for environmental compliance and nuclear projects at PEF, the $42 million of smart grid grant reimbursements and $27 million of litigation judgment proceeds, partially offset by $24 million increase in restricted cash used to support letters of credit.
Net cash used by investing activities decreased by $132 million for 2010, when compared to 2009. This decrease was primarily due to a $74 million decrease in gross property additions, primarily due to lower spending for environmental compliance and nuclear projects at PEF, partially offset by PEC’s increased capital expenditures at the Wayne County, New Hanover County and Harris generating facilities, and a $64 million increase in receipt of NEIL insurance proceeds for repairs due to the CR3 extended outage.
FINANCING ACTIVITIES
Net cash provided (used) by financing activities for the three years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, was $216 million, $(251) million and $806 million, respectively. See Note 11 for details of debt and credit facilities.
Net cash provided by financing activities increased by $467 million for 2011, when compared to 2010. The increase is primarily due to a $902 million increase in proceeds from short-term and long-term debt, net of retirements, partially offset by $381 million net decrease in issuances of common stock, primarily related to the Parent’s 2010 common stock sales under the IPP.
Net cash used by financing activities increased by $1.057 billion for 2010, when compared to 2009. The increase was primarily due to an $817 million decrease in proceeds from short-term and long-term debt, net of retirements and a $192 million decrease in issuances of common stock, primarily related to a 2009 public offering.
Our financing activities are described below.
2012
·  On February 15, 2012, the Parent’s $478 million revolving credit agreement (RCA) was amended to extend the expiration date from May 3, 2012, to May 3, 2013, with its existing syndicate of 14 financial institutions. The Parent originally entered into the five-year RCA on May 3, 2006. On May 2, 2008, the expiration date of the RCA was extended to May 3, 2012. The Parent ratably reduced the size of the RCA from $1.130 billion to $500 million on October 15, 2010, and the RCA was further reduced to $478 million on May 3, 2011, following the expiration of one financial institution’s credit commitment of $22 million (See “Credit Facilities and Registration Statements”).
2011
·  On January 21, 2011, the Parent issued $500 million of 4.40% Senior Notes due January 15, 2021. The net proceeds of $495 million, along with available cash on hand, were used to retire the $700 million outstanding aggregate principal balance of our 7.10% Senior Notes due March 1, 2011.
·  On July 15, 2011, PEF paid at maturity $300 million of its 6.65% First Mortgage Bonds with proceeds from short-term debt borrowings.
·  On August 18, 2011, PEF issued $300 million 3.10% First Mortgage Bonds due August 15, 2021. The net proceeds were used to repay a portion of outstanding short-term debt, of which $300 million was issued to repay PEF’s July 15, 2011 maturity.
·  On September 15, 2011, PEC issued $500 million 3.00% First Mortgage Bonds due September 15, 2021. A portion of the net proceeds was used to repay outstanding short-term debt and the remainder was used for general corporate purposes, including construction expenditures.
Master Credit Facility.
  December 31, 2014
(in millions)  Duke Energy
 Duke Energy (Parent)
 Duke Energy Carolinas
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 
Duke
Energy
Ohio

 Duke Energy Indiana
Facility size(a)
$6,000
 $2,250
 $1,000
 $750
 $650
 $650
 $700
Reduction to backstop issuances                      
Commercial paper(b)
(2,021) (1,479) (300) 
 (29) (38) (175)
Outstanding letters of credit  (70) (62) (4) (2) (1) 
 (1)
Tax-exempt bonds  (116) 
 (35) 
 
 
 (81)
Available capacity  $3,793
 $709
 $661
 $748
 $620
 $612
 $443
·  Progress
(a)Represents the sublimit of each borrower at December 31, 2014. The Duke Energy Ohio sublimit includes $100 million for Duke Energy Kentucky.
(b)Duke Energy issued approximately 2.0$475 million shares of common stock resulting in approximately $53 million in proceeds from the IPP and its employee benefit and equity incentive plans. Included in these amounts
77

were approximately 2.0 million shares for proceeds of approximately $52 million issued under equity incentive plans. For 2011, the dividends paid on common stock were approximately $734 million.
2010
·  On January 15, 2010, the Parent paid at maturity $100 million of its Series A Floating Rate Notes with a portion of the proceeds from the $950 million of Senior Notes issued in November 2009.
·  On March 25, 2010, PEF issued $250 million of 4.55% First Mortgage Bonds due 2020 and $350 million of 5.65% First Mortgage Bonds due 2040. Proceeds were used to repay the outstanding balance of PEF’s notes payable to affiliated companies, to repay the maturity of PEF’s $300 million 4.50% First Mortgage Bonds due June 1, 2010, and for general corporate purposes.
·  On October 15, 2010, PEC and PEF each entered into new $750 million, three-year RCAs with a syndication of 22 financial institutions. The RCAs are used to provide liquidity support for PEC’s and PEF’s issuances of commercial paper and other short-term obligations, and for general corporate purposes. The RCAs will expire on October 15, 2013. The new $750 million RCAs replaced PEC’s and PEF’s $450 million RCAs, which were set to expire June 28, 2011, and March 28, 2011, respectively. Both $450 million RCAs were terminated effective October 15, 2010 (See “Credit Facilities and Registration Statements”).
·  Progress Energy issued approximately 12.2 million shares of common stock resulting in approximately $434 million in proceeds from the IPP and its employee benefit and equity incentive plans. Included in these amounts were approximately 11.2 million shares for proceeds of approximately $431 million issued for the IPP. For 2010, the dividends paid on common stock were approximately $718 million.
2009
·  On January 12, 2009, the Parent issued 14.4 million shares of common stock at a public offering price of $37.50 per share. Net proceeds from this offering were approximately $523 million. On February 3, 2009, the Parent used $100 million ofloaned the proceeds through the money pool to reduce its $600 million RCA balance outstanding at December 31, 2008,Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio and the remainder was used for general corporate purposes.
·  On January 15, 2009, PEC issued $600 million of First Mortgage Bonds, 5.30% Series due 2019. A portion of the proceeds was usedDuke Energy Indiana. The balances are included within Long-Term Debt Payable to repay the maturity of PEC’s $400 million 5.95% Senior Notes, due March 1, 2009. The remaining proceeds were used to repay PEC’s outstanding short-term debt and for general corporate purposes.
·  On March 19, 2009, the Parent issued an aggregate $750 million of Senior Notes consisting of $300 million of 6.05% Senior Notes due 2014 and $450 million of 7.05% Senior Notes due 2019. A portion of the proceeds was used to fund PEF’s capital expenditures through an equity contribution with the remaining proceeds used for general corporate purposes.
·  On June 18, 2009, PEC entered into a Seventy-seventh Supplemental Indenture to its Mortgage and Deed of Trust, dated May 1, 1940, as supplemented, in connection with certain amendments to the mortgage. The amendments are set forthAffiliated Companies in the Seventy-seventh Supplemental Indenture and include an amendment to extend the maturity date of the mortgage by 100 years. The maturity date of the mortgage is now May 1, 2140.
·  On November 19, 2009, the Parent issued an aggregate $950 million of Senior Notes consisting of $350 million of 4.875% Senior Notes due 2019 and $600 million of 6.00% Senior Notes due 2039. The proceeds were used to retire at maturity the $100 million outstanding Series A Floating Rate Notes due January 15, 2010; to repay outstanding commercial paper balances; to pre-fund a portion of the $700 million aggregate principal amount due upon maturity of our 7.10% Senior Notes due March 1, 2011; and for general corporate purposes.
·  During 2009, we repaid the November 2008 $600 million borrowing under our RCA.
·  Progress Energy issued approximately 3.1 million shares of common stock resulting in approximately $100 million in proceeds from its IPP and its employee benefit and equity incentive plans. Included in these amountsConsolidated Balance Sheets.
78

were approximately 2.5 million shares for proceeds of approximately $100 million issued for the IPP and certain employee benefit plans. For 2009, the dividends paid on common stock were approximately $693 million.
SHORT-TERM DEBT
At December 31, 2011,On February 20, 2015, Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy had outstanding short-term debt consisting primarilyBusiness Services LLC (DEBS), a wholly owned subsidiary of commercial paper borrowings totaling $671 million atDuke Energy, each entered into a weighted average interest rateMemorandum of 0.50%.
AtPlea Agreement (Plea Agreements) in connection with the end of each month during the three months ended December 31, 2011, Progress Energy had a maximum short-term debt balance of $671 million and an average short-term debt balance of $484 million at a weighted average interest rate of 0.45%. Progress Energy’s short-term debt during the three months ended December 31, 2011, consisted primarily of commercial paper borrowings.
At the end of each month during the year ended December 31, 2011, Progress Energy had a maximum short-term debt balance of $671 million and an average short-term debt balance of $286 million at a weighted average interest rate of 0.40%. Progress Energy’s short-term debt during the year ended December 31, 2011, consisted primarily of commercial paper borrowings.
FUTURE LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES
Please review “Safe Harbor for Forward-Looking Statements” and Item 1A, “Risk Factors,” for a discussion of the factors that may impact any such forward-looking statements made herein.
The Utilities produce substantially all of our consolidated cash from operations. We anticipate that the Utilities will continue to produce substantially all of the consolidated cash flows from operations over the next several years. Our discontinued synthetic fuels operations historically produced significant net earnings from the generation of tax credits (See “Other Matters – Synthetic Fuels Tax Credits”). A portion of these tax credits has yet to be realized in cash due to the difference in timing of when tax credits are recognized for financial reporting purposes and realized for tax purposes. At December 31, 2011, we have carried forward $865 million of deferred tax credits. Realization of these tax credits is dependent upon our future taxable income, which is expected to be generated primarilyinvestigation initiated by the Utilities.
We expect to be able to meet our future liquidity needs through cash from operations, availability under our credit facilitiesUnited States Department of Justice Environmental Crimes Section and issuances of commercial paper and long-term debt, which are dependent on our ability to successfully access capital markets. In the event the Merger does not close by the Merger Agreement termination date of July 8, 2012, we may also use equity offerings or ongoing sales of common stock through our IPP and/or employee benefit and stock option plans to support our liquidity requirements.
Credit rating downgrades could negatively impact our ability to access the capital markets and respond to major events such as hurricanes. Our cost of capital could also be higher, which could ultimately increase prices for our customers. It is important for us to maintain our credit ratings and have access to the capital markets in order to reliably serve customers, invest in capital improvements and prepare for our customers' future energy needs.
We typically issue commercial paper to meet short-term liquidity needs. If liquidity conditions deteriorate and negatively impact the commercial paper market, we will need to evaluate other, potentially more expensive, options for meeting our short-term liquidity needs, which may include borrowing under our RCAs, issuing short-term notes and/or issuing long-term debt.
The current RCAUnited States Attorneys for the Parent expires in May 2013Eastern District of North Carolina, the Middle District of North Carolina and the current RCAs for PEC and PEF expire in October 2013. In the event we enter into new credit facilities for the Parent, PEC or PEF we cannot predict the terms, prices, duration or participants in such facilities (See “Credit Facilities and Registration Statements”).
Progress Energy and its subsidiaries have approximately $12.941 billion in outstanding long-term debt, including the $950 million current portion at December 31, 2011. Currently, approximately $860 millionWestern District of the Utilities’ debt obligations, approximately $620 million at PEC and approximately $240 million at PEF, are tax-exempt auction rate securities insured by bond insurance. These tax-exempt bonds have experienced and continue to experience failed
79

auctions. Assuming the failed auctions persist, future interest rate resets on our tax-exempt auction rate bond portfolio will be dependent on the volatility experienced in the indices that dictate our interest rate resets and/or rating agency actions that may lower our tax-exempt bond ratings. In the event of a two notch downgrade of PEC’s and/or PEF’s senior secured debt rating by S&P, the ratings of such utility’s tax-exempt bonds would be below A-, likely resulting in higher future interest rate resets. In the event of a two notch downgrade by Moody’s, PEC’s tax-exempt bonds will continue to be rated at or above A3 while PEF’s would be below A3, likely resulting in higher future interest rate resets for PEF’s tax-exempt bonds. We will continue to monitor this market and evaluate options to mitigate our exposure to future volatility.
The performance of the capital markets affects the values of the assets held in trust to satisfy future obligations under our defined benefit pension plans. Although a number of factors impact our pension funding requirements, a decline in the market value of these assets may significantly increase the future funding requirements of the obligations under our defined benefit pension plans. We expect to make contributions of $125 million to $225 million directly to pension plan assets in 2012 (See Note 17).
As discussed in “Liquidity and Capital Resources,” “Capital Expenditures” and in “Other Matters – Environmental Matters,” over the long term, compliance with environmental regulations and meeting the anticipated load growth at the Utilities as described under “Other Matters – Energy Demand,” will require the Utilities to make significant capital investments. We may pursue joint ventures or similar arrangements with third parties in order to share some of the financing and operational risks associated with new baseload generation. As discussed in “Other Matters – Nuclear – Potential New Construction,” PEF will postpone major capital expenditures for the Levy project until after the NRC issues the COL, which is expected to be in 2013 if the current licensing schedule remains on track.
Certain of our hedge agreements may result in the receipt of, or posting of, derivative collateral with our counterparties, depending on the daily derivative position. Fluctuations in commodity prices that lead to our return of collateral received and/or our posting of collateral with our counterparties negatively impact our liquidity. Substantially all derivative commodity instrument positions are subject to retail regulatory treatment. After settlement of the derivatives and consumption of the fuel, any realized gains or losses are passed through the fuel cost-recovery clause. Changes in natural gas prices and settlements of financial hedge agreements since December 31, 2011, have impacted the amount of collateral posted with counterparties. At December 31, 2011, we had posted approximately $147 million of cash collateral compared to $164 million of cash collateral posted at December 31, 2010. The majority of our financial hedge agreements will settle in 2012 and 2013. Additional commodity market price decreases could result in significant increases in the derivative collateral that we are required to post with counterparties. We continually monitor our derivative positions in relation to market price activity. As discussed in Note 18C, credit rating downgrades could also require us to post additional cash collateral for commodity hedges in a liability position, as certain derivative instruments require us to post collateral on liability positions based on our credit ratings.
The amount and timing of future sales of debt securities will depend on market conditions, operating cash flow and our specific liquidity needs. We may from time to time sell securities beyond the amount immediately needed to meet our capital or liquidity requirements in order to prefund our expected maturity schedule, to allow for the early redemption of long-term debt, the redemption of preferred stock, the reduction of short-term debt or for other corporate purposes.
At December 31, 2011, the current portion of our long-term debt was $950 million, including $500 million at PEC. We expect to fund the Parent’s $450 million of Senior Notes due April 15, 2012, and PEC’s $500 million of First Mortgage Bonds due July 15, 2012, with a combination of cash from operations, commercial paper borrowings and/or long-term debt issuances.
REGULATORY MATTERS AND RECOVERY OF COSTS
Regulatory matters, including nuclear cost recovery, as discussed in Note 8 and “Other Matters – Regulatory Environment,” and recovery of environmental costs, as discussed in Note 21 and in “Other Matters – Environmental Matters,” may impact our future liquidity and financing activities. The impacts of these matters, including the timing of recoveries from ratepayers, can be both a source of and a use of future liquidity resources. Energy legislation
80

enacted in recent years may impact our liquidity over the long term, including, among others, provisions regarding cost recovery, mandated renewable portfolio standards, DSM and EE.
Regulatory developments expected to have a material impact on our liquidity are discussed below.
PEC Cost-Recovery Filings
On June 29, 2011, the SCPSC approved PEC’s request for an increase in the fuel rate charged to its South Carolina ratepayers. The $22 million increase, effective July 1, 2011, was driven by rising fuel prices.
On November 14, 2011, the NCUC approved a settlement agreement for an increase in the fuel rate PEC charges to its North Carolina ratepayers. The $85 million increase, effective December 1, 2011, was also driven by rising fuel prices.
Also on November 14, 2011,(collectively, the NCUC approved PEC’s request for an increase in the DSM and EE rate charges to its North Carolina ratepayers. The $24 million increase was effective December 1, 2011.
PEC Other Matters
The NCUC has issued Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity allowing PEC to proceed with plans to construct an approximately 950-MW generating facility at a site in Wayne County, N.C., projected to be in service by January 2013 and an approximately 620-MW generating facility at a site in New Hanover County, N.C., projected to be in service by December 2013.
CR3 Outage
The preliminary cost estimate as filed with the FPSC on June 27, 2011, for the selected repair option to return CR3 to service is between $900 million and $1.3 billion. Engineering design of the final repair is under way. PEF will update the current estimate as this work is completed.
PEF maintains insurance for property damage and incremental costs of replacement power resulting from prolonged accidental outages through NEIL as discussed in Note 5D. NEIL has confirmed that the CR3 initial delamination is a covered accident but has not yet made a determination as to coverage for the second delamination. Following a 12-week deductible period, the NEIL program provided reimbursement for replacement power costs for 52 weeks at $4.5 million per week, through April 9, 2011. An additional 71 weeks of coverage, which runs through August 2012, is provided at $3.6 million per week. Accordingly, the NEIL program provides replacement power coverage of up to $490 million per event. Actual replacement power costs have exceeded the insurance coverage through December 31, 2011. PEF anticipates that future replacement power costs will continue to exceed the insurance coverage. PEF also maintains insurance coverage through NEIL’s accidental property damage program, which provides insurance coverage up to $2.25 billion with a $10 million deductible per claim.
PEF is continuing to work with NEIL for recovery of applicable repair costs and associated replacement power costs. PEF has not yet received a definitive determination from NEIL about the insurance coverage related to the second delamination. In addition, no replacement power reimbursements were received from NEIL in the second half of 2011. These considerations led us to conclude that at December 31, 2011, it was not probable that NEIL will voluntarily pay the full coverage amounts we believe they owe under the applicable insurance policies. Given the circumstances, accounting standards require full recovery to be probable to recognize an insurance receivable. Therefore, PEF has suspended recording any further insurance receivables from NEIL related to the second delamination and removed the associated $222 million NEIL receivable. PEF recorded a corresponding $154 million addition to its deferred fuel regulatory asset and a $68 million addition to construction work in progress. See “2012 Settlement Agreement” below for discussion of PEF’s ability to recover prudently incurred fuel and purchased power costs and CR3 repair costs. Negotiations continue with NEIL regarding coverage associated with the second delamination and PEF continues to believe that all applicable costs associated with bringing CR3 back into service are covered under all insurance policies.
81

The following table summarizes the CR3 replacement power and repair costs and recovery through December 31, 2011:
 (in millions)
 
Replacement
Power Costs
  Repair Costs 
 Spent to date
 $478  $258 
 NEIL proceeds received
  (162)  (136)
 Insurance receivable at December 31, 2011, net
  (55)  (3)
Balance for recovery(a)
 $261  $119 
(a)See "2012 Settlement Agreement" and "PEF Cost Recovery Filings" below and Note 8C for discussion of PEF's ability to recover prudently incurred fuel and purchase power costs and CR3 repair costs.
PEF believes the actions taken and costs incurred in response to the CR3 delamination have been prudent and, accordingly, considers replacement power and capital costs not recoverable through insurance to be recoverable through its fuel cost-recovery clause or base rates. Additional replacement power costs and repair and maintenance costs incurred until CR3 is returned to service could be material. Additionally, we cannot be assured that CR3 can be repaired and brought back to service until full engineering and other analyses are completed.
PEF 2012 Settlement Agreement

On February 22, 2012, the FPSC approved a comprehensive settlement agreement between PEF, the Florida Office of Public Counsel and other consumer advocates. The agreement, which will continue through the last billing cycle of December 2016, addresses three principal matters: cost recovery for Levy, the CR3 delamination prudence review pending before the FPSC and certain base rate issues. The agreement sets the Levy cost-recovery factor at a fixed amount during the term of the settlement and also allows PEF to recover investment and replacement power costs for CR3 in various circumstances. The parties to the agreement have waived or limited their rights to challenge the prudence of various costs related to CR3. The agreement provides for a $150 million annual increase in revenue requirements effective with the first billing cycle of January 2013, while maintaining the current ROE range of 9.5 percent to 11.5 percent. In the month following CR3’s return to commercial service, PEF’s ROE range will increase to 9.7 percent to 11.7 percent. Additionally, PEF will refund $288 million to customers through the fuel clause over four years, beginning in 2013. See Note 8C for additional provisions of the 2012 settlement agreement.
PEF 2010 Settlement Agreement
On June 1, 2010, the FPSC approved a settlement agreement between PEF and the interveners, with the exception of the Florida Association for Fairness in Ratemaking, to the 2009 rate case. As part of the settlement, PEF withdrew its motion for reconsideration of the rate case order. Among other provisions, underUSDOJ). Under the terms of the settlement agreement, PEF willPlea Agreements, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress are required to each maintain base rates at current levels through$250 million of available capacity under the last billing cycle of 2012. AmongMaster Credit Facility as security to meet their obligations under the Plea Agreements, in addition to certain other provisions,conditions set out in the settlement agreement also authorized PEFPlea Agreements. The Plea Agreements are subject to court approval. See Note 5 to the opportunityConsolidated Financial Statements, “Commitments and Contingencies,” for additional information.
PremierNotes
Duke Energy has an effective registration statement (Form S-3) with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to earn a ROE ofsell up to 11.5 percent and provides$3 billion of variable denomination floating rate demand notes, called PremierNotes. The Form S-3 states that if PEF’s actual retail base rate earnings fall below a 9.5 percent ROE on an adjusted or pro forma basis, as reportedno more than $1.5 billion of the notes will be outstanding at any particular time. The notes are offered on a historical 12-monthcontinuous basis during the term of the agreement, PEF may seek general, limited or interim baseand bear interest at a floating rate relief, or any combination thereof, subject to certain conditions. The settlement agreement does not preclude PEF from requesting the FPSC to approve the recovery of costs (a) that are of a type which traditionally and historically would be, have been or are presently recovered through cost-recovery clauses or surcharges; or (b) that are incremental costs not currently recovered in base rates, which the legislature or FPSC determines are clause recoverable; or (c) which are recoverable through base rates under the nuclear cost-recovery legislation or the FPSC’s nuclear cost-recovery rule. Finally, PEF will be allowed to recover the costs of named storms on an expedited basis after depletion of the storm damage reserve. Specifically, 60 days following the filing of a cost-recovery petition with the FPSC and based on a 12-month recovery period, PEF can begin recovery, subject to refund, through a surcharge of up to $4.00 per 1,000 kWh on monthly residential customer bills for storm costs. In the event the storm costs exceed that level, any excess additional costs will be deferred and recovered in a subsequent year or years asannum determined by the FPSC. Additionally,Duke Energy PremierNotes Committee, or its designee, on a weekly basis. The interest rate payable on notes held by an investor may vary based on the order approvingprincipal amount of the settlement agreement
82

allows PEF to useinvestment. The notes have no stated maturity date, are non-transferable and may be redeemed in whole or in part by Duke Energy or at the surcharge to replenish the storm damage reserve to $136 million, the levelinvestor’s option at any time. The balance as of June 1, 2010, after storm costsDecember 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, was $968 million and $836 million, respectively. The notes are fully recovered.short-term debt obligations and are reflected as Notes payable and commercial paper on Duke Energy’s Consolidated Balance Sheets.
Shelf Registration
PEF Cost-Recovery FilingsIn September 2013, Duke Energy filed a Form S-3 with the SEC. Under this Form S-3, which is uncapped, the Duke Energy Registrants, excluding Progress Energy may issue debt and other securities in the future at amounts, prices and with terms to be determined at the time of future offerings. The registration statement also allows for the issuance of common stock by Duke Energy.

59


PART II
On November 22, 2011, the FPSC approved a net increase of the total fuel-cost recovery by $162 million. The net increase, effective January 1, 2012, was driven primarily by rising fuel prices partially offset by lower anticipated costs associated with Levy and the deferral of 2011 and 2012 estimated costs associated with PEF’s CR3 uprate project. Within the fuel clause, PEF received approval to collect, subject to refund, replacement power costs related to the CR3 nuclear plant outage.
On November 22, 2011, the FPSC approved PEF’s request to increase the ECRC by $24 million, effective January 1, 2012.

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
We expectDuke Energy continues to make significant capital investments to meet anticipated load growthfocus on reducing risk and environmental standards. We are currently constructing new generating facilitiespositioning its business for future success and will invest principally in the Carolinas and potentially will construct new baseload generating facilities in the Carolinas and Florida that will be placed in service toward the middle of the next decade.
Total cash from operations and proceeds from long-term debt and equity issuances provided the funding for our 2011 capital expenditures, and those sources are expected to fund our forecasted capital expenditures.
As shown in the following table, we expectits strongest business sectors. Based on this goal, the majority of ourDuke Energy’s total projected capital expenditures to be incurred at our regulated operations. AFUDC – borrowed funds represents the debt costs of capital funds necessary to finance the construction of new regulated plant assets.

  Actual  Forecasted 
 (in millions)
 2011  2012  2013  2014 
 Regulated capital expenditures(a)
 $1,981  $1,925  $1,920  $1,930 
 Nuclear fuel expenditures
  226   160   220   255 
 AFUDC borrowed funds
  (32)  (35)  (30)  (20)
 Other capital expenditures
  16   30   30   30 
Total before potential nuclear construction  2,191   2,080   2,140   2,195 
 Potential nuclear construction(b)(c)
  63   50-150   50-150  TBD 
Total $2,254  $2,130-2,230  $2,190-2,290  $2,195 
(a)Excludes estimates for the repair of the CR3 containment building and the completion of the extended power uprate project.
(b)
Expenditures for potential nuclear construction are net of AFUDC borrowed funds.
(c)Project spending for 2014 and beyond will be determined once the timing for the receipt of the COL is known and more detailed estimates have been developed based on the schedule shifts and other factors.

Regulated capital expenditures for 2012, 2013 and 2014 in the previous table include approximately $60 million, $95 million and $200 million, respectively, for environmental compliance. See “Other Matters – Environmental Matters” for further discussion of our environmental compliance strategy and related recovery of costs. Regulated capital expenditures exclude estimates for the repair of the CR3 containment building and the completion of the extended power uprate project. Estimates of these projects will be developed upon the completion of ongoing engineering and project planning, the resolution of negotiations with NEIL regarding insurance coverage of the second CR3 delamination and final decisions regarding repair versus retirement.
Potential nuclear construction expenditures are primarily related to PEF’s Levy project. Because of announced schedule shifts, we negotiated an amendmentallocated to the Levy EPC agreement (See discussion under “Other Matters – Nuclear – Potential New Construction”). The forecasted capital expenditures presented in the previous table reflect
83

the announced schedule shift. Project spending for 2014 and beyond will be determined once the timing for the receipt of the COL is known and more detailed estimates have been developed based on this and other factors. Future nuclear construction expenditures are dependent upon, and may vary significantly based upon, the decision to build, regulatory approval schedules, timing and escalation of project costs, and the percentages of joint ownership. These expenditures are subject to cost-recovery provisions in the Utilities' respective jurisdictions (See Note 8C).
AllRegulated Utilities segment. Duke Energy’s projected capital and investment expenditures for the next three fiscal years are included in the table below.
(in millions)  2015
2016
2017
New generation  $825
$2,200
$850
Environmental  275
300
450
Nuclear fuel  450
475
425
Major nuclear  300
175
150
Customer additions  500
525
550
Grid modernization and other transmission and distribution projects  1,050
1,375
1,525
Maintenance  2,550
2,775
2,300
Total Regulated Utilities5,950
7,825
6,250
Commercial Power, International Energy and Other  1,075
775
800
Total committed expenditures  7,025
8,600
7,050
Discretionary expenditures  400
775
775
Total projected capital and investment expenditures  $7,425
$9,375
$7,825
DEBT MATURITIES
The following table shows the significant components of Current maturities of long-term debt on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. The Duke Energy Registrants currently anticipate satisfying these obligations with cash on hand and proceeds from additional borrowings.
(in millions)Maturity Date Interest Rate
 December 31, 2014
Unsecured Debt     
Duke Energy (Parent)April 2015 3.350% $450
First Mortgage Bonds     
Duke Energy OhioMarch 2015 0.375% 150
Duke Energy ProgressApril 2015 5.150% 300
Duke Energy CarolinasOctober 2015 5.300% 500
Duke Energy FloridaNovember 2015 0.650% 250
Duke Energy FloridaDecember 2015 5.100% 300
Duke Energy ProgressDecember 2015 5.250% 400
Tax-exempt Bonds     
Duke Energy ProgressJanuary 2015 0.108% 243
Other    214
Current maturities of long-term debt    $2,807
DIVIDEND PAYMENTS
In 2014, Duke Energy paid quarterly cash dividends for the 88th consecutive year and expects to continue its policy of paying regular cash dividends in the future. There is no assurance as to the amount of future dividends because they depend on future earnings, capital requirements, financial condition and are subject to periodic reviewthe discretion of the Board of Directors.
The Board of Directors continues to target a payout ratio of 65 percent to 70 percent, based upon adjusted diluted EPS. Over the past several years, Duke Energy’s dividend has grown at approximately 2 percent annually, slower than overall adjusted earnings growth. Duke Energy has now achieved the targeted payout range and revisionbelieves it has the flexibility to grow the dividend at a pace more consistent with adjusted earnings growth.

60


PART II

Dividend and Other Funding Restrictions of Duke Energy Subsidiaries
As discussed in Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements “Regulatory Matters,” Duke Energy’s wholly owned public utility operating companies have restrictions on the amount of funds that can be transferred to Duke Energy via dividend, advance or loan as a result of conditions imposed by various regulators in conjunction with merger transactions. 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. Additionally, certain other Duke Energy subsidiaries have other restrictions, such as minimum working capital and tangible net worth requirements pursuant to debt and other agreements that limit the amount of funds that can be transferred to Duke Energy. At December 31, 2014, the amount of restricted net assets of wholly owned subsidiaries of Duke Energy that may vary significantly dependingnot be distributed to Duke Energy in the form of a loan or dividend is less than 25 percent of Duke Energy’s net assets. Duke Energy does not have any legal or other restrictions on paying common stock dividends to shareholders out of its consolidated equity accounts. Although these restrictions cap the amount of funding the various operating subsidiaries can provide to Duke Energy, management does not believe these restrictions will have a significant impact on Duke Energy’s ability to access cash to meet its payment of dividends on common stock and other future funding obligations.
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES
The relatively stable operating cash flows of Regulated Utilities compose a substantial portion of Duke Energy’s cash flows from operations. Regulated Utilities’ cash flows from operations are primarily driven by sales of electricity and natural gas and costs of operations. Weather conditions, working capital and commodity price fluctuations, and unanticipated expenses, including unplanned plant outages and storms can affect the timing and level of cash flows from operations.
Duke Energy believes it has sufficient liquidity resources through the commercial paper markets, and ultimately, the Master Credit Facility, to support these operations. Cash flows from operations are subject to a number of other factors, including, but not limited to, industry restructuring, regulatory constraints, economic trends and market volatility and economic trends.
CREDIT FACILITIES AND REGISTRATION STATEMENTS
(see Item 1A, “Risk Factors,” for additional information).
At December 31, 20112014, Duke Energy had cash and 2010, we had committed linescash equivalents and short-term investments of credit used$2.0 billion, of which approximately $1.7 billion is held by entities domiciled in foreign jurisdictions. During 2014, Duke Energy declared a taxable dividend of historical foreign earnings in the form of notes payable that will result in the repatriation of approximately $2.7 billion of cash held and expected to support our commercial paper borrowings. At December 31, 2011 and 2010, we had no outstanding borrowings under our credit facilities. We are requiredbe generated by International Energy over a period of up to pay fees to maintain our credit facilities.
The following tables summarize our RCAs and available capacity at December 31:
              
 (in millions)
  Total  Outstanding  
Reserved(a)
  Available 
 2011 
             
 Parent
Five-year (expiring 5/3/12)(b) (c)
 $478  $-  $252  $226 
 PEC
Three-year (expiring 10/15/13)  750   -   184   566 
 PEF
Three-year (expiring 10/15/13)  750   -   233   517 
Total credit facilities $1,978  $-  $669  $1,309 
                  
 2010 
                 
 Parent
Five-year (expiring 5/3/12) $500  $-  $31  $469 
 PEC
Three-year (expiring 10/15/13)  750   -   -   750 
 PEF
Three-year (expiring 10/15/13)  750   -   -   750 
Total credit facilities $2,000  $-  $31  $1,969 
(a)To the extent amounts are reserved for commercial paper or letters of credit outstanding, they are not available for additional borrowings. At December 31, 2011 and 2010, the Parent had issued $2 million and $31 million, respectively, of letters of credit supported by the RCA. On December 31, 2011, the Parent, PEC and PEF had $250 million, $184 million and $233 million, respectively, of outstanding commercial paper supported by their RCAs.
(b)Approximately $22 million of the $500 million expired May 3, 2011.
(c)On February 15, 2012, the Parent's $478 million credit facility was amended to extend the expiration date to May 3, 2013.
Alleight years. As a result of the revolving credit facilities were arranged through a syndicationdecision to repatriate all cumulative historic undistributed foreign earnings, during the fourth quarter of financial institutions.2014, Duke Energy recorded U. S. income tax expense of approximately $373 million. Duke Energy’s intention is to indefinitely reinvest prospective undistributed earnings generated by Duke Energy's foreign subsidiaries. See Note 1222 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Income Taxes,” for additional discussion of ourinformation.
DEBT ISSUANCES
Depending on availability based on the issuing entity, the credit facilities.
The RCAs provide liquidity support for issuances of commercial paper and other short-term obligations. We expect to continue to use commercial paper issuances as a source of liquidity as long as we maintain our current short-term ratings. Fees and interest rates under our RCAs are based upon the respective credit ratingsrating of the Parent’s, PEC’sissuing entity, and PEF’s long-term unsecured senior noncredit-enhanced debt.
All ofmarket conditions, the credit facilities include defined maximum total debt-to-total capital ratio (leverage) covenants, which we were in compliance with at December 31, 2011. We are currently in compliance and expect to continue to be in compliance with these covenants. See Note 12 for a discussion of the credit facilities’ financial covenants. At December 31, 2011, the calculated ratios for the ProgressSubsidiary Registrants pursuant to the terms of the agreements, are as disclosed in Note 12.
On November 16, 2011, the Parent filed a shelf registration statement with the SEC for its IPP, which became effective upon filing with the SEC. The registration statement is effective for three years and registers 10 million
84

shares of common stock for issuance pursuant to the IPP. In addition, the Parent, as a well-known seasoned issuer, typically files a shelf registration statement with the SEC under which it may issue an unlimited number or amount of various securities, including senior debt securities, junior subordinated debentures, common stock, preferred stock, stock purchase contracts and stock purchase units. Both PEC and PEF typically file shelf registration statements with the SEC under which they may issue an unlimited number or amount of various long-term debt securities and preferred stock. We expect to file a new combined shelf registration statement with the SEC, as our previously filed shelf registration statement for these securities expired November 17, 2011.
Both PEC and PEF can issue first mortgage bonds under their respective first mortgage bond indentures based on property additions, retirements of first mortgage bonds and the deposit of cash if certain conditions are satisfied. At December 31, 2011, PEC and PEF could issue up to approximately $6.8 billion and $2.9 billion of first mortgage bonds, respectively, based on property additions and retirements of previously issued first mortgage bonds. Most first mortgage bond issuances by PEC and PEF require that adjusted net earnings be at least twice the annual interest requirement for bonds currently outstanding and to be outstanding. At December 31, 2011, PEC’s and PEF’s ratios of adjusted net earnings to annual interest requirement on outstanding first mortgage bonds were 5.0 times and 1.7 times, respectively. PEF’s ratio of net earnings to the annual interest requirement for bonds outstanding, as defined in PEF’s mortgage, was below 2.0 times at December 31, 2011. PEF’s 2011 net earnings were impacted by a $288 million charge recorded in December 2011 for amounts to be refunded to customers (See Note 8C). Until this ratio, which is calculated based on results for 12 consecutive months, is above 2.0 times, PEF’s capacityprefer to issue first mortgage bonds and secured debt, followed by unsecured debt. This preference is limited to $300 million based on retirementsthe result of previously issuedgenerally higher credit ratings for first mortgage bonds. In the event PEF’s long-termbonds and secured debt, requirements exceed its first mortgage bond capacity, it could issuewhich typically result in lower interest costs. Duke Energy Corporation primarily issues unsecured debt.
Duke Energy’s capitalization is balanced between debt and equity as shown in the table below. The 2015 projected capitalization percentages exclude purchase accounting adjustments of approximately $2.9 billion related to the merger with Progress Energy, while the 2014 and 2013 percentages include all debt-related purchase accounting amounts.
CAPITALIZATION RATIOS
  Projected 2015
 Actual 2014
 Actual 2013
Equity  50% 49% 50%
Debt  50% 51% 50%
Duke Energy’s fixed charges coverage ratio, calculated using SEC guidelines, was 3.2 times for 2014, 3.0 times for 2013, and 2.4 times for 2012.
Restrictive Debt Covenants
Duke Energy’s debt and credit agreements contain various financial and other covenants. The Master Credit Facility contains a covenant requiring the debt-to-total capitalization ratio to not exceed 65 percent for each borrower. Failure to meet those covenants beyond applicable grace periods could result in accelerated due dates and/or termination of the agreements or sublimits thereto. As of December 31, 2014, Duke Energy was in compliance with all covenants related to its significant debt agreements. In addition, some credit agreements may allow for acceleration of payments or termination of the agreements due to nonpayment, or to the acceleration of other significant indebtedness of the borrower or some of its subsidiaries. None of the debt or credit agreements contain material adverse change clauses.

61


PART II

Credit Ratings
The Duke Energy Registrants each hold credit ratings by Fitch Ratings, Inc. (Fitch), Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. (Moody’s) and Standard & Poor’s Rating Services (S&P). The following table shows each component of capitalization as a percentage of total capitalization at December 31, 2011includes Duke Energy and 2010. In addition to total equity and preferred stock, total capitalization includes the following in total debt: long-term debt, net, long-term debt, affiliate, current portion of long-term debt, short-term debt and capital lease obligations.
  2011  2010 
Total equity  41.9%  43.6%
Preferred stock  0.4%  0.4%
Total debt  57.7%  56.0%

CREDIT RATING MATTERS
Our credit ratings reflect the current views of the rating agencies, and no assurances can be given that our ratings will continue for any given period of time. However, we monitor our financial condition as well as market conditions that could ultimately affect our credit ratings.
Credit rating downgrades could negatively impact our ability to access the capital markets and respond to major events such as hurricanes. Our cost of capital could also be higher, which could ultimately increase prices for our customers. It is important for us to maintain ourcertain subsidiaries’ credit ratings and have accessratings outlook as of February 2015.
FitchMoody'sS&P
Duke Energy Corporation  StableStablePositive
Issuer Credit RatingBBB+A3BBB+
Senior Unsecured DebtBBB+A3BBB
Commercial PaperF-2P-2A-2
Duke Energy Carolinas  PositiveStablePositive
Senior Secured DebtA+Aa2A
Senior Unsecured DebtAA1BBB+
Progress Energy  StableStablePositive
Senior Unsecured DebtBBBBaa1BBB
Duke Energy Progress  StableStablePositive
Senior Secured DebtA+Aa2A
Senior Unsecured DebtAA1BBB+
Duke Energy Florida  StableStablePositive
Senior Secured DebtAA1A
Senior Unsecured DebtA-A3BBB+
Duke Energy Ohio  StableStablePositive
Senior Secured DebtAA2A
Senior Unsecured DebtA-Baa1BBB+
Duke Energy Indiana  StableStablePositive
Senior Secured DebtAAa3A
Senior Unsecured DebtA-A2BBB+
Credit ratings are intended to provide credit lenders a framework for comparing the capital markets in ordercredit quality of securities and are not a recommendation to reliably serve customers, invest in capital improvementsbuy, sell or hold. The Duke Energy Registrants’ credit ratings are dependent on the rating agencies’ assessments of their ability to meet their debt principal and prepareinterest obligations when they come due. If, as a result of market conditions or other factors, the Duke Energy Registrants are unable to maintain current balance sheet strength, or if earnings and cash flow outlook materially deteriorates, credit ratings could be negatively impacted.
Cash Flow Information
The following table summarizes Duke Energy’s cash flows for our customers' future energy needs (See Item 1A, “Risk Factors”).
the three most recently completed fiscal years.
As discussed in Note 18C, credit rating downgrades could also require us to post additional cash collateral for commodity hedges in a liability position as certain derivative instruments require us to post collateral on liability positions based on our credit ratings.
  Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)  2014

2013

2012
Cash flows provided by (used in):       
Operating activities  $6,586
 $6,382
 $5,244
Investing activities  (5,373) (4,978) (6,197)
Financing activities  (678) (1,327) 267
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents  535

77

(686)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period  1,501
 1,424
 2,110
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period  $2,036

$1,501

$1,424
OPERATING CASH FLOWS
The following table summarizes key components of Duke Energy’s operating cash flows for the three most recently completed fiscal year.
85
  Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)  2014

2013

2012
Net income  $1,889
 $2,676
 $1,782
Non-cash adjustments to net income  5,366
 4,876
 3,769
Contributions to qualified pension plans  
 (250) (304)
Working capital  (669) (920) (3)
Net cash provided by operating activities  $6,586

$6,382

$5,244
For the year ended December 31, 2014 compared to 2013, the variance was driven primarily by:

62


PART II

*A $204 million increase due to prior year contributions to qualified pension plans, favorable retail pricing and rate riders and favorable weather, partially offset by current year under collection of fuel and purchased power costs and timing of cash payments for operations and maintenance expenses.
For the year ended December 31, 2013 compared to 2012, the variance was driven primarily by:
*A $2,001 million increase in net income after non-cash adjustments, mainly due to the inclusion of Progress Energy's results for first six months of 2013 and the impact of revised rates and lower operation and maintenance expenses, partially offset by;
*A $917 million decrease in operating cash flows from increased investments in traditional working capital, mainly due to the timing of receivables and accruals, lower incentive accruals, net of current year payments and reserve reductions and the prior year overallocation of the Carolinas' fuels costs. These decreases were partially offset by the NEIL proceeds.
INVESTING CASH FLOWS
The following table summarizes key components of Duke Energy’s investing cash flows for the three most recently completed fiscal years.
  Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)  2014

2013

2012
Capital, investment and acquisition expenditures  $(5,528) $(5,607) $(5,958)
Available for sale securities, net  23
 173
 (182)
Proceeds from sales of equity investments and other assets, and sales of and collections on notes receivable  179
 277
 212
Other investing items  (47) 179
 (269)
Net cash used in investing activities  $(5,373)
$(4,978)
$(6,197)
The primary use of cash related to investing activities is capital, investment and acquisition expenditures, detailed by reportable business segment in the following table.
  Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)  2014

2013

2012
Regulated Utilities  $4,744
 $5,049
 $4,220
Commercial Power  67
 268
 1,038
International Energy  555
 67
 551
Other  162
 223
 149
Total capital, investment and acquisition expenditures  $5,528

$5,607

$5,958
OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS AND CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONSFor the year ended December 31, 2014 compared to 2013, the variance was driven primarily by:
*A $192 million return of collateral related to the Chilean hydro acquisition in 2013 and
*A $150 million decrease in net proceeds from sales and maturities of available for sale securities, net of purchases.
For the year ended December 31, 2013 compared to 2012, the variance was driven primarily by:
*A $581 million variance in restricted cash due to posting collateral on a secured debt issuance related to the Chilean hydro acquisition in 2012 and the return of a portion of this collateral in 2013,
*A $355 million increase in proceeds from the sales of available-for-sale securities, net of purchases due to the investment of excess cash held in foreign jurisdictions and
*A $351 million decrease in capital, investment and acquisition expenditures primarily due to lower spending on Duke Energy's renewable energy projects and ongoing infrastructure modernization program as these projects were completed, net of expenditures on Progress Energy's maintenance projects.
FINANCING CASH FLOWS
The following table summarizes key components of Duke Energy’s financing cash flows for the three most recently completed fiscal years.
Our off-balance sheet arrangements
  Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)  2014
 2013
 2012
Issuance of common stock related to employee benefit plans  $25
 $9
 $23
Issuance of long-term debt, net  (123) 840
 1,672
Notes payable and commercial paper  1,688
 93
 278
Dividends paid  (2,234) (2,188) (1,752)
Other financing items  (34) (81) 46
Net cash (used in) provided by financing activities  $(678)
$(1,327)
$267

63


PART II

For the year ended December 31, 2014 compared to 2013, the variance was driven primarily by:
*A $1,595 million increase in proceeds from net issuances of notes payable and commercial paper, primarily due to funding a larger proportion of total financing needs with short-term debt in anticipation of the receipt in 2015 of proceeds from the sale of the Midwest Generation business, the proceeds from which will partially be used for debt reduction, partially offset by;
*A $963 million decrease in net issuances of long-term debt, primarily due to funding a larger proportion of total financing needs with short-term debt in 2014 than in 2013.
For the year ended December 31, 2013 compared to 2012, the variance was driven primarily by:
*An $832 million decrease in net issuances of long-term debt, primarily due to the timing of issuances and redemptions between years, resulting from the completion of major construction projects,
*A $436 million increase in quarterly dividends primarily due to an increase in common shares outstanding, resulting from the merger with Progress Energy and an increase in dividends per share from $0.765 to $0.78 in the third quarter of 2013. The total annual dividend per share was $3.09 in 2013 compared to $3.03 in 2012 and
*A $185 million decrease in proceeds from net issuances of notes payable and commercial paper, primarily due to changes in short-term working capital needs.
Summary of Significant Debt Issuances
The following table summarizes significant debt issuances (in millions).
     Year Ended December 31, 2014
Issuance DateMaturity Date Interest Rate
 Duke Energy (Parent)
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 Duke Energy
Unsecured Debt           
April 2014(a)
April 2024 3.750% $600
 $
 $
 $600
April 2014(a)(b)
April 2017 0.613% 400
 
 
 400
June 2014(c)
May 2019 11.970% 
 
 
 108
June 2014(c)
May 2021 13.680% 
 
 
 110
Secured Debt          

March 2014(d)
March 2017 0.863% 
 
 225
 225
July 2014(e)
July 2036 5.340% 
 
 
 129
First Mortgage Bonds          

March 2014(f)
March 2044 4.375% 
 400
 
 400
March 2014(f)(g)
March 2017 0.435% 
 250
 
 250
November 2014(h)
December 2044 4.150% 
 500
 
 500
November 2014(g)(h)
November 2017 0.432% 
 200
 
 200
Total issuances    $1,000

$1,350

$225

$2,922
(a)Proceeds were used to redeem $402 million of tax-exempt bonds at Duke Energy Ohio, the repayment of outstanding commercial paper and for general corporate purposes. See Note 13 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Related Party Transactions" for additional information related to the redemption of Duke Energy Ohio's tax-exempt bonds.
(b)The debt is floating rate based on three-month London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) plus a fixed credit spread of 38 basis points.
(c)Proceeds were used to repay $196 million of debt for International Energy and for general corporate purposes.
(d)Relates to the securitization of accounts receivable at a subsidiary of Duke Energy Florida. Proceeds were used to repay short-term borrowings under the intercompany money pool borrowing arrangement and for general corporate purposes. See Note 17 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Variable Interest Entities" for further details.
(e)Proceeds were used to fund a portion of Duke Energy's prior investment in the existing Wind Star renewables portfolio.
(f)Proceeds were used to repay short-term borrowings under the intercompany money pool borrowing arrangement and for general corporate purposes.
(g)The debt is floating rate based on three-month LIBOR plus a fixed credit spread of 20 basis points.
(h)Proceeds will be used to repay to redeem $450 million of tax-exempt bonds, repay short-term borrowings under the intercompany money pool borrowing arrangement and for general corporate purposes.

64


PART II

        Year Ended December 31, 2013
Issuance Date  Maturity Date Interest Rate
 Duke Energy (Parent)
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Ohio
 Duke Energy Indiana
 Duke Energy
Unsecured Debt                   
January 2013(a)
January 2073 5.125% $500
 $
 $
 $
 $500
June 2013(b)
June 2018 2.100% 500
 
 
 
 500
August 2013(c)(d)
August 2023 11.000% ―   
 
 
 
 220
October 2013(e)
October 2023 3.950% 400
 
 
 
 400
Secured Debt                  
February 2013(f)(g)
December 2030 2.043% 
 
 
 
 203
February 2013(f)
June 2037 4.740% 
 
 
 
 220
April 2013(h)
April 2026 5.456% 
 
 
 
 230
December 2013(i)
December 2016 0.852% 
 300
 
 
 300
First Mortgage Bonds                

March 2013(j)
March 2043 4.100% 
 500
 
 
 500
July 2013(k)
July 2043 4.900% 
 
 
 350
 350
July 2013(k)(l)
July 2016 0.619% 
 
 
 150
 150
September 2013(m)
September 2023 3.800% 
 
 300
 
 300
September 2013(m)(n)
March 2015 0.400% 
 
 150
 
 150
Total issuances     $1,400

$800

$450

$500

$4,023
(a)Callable after January 2018 at par. Proceeds were used to redeem the $300 million 7.10 percent Cumulative Quarterly Income Preferred Securities (QUIPS) and to repay a portion of outstanding commercial paper and for general corporate purposes.
(b)Proceeds were used to repay $250 million of current maturities and for general corporate purposes, including the repayment of outstanding commercial paper.
(c)Proceeds were used to repay $200 million of current maturities. The maturity date included above applies to half of the instrument. The remaining half matures in August 2018.
(d)The debt is floating rate based on a consumer price index and an overnight funds rate in Brazil. The debt is denominated in Brazilian Real.
(e)Proceeds were used to repay commercial paper as well as for general corporate purposes.
(f)Represents the conversion of construction loans related to a renewable energy project issued in December 2012 to term loans. No cash proceeds were received in conjunction with the conversion. The term loans have varying maturity dates. The maturity date presented represents the latest date for all components of the respective loans.
(g)The debt is floating rate. Duke Energy has entered into a pay fixed-receive floating interest rate swap for 95 percent of the loans.
(h)Represents the conversion of a $190 million bridge loan issued in conjunction with the acquisition of Ibener in December 2012. Duke Energy received incremental proceeds of $40 million upon conversion of the bridge loan. The debt is floating rate and is denominated in U.S. dollars. Duke Energy has entered into a pay fixed-receive floating interest rate swap for 75 percent of the loan.
(i)Relates to the securitization of accounts receivable at a subsidiary of Duke Energy Progress; the proceeds were used to repay short-term debt. See Note 17 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Variable Interest Entities" for further details.
(j)Proceeds were used to repay notes payable to affiliated companies as well as for general corporate purposes.
(k)Proceeds were used to repay $400 million of current maturities.
(l)The debt is floating rate based on 3-month LIBOR and a fixed credit spread of 35 basis points.
(m)Proceeds were used for general corporate purposes including the repayment of short-term notes payable, a portion of which was incurred to fund the retirement of $250 million of first mortgage bonds that matured in the first half of 2013.
(n)The debt is floating rate based on 3-month LIBOR plus a fixed credit spread of 14 basis points.
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements
Duke Energy and contractual obligations are described below.
GUARANTEES
As a partcertain of normal business, weits subsidiaries enter into various agreements providing future financial or performance assurancesguarantee arrangements in the normal course of business to facilitate commercial transactions with third parties. These agreements are entered into primarily to support or enhance the creditworthiness otherwise attributed to Progress Energy or our subsidiaries on a stand-alone basis, thereby facilitating the extension of sufficient credit to accomplish the subsidiaries’ intended commercial purposes. Ourarrangements include performance guarantees, include standbystand-by letters of credit, debt guarantees, surety bonds performance obligations for trading operations and guaranteesindemnifications.
Most of the guarantee arrangements entered into by Duke Energy enhance the credit standing of certain subsidiary credit obligations. At December 31, 2011, we have issued $477 million of guarantees for future financialsubsidiaries, non-consolidated entities or performance assurance, including $19 million at PEC. Included in this amount is $300 million of guarantees of certain payments of twoless than wholly owned indirect subsidiaries issued by the Parent (See Note 23). We do not believe conditions are likely for significant performance under the guaranteesentities, enabling them to conduct business. As such, these guarantee arrangements involve elements of performance issued byand credit risk, which are not always included on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. The possibility of Duke Energy, either on its own or on behalf of affiliates.
At December 31, 2011, we have issued guaranteesSpectra Energy Capital, LLC (Spectra Capital) through indemnification agreements entered into as part of the January 2, 2007 spin-off of Spectra Energy Corp (Spectra Energy), having to honor its contingencies is largely dependent upon the future operations of the subsidiaries, investees and indemnificationsother third parties, or the occurrence of certain asset performance, legal, tax and environmental mattersfuture events.
Duke Energy performs ongoing assessments of their respective guarantee obligations to determine whether any liabilities have been incurred as a result of potential increased non-performance risk by third parties including indemnifications made in connection with sales of businesses, and for timely payment of obligations in support of our nonwholly owned synthetic fuels operations, as discussed in Note 22C.which Duke Energy has issued guarantees.
MARKET RISK AND DERIVATIVES
Under our risk management policy, we may use a variety of instruments, including swaps, options and forward contracts, to manage exposure to fluctuations in commodity prices and interest rates. See Note 18 and Item 7A, “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk,” for a discussion of market risk and derivatives.
CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS
We are party to numerous contracts and arrangements obligating us to make cash payments in future years. These contracts include financial arrangements such as debt agreements and leases, as well as contracts for the purchase of goods and services. In most cases, these contracts contain provisions for price adjustments, minimum purchase levels and other financial commitments. The commitment amounts presented in the following table are estimates and therefore will likely differ from actual purchase amounts. Further disclosure regarding our contractual obligations is included in the respective notes7 to the Consolidated Financial Statements. We take into considerationStatements, “Guarantees and Indemnifications,” for further details of the future commitments when assessing our liquidity and future financing needs.guarantee arrangements.
Issuance of these guarantee arrangements is not required for the majority of Duke Energy’s operations. Thus, if Duke Energy discontinued issuing these guarantees, there would not be a material impact to the consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

65


86

PART II

Other than the guarantee arrangements discussed above and normal operating lease arrangements, Duke Energy does not have any material off-balance sheet financing entities or structures. For additional information on these commitments, see Note 5 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Commitments and Contingencies.”
Contractual Obligations
Duke Energy enters into contracts that require payment of cash at certain specified periods, based on certain specified minimum quantities and prices. The following table reflects Progresssummarizes Duke Energy’s contractual cash obligations and other commercial commitments atas of December 31, 2011, in the respective periods in which they are due:2014.
                
 (in millions)
 Total  
Less than
1 year
  1-3 years  3-5 years  
More than
5 years
 
 Long-term debt (See Note 12)(a)
 $12,999  $950  $1,130  $1,300  $9,619 
 Interest payments on long-term debt(b)
  9,749   666   1,224   1,097   6,762 
 Capital lease obligations (See Note 22B)(c)
  423   34   74   64   251 
 Operating leases (See Note 22B)(c)
  1,400   67   193   186   954 
 Fuel and purchased power (See Note 22A)(d)
  20,248   2,783   4,518   3,406   9,541 
 Other purchase obligations (See Note 22A)(e)
  1,676   484   420   159   613 
 Minimum pension funding requirements(f)
  423   119   208   88   8 
 Other postretirement benefits(g)
  511   43   93   101   274 
 Uncertain tax positions(h)
  -   -   -   -   - 
 Other commitments(i)
  78   13   26   26   13 
Total $47,507  $5,159  $7,886  $6,427  $28,035 
  Payments Due By Period
(in millions)  Total
 Less than 1 year (2015)
 2-3 years (2016 & 2017)
 4-5 years (2018 & 2019)
 More than 5 years (2020 & beyond)
Long-Term debt(a)
$36,617
 $2,691
 $5,204
 $5,761
 $22,961
Interest payments on long-term debt(b)
24,064
 1,603
 2,926
 2,614
 16,921
Capital leases(c)
2,733
 178
 378
 406
 1,771
Operating leases(c)
1,818
 205
 370
 305
 938
Purchase obligations:(d)
  
   
   
   
   
Fuel and purchased power(e)
21,128
 4,778
 5,838
 3,171
 7,341
Other purchase obligations(f)
7,418
 4,074
 1,269
 519
 1,556
Nuclear decommissioning trust annual funding(g)
345
 33
 67
 29
 216
Total contractual cash obligations(h)(i)
$94,123
 $13,562
 $16,052
 $12,805
 $51,704
(a)Our maturing debt obligations are generally expectedSee Note 6 to be repaid with cash from operations or refinanced with new debt issuances in the capital markets.Consolidated Financial Statements, “Debt and Credit Facilities.”
(b)Interest payments on long-termvariable rate debt areinstruments were calculated using December 31, 2014 interest rates and holding them constant for the life of the instruments.
(c)See Note 5 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Commitments and Contingencies.” Amounts in the table above include the interest component of capital leases based on the interest rate effectiverates stated in the lease agreements and exclude certain related executory costs.
(d)Current liabilities, except for current maturities of long-term debt, and purchase obligations reflected in the Consolidated Balance Sheets, have been excluded from the above table.
(e)Includes firm capacity payments that provide Duke Energy with uninterrupted firm access to electricity transmission capacity and natural gas transportation contracts, as well as undesignated contracts and contracts that qualify as normal purchase/normal sale (NPNS). For contracts where the price paid is based on an index, the amount is based on market prices at December 31, 2011.2014, or the best projections of the index. For certain of these amounts, Duke Energy may settle on a net cash basis since Duke Energy has entered into payment netting arrangements with counterparties that permit Duke Energy to offset receivables and payables with such counterparties.
(c)(f)Amounts includeIncludes contracts for software, telephone, data and consulting or advisory services. Amount also includes contractual obligations for engineering, procurement and construction costs for new generation plants and nuclear plant refurbishments, environmental projects on fossil facilities, major maintenance of certain related executory cost commitments.
(d)Essentially all fuelnonregulated plants, maintenance and day to day contract work at certain purchased power costs incurred by the Utilities are eligible for recovery through cost-recovery clauses in accordance with statewind facilities and federal regulationscommitments to buy wind and therefore do not require separate liquidity support. Amounts exclude precedent and conditional contracts of $1.510 billion at PEC. (See Note 22A.)
(e)The future construction obligations presented in this table for Progress Energy exclude PEF's Levy EPC agreement. The EPC agreement includes provisions for termination. For termination without cause, the EPC agreement contains exit provisions with termination fees, which may be significant, that vary based on the termination circumstances. As discussed in Note 8C, in 2010 PEF identified a schedule shift in the Levy project, and major construction activities on Levy have been postponed until after the NRC issues the COL for the plants, which is expected in 2013 if the current licensing schedule remains on track. We executed an amendment to the EPC agreement in 2010 due to the schedule shifts. Additionally, in light of the schedule shifts in the Levy nuclear project, PEF completed vendor negotiations in July 2011 to continue or suspendcombustion turbines. Amount excludes certain open purchase orders for long lead time equipment without material fees or charges. Prior toservices that are provided on demand, for which the EPC amendment, estimated payments and associated escalations were $8.608 billion for the multi-year contract and did not assume any joint ownership. Because we have executed an amendment to the EPC agreement and anticipate negotiating additional amendments upon receipttiming of the COL, wepurchase cannot currently predict when those obligations will be satisfied or the magnitude of any change. PEF has continued with selected components of long lead time equipment. Work was suspended on the remaining long lead time equipment items, which have total remaining estimated payments and associated escalations of approximately $1.250 billion included in the previously discussed $8.608 billion. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter.determined.
(f)Represents the projected minimum required contributions to the qualified pension trusts for a total of 10 years. These amounts are subject to change significantly based on factors such as pension asset earnings and market interest rates.
(g)Represents projected benefit payments for a total of 10 years relatedRelated to our postretirement health and life plans and are subjectfuture annual funding obligations to change based on factors such as experienced claims and general health care cost trends.
(h)Uncertain tax positions of $173 million are not reflected in this table as we cannot predict when open income tax years will close with completed examinations. It is reasonably possible that unrecognized tax benefits will decrease by approximately $25 million during the 12-month period ending December 31, 2012, due to IRS review of open tax years.
(i)By NCUC order, in 2008, PEC began transitioningnuclear decommissioning trust fund (NDTF) through nuclear power stations' re-licensing dates. Amounts through 2017 include North Carolina jurisdictional amounts currentlythat Duke Energy Progress retained internally and is transitioning to its external decommissioning funds.funds per a 2008 NCUC order. The transition of the original $131 million must be complete by December 31, 2017, and at least 10 percent must be transitioned each year. See Note 9 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Asset Retirement Obligations."
(h)Uncertain tax positions of $213 million are not reflected in this table as Duke Energy cannot predict when open income tax years will close with completed examinations. See Note 22 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Income Taxes."
(i)The table above excludes reserves for litigation, environmental remediation, asbestos-related injuries and damages claims and self-insurance claims (see Note 5 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Commitments and Contingencies”) because Duke Energy is uncertain as to the timing and amount of cash payments that will be required. Additionally, the table above excludes annual insurance premiums that are necessary to operate the business, including nuclear insurance (see Note 5 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Commitments and Contingencies”), funding of pension and other post-retirement benefit plans (see Note 21 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Employee Benefit Plans"), asset retirement obligations, including ash management expenditures (see Note 9 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Asset Retirement Obligations") and regulatory liabilities (see Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters”) because the amount and timing of the cash payments are uncertain. Also excluded are Deferred Income Taxes and Investment Tax Credits recorded on the Consolidated Balance Sheets since cash payments for income taxes are determined based primarily on taxable income for each discrete fiscal year.
QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK
Risk Management Policies
Duke Energy is exposed to market risks associated with commodity prices, interest rates, equity prices and foreign currency exchange rates. Duke Energy has established comprehensive risk management policies to monitor and manage these market risks. Duke Energy’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer are responsible for the overall approval of market risk management policies and the delegation of approval and authorization levels. The Finance and Risk Management Committee of the Board of Directors receives periodic updates from the Chief Risk Officer and other members of management on market risk positions, corporate exposures, and overall risk management activities. The Chief Risk Officer is responsible for the overall governance of managing commodity price risk, including monitoring exposure limits.

66


PART II

The following disclosures about market risk contain forward-looking statements that involve estimates, projections, goals, forecasts, assumptions, risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results or outcomes to differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements. Please review Item 1A, “Risk Factors,” and “Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Information” for a discussion of the factors that may impact any such forward-looking statements made herein.
Commodity Price Risk
Duke Energy is exposed to the impact of market fluctuations in the prices of electricity, coal, natural gas and other energy-related products marketed and purchased as a result of its ownership of energy related assets. Duke Energy’s exposure to these fluctuations is limited by the cost-based regulation of its operations in its Regulated Utilities segment as these operations are typically allowed to recover substantially all of these costs through various cost-recovery clauses, including fuel clauses. While there may be a delay in timing between when these costs are incurred and when these costs are recovered through rates, changes from year to year generally do not have a material impact on operating results of these regulated operations.
Price risk represents the potential risk of loss from adverse changes in the market price of electricity or other energy commodities. Duke Energy’s exposure to commodity price risk is influenced by a number of factors, including contract size, length, market liquidity, location and unique or specific contract terms. Duke Energy employs established policies and procedures to manage risks associated with these market fluctuations, which may include using various commodity derivatives, such as swaps, futures, forwards and options. For additional information, see Note 14 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Derivatives and Hedging.”
Validation of a contract’s fair value is performed by an internal group separate from Duke Energy’s deal origination function. While Duke Energy uses common industry practices to develop its valuation techniques, changes in its pricing methodologies or the underlying assumptions could result in significantly different fair values and income recognition.
Hedging Strategies
Duke Energy closely monitors risks associated with commodity price changes on its future operations and, where appropriate, uses various commodity instruments such as electricity, coal and natural gas forward contracts to mitigate the effect of such fluctuations on operations. These instruments are also used to optimize the value of the nonregulated generation portfolio. Duke Energy’s primary use of energy commodity derivatives is to hedge the generation portfolio against exposure to the prices of power and fuel.
The majority of instruments used to manage Duke Energy’s commodity price exposure are either not designated as hedges or do not qualify for hedge accounting. These instruments are referred to as undesignated contracts. Mark-to-market changes for undesignated contracts entered into by regulated businesses are reflected as regulatory assets or liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Undesignated contracts entered into by unregulated businesses are marked-to-market each period, with changes in the fair value of the derivative instruments reflected in earnings.
Duke Energy may also enter into other contracts that qualify for the NPNS exception. When a contract meets the criteria to qualify as an NPNS, Duke Energy applies such exception. Income recognition and realization related to NPNS contracts generally coincide with the physical delivery of the commodity. For contracts qualifying for the NPNS exception, no recognition of the contract’s fair value in the Consolidated Financial Statements is required until settlement of the contract as long as the transaction remains probable of occurring.
Generation Portfolio Risks 
Duke Energy is primarily exposed to market price fluctuations of wholesale power, natural gas, and coal prices in the Regulated Utilities segment. The Duke Energy Registrants optimize the value of their wholesale and nonregulated generation portfolios. The portfolios include generation assets, fuel, and emission allowances. Modeled forecasts of future generation output and fuel requirements are based on forward power and fuel markets. The component pieces of the portfolio are bought and sold based on models and forecasts of generation in order to manage the economic value of the portfolio in accordance with the strategies of the business units.
For the Regulated Utilities segment, the generation portfolio not utilized to serve retail operations or committed load is subject to commodity price fluctuations. However, the impact on the Consolidated Statements of Operations is partially offset by mechanisms in these regulated jurisdictions that result in the sharing of net profits from these activities with retail customers.
International Energy and Commercial Power generally hedge their expected generation using long-term bilateral power sales contracts when favorable market conditions exist and are subject to wholesale commodity price risks for electricity not sold under such contracts. International Energy dispatches electricity not sold under long-term bilateral contracts into unregulated markets and receives wholesale energy margins and capacity revenues from national system operators. Derivative contracts executed to manage generation portfolio risks for delivery periods beyond 2015 are also exposed to changes in fair value due to market price fluctuations of wholesale power, fuel oil and coal.
See “Sensitivity Analysis for Generation Portfolio and Derivative Price Risks” below, for more information regarding the effect of changes in commodity prices on Duke Energy’s net income.

67


PART II

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FOR GENERATION PORTFOLIO AND DERIVATIVE PRICE RISKS
The table below summarizes the estimated effect of commodity price changes on Duke Energy’s pretax net income, based on a sensitivity analysis performed for the nonregulated generation portfolio. Forecasted exposure to commodity price risk for the Regulated Utilities segment is not anticipated to have a material adverse effect on Duke Energy’s results of operations in 2015. The following commodity price sensitivity calculations consider existing hedge positions and estimated production levels, as indicated in the table below, but do not consider other potential effects that might result from such changes in commodity prices.
Summary of Sensitivity Analysis for Generation Portfolio and Derivative Price Risks (in millions)
87
  
Generation Portfolio
Risks for 2015 As of December 31,(a)
 
Sensitivities for Derivatives Beyond 2015 As of December 31,(b)
Potential effect on pretax net income assuming a 10 percent price change in2014
 2013
 2014
 2013
Forward wholesale power prices (based on price per MWh)$4
 $1
 $
 $
(a)    Amounts related to forward wholesale prices represent the potential impact of commodity price changes on forecasted
economic generation which has not been contracted or hedged. Amounts related to forward coal prices and forward gas prices represent the potential impact of commodity price changes on fuel needed to achieve such economic generation. Amounts exclude the impact of mark-to-market changes on undesignated contracts relating to periods in excess of one year from the respective date.
(b)Amounts represent sensitivities related to derivative contracts executed to manage generation portfolio risks for periods beyond 2014. Amounts exclude the potential impact of commodity price changes on forecasted economic generation and fuel needed to achieve such forecasted generation.  
Interest Rate Risk
Duke Energy is exposed to risk resulting from changes in interest rates as a result of its issuance of variable and fixed-rate debt and commercial paper. Duke Energy manages interest rate exposure by limiting variable-rate exposures to a percentage of total debt and by monitoring the effects of market changes in interest rates. Duke Energy also enters into financial derivative instruments, which may include instruments such as, but not limited to, interest rate swaps, swaptions and U.S. Treasury lock agreements to manage and mitigate interest rate risk exposure. See Notes 1, 6, 14, and 16 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Summary of Significant Accounting Policies,” “Debt and Credit Facilities,” “Derivatives and Hedging,” and “Fair Value Measurements.”
At December 31, 2014, Duke Energy had $250 million notional amount of fixed-to-floating swaps outstanding and no pre-issuance hedges outstanding. In the first quarter of 2015, Duke Energy entered into an additional $250 million notional amount of fixed-to-floating swaps. Duke Energy had $6.9 billion of unhedged long- and short-term floating interest rate exposure at December 31, 2014. The impact of a 100 basis point change in interest rates on pretax income is approximately $72 million at December 31, 2014.
This amount was estimated by considering the impact of the hypothetical interest rates on variable-rate securities outstanding, adjusted for interest rate hedges as of December 31, 2014.
Credit Risk
Credit risk represents the loss that the Duke Energy Registrants would incur if a counterparty fails to perform under its contractual obligations. To reduce credit exposure, the Duke Energy Registrants seek to enter into netting agreements with counterparties that permit them to offset receivables and payables with such counterparties. The Duke Energy Registrants attempt to further reduce credit risk with certain counterparties by entering into agreements that enable obtaining collateral or terminating or resetting the terms of transactions after specified time periods or upon the occurrence of credit-related events. The Duke Energy Registrants may, at times, use credit derivatives or other structures and techniques to provide for third-party credit enhancement of their counterparties’ obligations. The Duke Energy Registrants also obtain cash or letters of credit from customers to provide credit support outside of collateral agreements, where appropriate, based on a financial analysis of the customer and the regulatory or contractual terms and conditions applicable to each transaction. See Note 14 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Derivatives and Hedging,” for additional information regarding credit risk related to derivative instruments.
The Duke Energy Registrants’ industry has historically operated under negotiated credit lines for physical delivery contracts. The Duke Energy Registrants frequently use master collateral agreements to mitigate certain credit exposures. The collateral agreements provide for a counterparty to post cash or letters of credit to the exposed party for exposure in excess of an established threshold. The threshold amount represents a negotiated unsecured credit limit for each party to the agreement, determined in accordance with the Duke Energy Registrants’ internal corporate credit practices and standards. Collateral agreements generally also provide that the inability to post collateral is sufficient cause to terminate contracts and liquidate all positions.
The Duke Energy Registrants’ principal customers for its electric and gas businesses are commodity clearinghouses, regional transmission organizations, industrial, commercial and residential end-users, marketers, distribution companies, municipalities, electric cooperatives and utilities located throughout the U.S. and Latin America. The Duke Energy Registrants have concentrations of receivables from such entities throughout these regions. These concentrations of customers may affect the Duke Energy Registrants’ overall credit risk in that risk factors can negatively impact the credit quality of the entire sector. Where exposed to credit risk, the Duke Energy Registrants analyze the counterparties’ financial condition prior to entering into an agreement, establish credit limits and monitor the appropriateness of those limits on an ongoing basis.

68


PART II

Duke Energy Carolinas has a third-party insurance policy to cover certain losses related to its asbestos-related injuries and damages above an aggregate self-insured retention of $476 million. Duke Energy Carolinas’ cumulative payments began to exceed the self-insurance retention on its insurance policy during the second quarter of 2008. Future payments up to the policy limit will be reimbursed by the third-party insurance carrier. The insurance policy limit for potential future insurance recoveries for indemnification and medical cost claim payments is $864 million in excess of the self-insured retention. Insurance recoveries of $616 million and $649 million related to this policy are classified in the Consolidated Balance Sheets in Other within Investments and Other Assets and Receivables as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively. Duke Energy Carolinas is not aware of any uncertainties regarding the legal sufficiency of insurance claims. Management believes the insurance recovery asset is probable of recovery as the insurance carrier continues to have a strong financial strength rating.
The Duke Energy Registrants also have credit risk exposure through issuance of performance guarantees, letters of credit and surety bonds on behalf of less than wholly owned entities and third parties. Where the Duke Energy Registrants have issued these guarantees, it is possible that they could be required to perform under these guarantee obligations in the event the obligor under the guarantee fails to perform. Where the Duke Energy Registrants have issued guarantees related to assets or operations that have been disposed of via sale, they attempt to secure indemnification from the buyer against all future performance obligations under the guarantees. See Note 7 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Guarantees and Indemnifications,” for further information on guarantees issued by the Duke Energy Registrants.
The Duke Energy Registrants are also subject to credit risk of their vendors and suppliers in the form of performance risk on contracts including, but not limited to, outsourcing arrangements, major construction projects and commodity purchases. The Duke Energy Registrants’ credit exposure to such vendors and suppliers may take the form of increased costs or project delays in the event of non-performance.
Credit risk associated with the Duke Energy Registrants’ service to residential, commercial and industrial customers is generally limited to outstanding accounts receivable. The Duke Energy Registrants mitigate this credit risk by requiring customers to provide a cash deposit or letter of credit until a satisfactory payment history is established, subject to the rules and regulations in effect in each retail jurisdiction, at which time the deposit is typically refunded. Charge-offs for retail customers have historically been insignificant to the operations of the Duke Energy Registrants and are typically recovered through the retail rates. Management continually monitors customer charge-offs and payment patterns to ensure the adequacy of bad debt reserves. Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana sell certain of their accounts receivable and related collections through CRC, a Duke Energy consolidated variable interest entity. Losses on collection are first absorbed by the equity of CRC and next by the subordinated retained interests held by Duke Energy Ohio, Duke Energy Kentucky and Duke Energy Indiana. See Note 17 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Variable Interest Entities.”
Based on the Duke Energy Registrants’ policies for managing credit risk, their exposures and their credit and other reserves, the Duke Energy Registrants do not currently anticipate a materially adverse effect on their consolidated financial position or results of operations as a result of non-performance by any counterparty.
Marketable Securities Price Risk
As described further in Note 15 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Investments in Debt and Equity Securities,” Duke Energy invests in debt and equity securities as part of various investment portfolios to fund certain obligations. The vast majority of investments in equity securities are within the NDTF and assets of the various pension and other post-retirement benefit plans.
Pension Plan Assets
Duke Energy maintains investments to help fund the costs of providing non-contributory defined benefit retirement and other post-retirement benefit plans. These investments are exposed to price fluctuations in equity markets and changes in interest rates. The equity securities held in these pension plans are diversified to achieve broad market participation and reduce the impact of any single investment, sector or geographic region. Duke Energy has established asset allocation targets for its pension plan holdings, which take into consideration the investment objectives and the risk profile with respect to the trust in which the assets are held.
A significant decline in the value of plan asset holdings could require Duke Energy to increase funding of its pension plans in future periods, which could adversely affect cash flows in those periods. Additionally, a decline in the fair value of plan assets, absent additional cash contributions to the plan, could increase the amount of pension cost required to be recorded in future periods, which could adversely affect Duke Energy’s results of operations in those periods.
Nuclear Decommissioning Trust Funds
As required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), NCUC, PSCSC and FPSC, subsidiaries of Duke Energy maintain trust funds to fund the costs of nuclear decommissioning. As of December 31, 2014, these funds were invested primarily in domestic and international equity securities, debt securities, cash and cash equivalents and short-term investments. Per the NRC, Internal Revenue Code, NCUC, PSCSC and FPSC requirements, these funds may be used only for activities related to nuclear decommissioning. The investments in equity securities are exposed to price fluctuations in equity markets. Duke Energy actively monitors its portfolios by benchmarking the performance of its investments against certain indices and by maintaining, and periodically reviewing, target allocation percentages for various asset classes. Accounting for nuclear decommissioning recognizes that costs are recovered through retail rates; therefore, fluctuations in equity prices do not affect their Consolidated Statements of Operations as changes in the fair value of these investments are deferred as regulatory assets or regulatory liabilities pursuant to an Order by the NCUC, PSCSC and FPSC. Earnings or losses of the fund will ultimately impact the amount of costs recovered through retail rates. See Note 9 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Asset Retirement Obligations” for additional information regarding nuclear decommissioning costs. See Note 15 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Investments in Debt and Equity Securities” for additional information regarding NDTF assets.

69


PART II

Foreign Currency Risk
Duke Energy is exposed to foreign currency risk from investments in international businesses owned and operated in foreign countries and from certain commodity-related transactions within domestic operations that are denominated in foreign currencies. To mitigate risks associated with foreign currency fluctuations, contracts may be denominated in or indexed to the U.S. dollar and/or local inflation rates, or investments may be naturally hedged through debt denominated or issued in the foreign currency. Duke Energy may also use foreign currency derivatives, where possible, to manage its risk related to foreign currency fluctuations. To monitor its currency exchange rate risks, Duke Energy uses sensitivity analysis, which measures the impact of devaluation of the foreign currencies to which it has exposure.
Duke Energy’s primary foreign currency rate exposure is to the Brazilian Real. The table below summarizes the potential effect of foreign currency devaluations on Duke Energy’s Consolidated Statement of Operations and Consolidated Balance Sheets, based on a sensitivity analysis performed as of December 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013.
Summary of Sensitivity Analysis for Foreign Currency Risks
  Assuming 10 percent devaluation in the currency exchange rates in all exposure currencies
  As of December 31,
(in millions)  2014
 2013
Income Statement impact(a)
$(20) $(20)
Balance Sheet impact(b)
(98) (140)

(a)    Amounts represent the potential annual net pretax loss on the translation of local currency earnings to the U.S. dollar in
2014 and 2013, respectively.
(b)Amounts represent the potential impact to the currency translation through Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (AOCI) on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
OTHER MATTERS
Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges
ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERSThe Duke Energy Registrants’ ratios of earnings to fixed charges, as calculated using SEC guidelines, are included in the table below.
 Years Ended December 31,
 2014
 2013
 2012
Duke Energy(a)
3.2
 3.0
 2.4
Duke Energy Carolinas4.6
 4.4
 3.8
Progress Energy2.7
 2.2
 1.6
Duke Energy Progress3.5
 3.7
 2.3
Duke Energy Florida4.1
 2.9
 2.3
Duke Energy Ohio2.1
 2.2
 1.7
Duke Energy Indiana4.1
 4.1
 0.3
(a)Includes the results of Progress Energy beginning on July 2, 2012.
Midwest Generation Exit
We areMerchant power plants have, in the recent past, delivered volatile returns in the competitive energy markets in the Midwest. In Ohio, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) had granted revenue support from regulated retail markets to help stabilize returns during the transition to competitive markets. However, in early 2014, a request for continued revenue support was denied by the PUCO. This decision made it clear the energy markets in Ohio were to be fully unregulated. Although the undiscounted cash flows recover the carrying value of the Midwest Generation assets, the recovery period is over a long period of time, with risks inherent in operating these assets in competitive energy markets and in an ever changing landscape of environmental regulations related to fossil fuel based generation sources. Management concluded in early 2014 that the projected risk and earnings profile of these assets was no longer consistent with Duke Energy’s strategy and initiated a plan to sell these assets and realize the fair value over a shorter period while reducing the risk and volatility associated with these assets.
On August 21, 2014, Duke Energy Commercial Enterprises, Inc., an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Duke Energy Corporation, and Duke Energy SAM, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Duke Energy Ohio, entered into a PSA with a subsidiary of Dynegy whereby Dynegy will acquire Duke Energy’s Disposal Group for approximately $2.8 billion in cash subject to regulationadjustments at closing for changes in working capital and capital expenditures. The completion of the transaction is conditioned on approval by variousFERC and the release of certain credit support obligations. The transaction is expected to close by the end of the second quarter of 2015. For additional information on the Midwest generation business disposition see Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Acquisitions, Dispositions and Sales of Other Assets."

70


PART II

North Carolina Ash Basins
On February 2, 2014, a break in a stormwater pipe beneath an ash basin at Duke Energy Carolinas’ retired Dan River steam station caused a release of ash basin water and ash into the Dan River. On February 8, 2014, a permanent plug was installed in the stormwater pipe, stopping the release of materials into the river. Duke Energy Carolinas estimates 30,000 to 39,000 tons of ash and 24 million to 27 million gallons of basin water were released into the river during the incident. For additional information see Note 5 to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, "Commitments and Contingencies."
Environmental Regulations
Duke Energy is subject to international, federal, state, and local authorities in the areas ofregulations regarding air quality,and water quality, control of toxic substances and hazardous and solid wastes,waste disposal, and other environmental matters. We believe that weThe Subsidiary Registrants are in substantial compliance with those environmental regulations currently applicable to our business and operations and believe we have all necessary permits to conduct such operations. Environmental laws and regulations frequently change and the ultimate costs of compliance cannot always be precisely estimated. The table below summarizes the status of key environmental regulations that impact or may impact the Utilities. The table is followed by a detailed discussion of each regulation.
StatusPrimarily RegulatesCompliance Strategy
Impacting Solid Waste
Coal Combustion Residuals
Final rule expected in late
2012
Storage, use and disposal of coal ash
and scrubber sludge
Proposed rule included two significantly
different options. Compliance method cannot
be determined until the rule is final.
Impacting Air Quality
NC Clean Smokestacks
In effect
NOx, SO2
Evaluating strategy for compliance
subsequent to 2013
CAIR / CSAPR
CAIR in effect pending
resolution of appeal of
CSAPR
NOx, SO2
Previously installed air pollution controls and
fleet modernization projects, and use of
emission allowances
NC Mercury
NC-specific requirements
in effect
MercuryFederal EGU MACT rule compliance
EGU MACT
Final rule published
February 16, 2012,
and will become effective
April 16, 2012
Mercury and other hazardous metals,
acid gases, hydrogen fluoride,
dioxin/furan
Previously installed air pollution controls and
fleet modernization projects largely address
for PEC; for PEF, additional controls and/or
fleet modernization required
GHG New Source Performance Standards
Proposed rule first quarter
2012
GHGsCase-by-case determination for new units
��
CAVR – BART provisions
Effective 2013
NOx, SO2 and particulate matter
Assessing BART impact; EPA may allow
CSAPR compliance to fulfill BART
requirements
NAAQS
In effect
Ozone, NO2, SO2 and
particulate matter
Currently in compliance.  Additional controls
may be necessary if nonattainment is
determined

88



Impacting Water Quality
316(b)
Final rules are expected in
late July 2012
Cooling water intake structures for
steam-electric power plants
Modification of traveling screens; assessment
of environmental impacts and alternative
technologies for reducing those impacts; and
possible installation of new technologies
Effluent Guideline Revisions
Proposed revisions
anticipated in late July
2012
Wastewater discharges from
steam-electric plants
Cannot be determined until final rule is issued
HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
The provisions of the CERCLA authorize the EPA to require the cleanup of hazardous waste sites. This statute imposes retroactive joint and several liability. Some states, including North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida, have similar types of statutes. We are periodically notified by regulators, including the EPA and various state agencies, of our involvement or potential involvement in sites that may require investigation and/or remediation. There are presently several sites with respect to which we have been notified of our potential liability by the EPA, the state of North Carolina, the state of Florida or potentially responsible parties (PRP) groups. Various organic materials associated with the production of manufactured gas, generally referred to as coal tar, are regulated under federal and state laws. PEC and PEF are each PRPs at several manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites. We are also currently in the process of assessing potential costs and exposures at other sites. These costs are eligible for regulatory recovery through either base rates or cost-recovery clauses (See Notes 8 and 21). Both PEC and PEF evaluate potential claims against other PRPs and insurance carriers and plan to submit claims for cost recovery where appropriate. The outcome of potential and pending claims cannot be predicted. Hazardous and solid waste management matters are discussed in detail in Note 21A.
We accrue costs to the extent our liability is probable and the costs can be reasonably estimated. Because the extent of environmental impact, allocation among PRPs for all sites, remediation alternatives (which could involve either minimal or significant efforts), and concurrence of the regulatory authorities have not yet reached the stage where a reasonable estimate of the remediation costs can be made, we cannot determine the total costs that may be incurred in connection with the remediation of all sites at this time. It is probable that current estimates could change and additional losses, which could be material, may be incurred in the future.
The EPA and a number of states are considering additional regulatory measures that may affect management, treatment, marketing and disposal of coal combustion residuals, primarily ash, from each of the Utilities’ coal-fired plants. Revised or new laws or regulations under consideration may impose changes in solid waste classifications or groundwater protection environmental controls. In 2010, the EPA proposed two options for new rules to regulate coal combustion residuals. The first option would create a comprehensive program of federally enforceable requirements for coal combustion residuals management and disposal under federal hazardous waste rules. The other option would have the EPA set performance standards for coal combustion residuals management facilities and regulate disposal of coal combustion residuals as nonhazardous waste (as most states do now). The EPA did not identify a preferred option. Under both options, the EPA may leave in place a regulatory exemption for approved beneficial uses of coal combustion residuals that are recycled. A final rule is expected in 2012. Compliance plans and estimated costs to meet the requirements of new regulations will be determined when any new regulations are finalized. We are also evaluating the effect on groundwater quality from past and current operations, which may result in operational changes and additional measures under existing regulations. These issues are also under evaluation by state agencies. Certain regulated chemicals have been measured in wells near our ash ponds at levels above groundwater quality standards. Additional monitoring and investigation will be conducted. Detailed plans and cost estimates will be determined if these evaluations reveal that corrective actions are necessary. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
89

AIR QUALITY
We are, or may ultimately be, subject to various current and proposed federal, state, and local regulations regarding air and water quality, hazardous and solid waste disposal and other environmental compliance lawsmatters. These regulations can be changed from time to time and regulations, which likely would result in increased capital expenditures and O&M expense. Control equipment installed for compliance with then-existing or proposed laws and regulations, which are discussed below, may address somenew obligations of the issues outlined. PECDuke Energy Registrants.
The following sections outline various proposed and PEF have been developing an integrated compliance strategyrecently enacted regulations that may impact the Duke Energy Registrants. The Duke Energy Registrants also expect to meet these evolving requirements. However, the outcomeincur increased fuel, purchased power, operation and maintenance, and other costs for replacement generation for potential coal-fired power plant retirements as a result of these matters cannotproposed and final regulations. The actual compliance costs may be predicted.
Clean Smokestacks Act
The 2002 enactmentmaterially different from these estimates based on the timing and requirements of the Clean Smokestacksfinal EPA regulations. Refer to Note 4 to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, "Regulatory Matters," for further information regarding potential plant retirements and regulatory filings related to the Duke Energy Registrants.
Coal Ash Management Act of 2014
On September 20, 2014, the Coal Ash Act became law. The Coal Ash Act (i) establishes a Coal Ash Management Commission (Coal Ash Commission) to oversee handling of coal ash within the state; (ii) prohibits construction of new and expansion of existing ash impoundments and use of existing impoundments at retired facilities, effective October 1, 2014; (iii) requires the state's electric utilities to reduce the emissionsclosure of NOxash impoundments at Duke Energy Progress' Asheville and SO2 from their North Carolina coal-fired powerSutton stations and Duke Energy Carolinas' Riverbend and Dan River stations no later than August 1, 2019; (iv) requires dry disposal of fly ash at active plants in phasesnot retired by 2013. PEC currently has approximately 5,000 MWDecember 31, 2018; (v) requires dry disposal of coal-fired generation capacitybottom ash at active plants by December 31, 2019, or retirement of active plants; (vi) requires all remaining ash impoundments in North Carolina affectedto be categorized as high-risk, intermediate-risk, or low-risk no later than December 31, 2015 by the Clean Smokestacks Act. PEC’s environmental compliance projects under the first phase of Clean Smokestacks Act emission reductions have been placed in service. PEC implemented a plan to retire, by the end of 2013, its coal-fired generating facilities inThe North Carolina (originally totaling 1,500 MW) that do not have scrubbersDepartment of Environment and replaceNatural Resources (DENR) with the generation capacitymethod of closure and timing to be based upon the assigned risk, with closure no later than December 31, 2029; (vii) establishes requirements to deal with groundwater and surface water impacts from impoundments and (viii) enhances the level of regulation for structural fills utilizing coal ash. The Coal Ash Act includes a variance procedure for compliance deadlines and modification of requirements regarding structural fills and compliance boundaries. Provisions of the Coal Ash Act prohibit cost recovery for unlawful discharge of ash basin waters occurring after January 1, 2014. The Coal Ash Act included a moratorium for any NCUC ordered rate changes to effectuate the legislation, which ended January 15, 2015. The Coal Ash Act leaves the decision on cost recovery determinations related to closure of CCR surface impoundments (ash basins or impoundments) to the normal ratemaking processes before utility regulatory commissions. In November 2014, Duke Energy submitted to DENR site specific coal ash excavation plans for the four high priority stations required to be closed no later than August 1, 2019. These plans and all associated permits must be approved by DENR before any excavation work can begin.
In September 2014, Duke Energy Carolinas executed a consent agreement with the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) requiring the excavation of an inactive ash basin and ash fill area at the W.S. Lee Steam Station. As part of this agreement, in December 2014, Duke Energy Carolinas filed an ash removal plan and schedule with SCDHEC.
For further information, refer to Note 5 of the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, “Commitments and Contingencies.”
Mercury and Air Toxics Standards
The final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule, previously referred to as the Utility MACT Rule, was issued on February 16, 2012. The final rule establishes emission limits for hazardous air pollutants from new natural gas-fueledand existing coal-fired and oil-fired steam electric generating facilities, which should enable the utilityunits. The rule requires sources to comply with emission limits by April 16, 2015. Under the final Clean SmokestacksAir Act SO2 emissions target(CAA), permitting authorities have the discretion to grant up to a one-year compliance extension, on a case-by-case basis, to sources that begins in 2013.are unable to complete the installation of emission controls before the compliance deadline. The first unit was retired in 2011. We anticipate that PEC will maintainDuke Energy Registrants have requested and received a number of compliance extensions. Strategies to achieve compliance with the Clean Smokestacks Act limits subsequent to 2013.
O&M expense increases with the operationfinal rule will include installation of pollutionnew air emission control equipment, duedevelopment of monitoring processes, fuel switching, and acceleration of retirement for some coal-fired electric-generation units. For additional information, refer to Note 4 to the costCondensed Consolidated Financial Statements, "Regulatory Matters," regarding potential plant retirements.
In April 2014, several petitions for review of reagents, additional personnel and general maintenance associated with the pollution control equipment. PEC is allowed to recover the cost of reagents and certain other costs under its fuel clause; the North Carolina retail portion of all other O&M expense is currently recoverable through base rates. In 2009, the SCPSC issued an order allowing PEC to begin deferring as a regulatory asset the depreciation expense that PEC incurs on its environmental compliance control facilities as well as the incremental O&M expense that PEC incurs in connection with its environmental compliance control facilities.
Clean Air Interstate Rule/Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
The CAIR, issued by the EPA, required the District of Columbia and 28 states, including North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida, to reduce NOx and SO2 emissions. The CAIR set emission limits to be met in two phases beginning in 2009 and 2015, respectively, for NOx and beginning in 2010 and 2015, respectively, for SO2. Statesfinal rule were required to adopt rules implementing the CAIR, and the EPA approved the North Carolina CAIR, the South Carolina CAIR and the Florida CAIR. A 2008 decisiondenied by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit Court). On November 25, 2014, the Supreme Court granted a petition for review based on the issue of Appeals) remandedwhether the CAIR without vacatingEPA unreasonably refused to consider costs in determining whether it is appropriate to regulate hazardous air pollutants from coal-fired and oil-fired steam electric generating units. Oral arguments are scheduled for March 25, 2015. The Duke Energy Registrants cannot predict the outcome of the Supreme Court review of the D.C. Circuit Court decision and are planning for the rule to be implemented as promulgated given the imminent compliance deadline.
Clean Water Act 316(b)
The EPA published the final 316(b) cooling water intake structure rule on August 15, 2014, with an effective date of October 14, 2014. The rule applies to conduct27 of the electric generating facilities the Duke Energy Registrants own and operate depending on unit retirement dates, excluding stations included in the Disposal Group. The rule allows several options for demonstrating compliance and provides flexibility to the state environmental permitting agencies to make determinations on controls, if any, that will be required for cooling water intake structures. Any required intake structure modifications and/or retrofits are expected to be installed in the 2019 to 2022 timeframe. Petitions challenging the rule have been filed by several groups. It is unknown at this time when the courts will rule on the petitions.

71


PART II

Steam Electric Effluent Limitation Guidelines
On June 7, 2013, the EPA proposed Steam Electric Effluent Limitations Guidelines. The EPA is under a revised court order to finalize the rule by September 30, 2015. The EPA has proposed eight options for the rule, which vary in stringency and cost. The proposed regulation applies to seven waste streams, including wastewater from air pollution control equipment and ash transport water. Most, if not all, of the steam electric generating facilities the Duke Energy Registrants own are likely affected sources. Requirements to comply with the final rule may begin as early as late 2018 for some facilities.
Estimated Cost and Impacts of Rulemakings
The ultimate compliance requirements for currently proposed environmental regulations will not be known until all the rules have been finalized. The Duke Energy Registrants also expect to incur increased fuel, purchased power, operation and maintenance, and other expenses, in addition to costs for replacement generation for potential coal-fired power plant retirements as a result of these regulations. The actual compliance costs incurred may be materially different from these estimates based on the timing and requirements of the final regulations. The Duke Energy Registrants intend to seek rate recovery of appropriate amounts incurred associated with regulated operations in complying with these regulations. Refer to Note 4 to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters," for further proceedings.information regarding potential plant retirements and regulatory filings related to the Duke Energy Registrants.
The following table provides estimated costs, excluding AFUDC, of new control equipment that may need to be installed on existing power plants, including conversion of plants to dry disposal of bottom ash and fly ash, to comply with the above regulations over the five years ended December 31, 2019. The table excludes amounts related to the Disposal Group and ash basin closure costs recorded as asset retirement obligations, for additional information refer to Note 9 of the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, "Asset Retirement Obligations." The table also does not include estimated ash basin closure costs to comply with the recently issued EPA regulations for the disposal of CCR from power plants.
(in millions)   Estimated 5 Year Cost
Duke Energy   $1,850
Duke Energy Carolinas   675
Progress Energy   525
Duke Energy Progress   475
Duke Energy Florida   50
Duke Energy Ohio   75
Duke Energy Indiana   575
Coal Combustion Residuals
On December 19, 2014, the EPA signed the first federal regulation for the disposal of CCR from power plants. The federal regulation classifies CCR as nonhazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The regulation applies to all new and existing landfills, new and existing surface impoundments, structural fills and CCR piles. The rule establishes requirements regarding landfill design, structural integrity design and assessment criteria for surface impoundments, groundwater monitoring and protection procedures and other operational and reporting procedures to ensure the safe disposal and management of CCR. In addition to the requirements of the federal CCR regulation, CCR landfills and surface impoundments will continue to be independently regulated by most states. Duke Energy records an asset retirement obligation when it has a legal obligation to incur retirement costs associated with the retirement of a long-lived asset and the obligation can be reasonably estimated. Once the rule is effective in 2015, additional asset retirement obligation amounts will be recorded at all Duke registrants. Cost recovery for future expenditures will be pursued through the normal ratemaking process with state utility commissions, which permit recovery of necessary and prudently incurred costs associated with Duke Energy’s regulated operations. At this time, Duke Energy is evaluating the CCR regulation and developing cost estimates that will largely be dependent upon compliance alternatives selected to meet requirements of the regulations. For more information, see Note 5 to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, "Commitments and Contingencies."
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
On July 7,August 8, 2011, the EPA issuedfinal Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) was published in the CSAPR to replace the CAIR.Federal Register. The CSAPR slatedestablished state-level annual sulfur dioxide (SO2) budgets and annual and seasonal nitrogen oxide (NOx) budgets that were to take effect on January 1, 2012.
On August 21, 2012, containsthe D.C. Circuit Court vacated the CSAPR. The court also directed the EPA to continue administering the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which required additional reductions in SO2 and NOx emissions beginning in 2015. On April 29, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court (Supreme Court) reversed the D.C. Circuit Court’s decision, finding that with CSAPR the EPA reasonably interpreted the good neighbor provision of the CAA. The case was remanded to the D.C. Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. On October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit Court lifted the CSAPR stay, which allowed Phase 1 of the rule to take effect on January 1, 2015, terminating the CAIR. Where the CSAPR requirements are constraining, actions to meet the requirements could include purchasing emission allowances, power purchases, curtailing generation and utilizing low sulfur fuel. The CSAPR will not result in Duke Energy Registrants adding new emissions trading programs for NOx and SO2emission controls. emissions as well as more stringent overall emissions targets in 27 states, including North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida. A number of parties, including groups which PEC and PEF are members of, filed petitions for reconsideration and stay of, as well as legal
Additional challenges to the CSAPR. On December 30, 2011,CSAPR filed in 2012, not addressed by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order staying the implementation ofdecision to vacate the CSAPR, pending a decision by the court resolving the challenges to the rule.are still ongoing. Oral argument for the CSAPR litigation has been scheduled for April 13, 2012. As a result of the stay of CSAPR, the CAIR will remain in effect.arguments were held February 25, 2015. The EPA issued the CSAPR as four separate programs, including the NOx annual trading program, the NOx ozone season trading program, the SO2 Group 1 trading program and the SO2 Group 2 trading program. If the CSAPR is upheld, North Carolina and South Carolina are included in the NOx and SO2 annual trading programs, as well as the NOx ozone season program. North Carolina remains classified as a Group 1 state, which will require additional NOx and SO2 emission reductions beginning in January 2014. South Carolina remains classified as a Group 2 state with no additional reductions required. Under the CSAPR, Florida is subject only to the NOx ozone season program. WeDuke Energy Registrants cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Due to significant investments in NOx and SO2 emissions controls and fleet modernization projects completedthese proceedings or under way, we believe PEC and PEF are positioned to comply withhow the requirements of the CSAPR withoutmay be impacted going forward.
Carbon Dioxide New Source Performance Standards
On January 8, 2014, the needEPA proposed a rule to establish carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions standards for significant capital expenditures.new pulverized coal, IGCC, natural gas combined cycle, and simple cycle electric generating units commencing construction on or after that date. Based on the proposal, future coal and IGCC units will be required to employ carbon capture and storage technology to meet the proposed standard.

72


PART II

In January 2015, the EPA announced that it would finalize the rule for new power plants in the summer of 2015. The air quality controls installedDuke Energy Registrants do not expect a material impact on their future results of operations or cash flows based on the EPA’s proposal. The final rule, however, could be significantly different from the proposal.
CO2 Existing Source Performance Standards and Standards for Reconstructed and Modified Units
On June 18, 2014, the EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan (CPP) for regulating CO2 emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired electric generating units (EGUs) was published in the Federal Register. On the same date the EPA proposed carbon pollution standards for reconstructed and modified EGUs. The comment period ended October 16, 2014 for the reconstructed and modified proposal and December 1, 2014 for the CPP. Duke Energy submitted comments on both proposals. In January 2015 the EPA announced that it would finalize both proposals in the summer of 2015.
Once the CPP is finalized, states will be required to comply with NOx and SO2develop plans to implement its requirements. The CPP will not directly impose any regulatory requirements under certain
90

sectionson Duke Energy Registrants. State implementation plans will include the regulatory requirements that will apply to Duke Energy Registrants. Based on the EPA’s June 18, 2014 proposal, states will have from one to three years after the CPP is finalized to submit a plan for EPA’s review. In January 2015 the EPA announced that it would also propose a federal implementation plan for public comment in the summer of 2015. A federal plan would be EPA’s plan for meeting the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA)CPP and could take the Clean Smokestacks Act, as well as PEC’splace of a state plan if a state either fails to replacesubmit a portionplan or submits a plan that is not approved by the EPA.
The EPA has proposed to phase CO2 emission reductions in over the period 2020 to 2030. The final requirements of its coal-fired generation with natural gas-fueled generation, largely address the CAIRCPP, however, including the implementation schedule are uncertain and CSAPR requirements for NOx and SO2 for our North Carolina units at PEC. NOx and SO2 emission control equipment are in service at PEF’s Crystal River Unit No. 4 and Crystal River Unit No. 5 (CR4 and CR5), and we plan to continue compliance withcould be significantly different from the CAIR in 2012 through a combination of emission controls, continued use of natural gas at applicable facilities and use of emission allowances.
Under an agreement with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), PEF will retire Crystal River Units No. 1 and No. 2 coal-fired steam units (CR1 and CR2) and operate emission control equipment at CR4 and CR5. CR1 and CR2proposal. In addition, it will be retired afterseveral years before the second proposed nuclear unit at Levy completes its first fuel cycle, which was originally anticipated to be around 2020. As discussed in Note 8C and “Other Matters – Nuclear – Potential New Construction,” major construction activities for Levy are being postponed until after the NRC issues the Levy COL. As required, PEF has advised the FDEP of developments that will delay the retirement of CR1 and CR2 beyond the originally anticipated date. We are currently evaluating the impactsrequirements of the Levy schedulesubsequent state plans are known. Also unknown at this time are the requirements of any federal plan that might be imposed on PEF’s compliance with environmental regulations. We cannotstates in which the Duke Energy Registrants operate should a state fail to submit a plan or have their plan disapproved by the EPA. The Duke Energy Registrants are therefore unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
Mercury Regulation
In 2008,rulemaking, or how it might impact them, but the D.C. Court of Appeals vacated the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR). As a result, the EPA subsequently announced that it would develop MACT standards. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order requiring the EPA to issue a final MACT standard for power plants. On February 16, 2012, the EPA published the final EGU MACT. The rule will become effective on April 16, 2012. Compliance is due in three years with provisions for a one-year extension from state agencies on a case-by-case basis. The EGU MACT contains stringent emission limits for mercury, non-mercury metals and acid gases from coal-fired units and hazardous air pollutant metals, acid gases and hydrogen fluoride from oil-fired units. The North Carolina mercury rule contains a requirement that all coal-fired units in the state install mercury controls by December 31, 2017, and requires compliance plan applications to be submitted in 2013. Due to significant investments in NOx and SO2 emissions controls and fleet modernization projects completed or under way, we believe PEC is relatively well positioned to comply with the EGU MACT. However, PEF will be required to complete additional emissions controls and/or fleet modernization projects in order to meet the compliance timeframe for the EGU MACT. We are continuing to evaluate the impacts of the EGU MACT on the Utilities. We anticipate that compliance with the EGU MACT will satisfy the North Carolina mercury rule requirements for PEC. The outcome of these matters cannot be predicted.
Clean Air Visibility Rule
The EPA’s Clean Air Visibility Rule (CAVR) requires states to identify facilities, including power plants, built between August 1962 and August 1977 with the potential to produce emissions that affect visibility in certain specially protected areas, including national parks and wilderness areas, designated as Class I areas. To help restore visibility in those areas, states must require the identified facilities to install best available retrofit technology (BART) to control their emissions. PEC’s BART-eligible units are Asheville Units No. 1 and No. 2, Roxboro Units No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3, and Sutton Unit No. 3. PEF’s BART-eligible units are Anclote Units No. 1 and No. 2, CR1 and CR2. The reductions associated with BART begin in 2013. As discussed in Note 8B, Sutton Unit No. 3 is one of the coal-fired generating units that PEC plans to replace with combined cycle natural gas-fueled electric generation. As discussed previously, PEF and the FDEP announced an agreement under which PEF will retire CR1 and CR2 as coal-fired units.
The CAVR included the EPA’s determination that compliance with the NOx and SO2 requirements of the CAIRimpact could be used by states as a BART substitute to fulfill BART obligations, but the states could require the installation of additional air quality controls if they did not achieve reasonable progress in improving visibility. The D.C. Court of Appeals’ decision remanding the CAIR maintained its implementation such that CAIR satisfies BART for NOx and SO2. In addition, the EPA has indicated that it intends to finalize a rule by spring 2012 that addresses its determination whether, for power plants, meeting the requirements in the CSAPR will fulfill the BART requirements for SO2 and NOx under the regional haze program. Under subsequent implementation of CSAPR, CAVR compliance eventually will require consideration of SO2 emissions in addition to particulate matter emissions for PEF’s BART-eligible units, because Florida will no longer be subject to the current CAIR SO2 emissionssignificant.
91

provisions. We are assessing the potential impact of BART and its implications with respect to our plans and estimated costs to comply with the CAVR. The FDEP finalized a Regional Haze implementation rule that goes beyond BART by requiring sources significantly impacting visibility in Class I areas to install additional controls by December 31, 2017. However, in the spring of 2010 the EPA indicated that the Reasonable Further Progress portion of the Regional Haze implementation rule is not approvable. The FDEP is in the process of amending the rule by removing the Reasonable Further Progress provision, including the December 31, 2017 deadline for installation of additional controls, and instead will rely on current federal programs to achieve improvement in visibility. In November 2011, the EPA announced a settlement that sets a schedule for action on the regional haze state implementation plans submitted by the states. The deadlines in the consent decree provide that all final EPA actions on the regional haze state implementation plans are to occur no later than November 15, 2012. The outcome of these matters cannot be predicted.
Compliance Strategy
Both PEC and PEF have been developing an integrated compliance strategy to meet the requirements of the CAIR, the CSAPR, the CAVR, mercury regulation and related air quality regulations. The air quality controls installed to comply with NOx and SO2 requirements under certain sections of the CAA and the Clean Smokestacks Act, as well as PEC’s plan to replace a portion of its coal-fired generation with natural gas-fueled generation, resulted in a reduction of the costs to meet PEC’s CAIR and CSAPR requirements.
PEC’s environmental compliance projects under the first phase of Clean Smokestacks Act emission reductions and PEF’s environmental compliance projects under the first phase of CAIR are in service.
The FPSC approved PEF’s petition to develop and implement an Integrated Clean Air Compliance Plan to comply with the CAIR, CAMR and CAVR and for recovery of prudently incurred costs necessary to achieve this strategy through the ECRC (see previous discussion regarding the vacating of the CAMR and remanding of the CAIR and its potential impact on CAVR). PEF’s April 1, 2011 filing with the FPSC for true-up of final 2010 environmental costs included a review of the Integrated Clean Air Compliance Plan, which reconfirmed the efficacy of the recommended plan and total estimated project cost of approximately $1.1 billion to plan, design, build and install pollution control equipment at CR4 and CR5, which has been placed in service. PEF does not currently plan to install air pollution control equipment at the Anclote Plant as previously anticipated in its approved Integrated Clean Air Compliance Plan. Additional costs may be incurred if pollution controls are required in order to comply with the requirements of the CAVR, as discussed previously, or to meet compliance requirements of the CSAPR. Subsequent rule interpretations, increases in the underlying material, labor and equipment costs, equipment availability, or the unexpected acceleration of compliance dates, among other things, could result in significant increases in our estimated costs to comply and acceleration of some projects. The outcome of this matter cannot be predicted.
Environmental Compliance Cost Estimates
Risk factors regarding environmental compliance cost estimates are discussed in Item 1A, “Risk Factors.” Costs to comply with environmental laws and regulations are eligible for regulatory recovery through either base rates or cost-recovery clauses. The outcome of future petitions for recovery cannot be predicted. Our estimates of capital expenditures to comply with environmental laws and regulations are subject to periodic review and revision and may vary significantly. PEC is continuing to evaluate various design, technology and new generation options that could change expenditures required to maintain compliance with the Clean Smokestacks Act limits subsequent to 2013. Additional compliance plans for PEC and PEF to meet the requirements of the CSAPR have not been completed. Compliance plans and costs to meet the requirements of the CAVR are being reassessed, and we cannot predict the impact that the EPA’s further proceedings will have on our compliance with the CAVR requirements. Compliance plans to meet the requirements of the EGU MACT are being developed. Compliance plans to meet the requirements of a revised or new implementing rule under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (Section 316(b)), as discussed below, will be determined upon finalization of the rule. The timing and extent of the costs for future projects will depend upon final compliance strategies. However, we believe that future costs to comply with new or subsequent rule interpretations could be significant.
92

North Carolina Attorney General Petition under Section 126 of the Clean Air Act
In 2004, the North Carolina attorney general filed a petition with the EPA, under Section 126 of the CAA, asking the federal government to force fossil fuel-fired power plants in 13 other states, including South Carolina, to reduce their NOx and SO2 emissions. The state of North Carolina contends these out-of-state emissions interfere with North Carolina’s ability to meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and particulate matter. In 2006, the EPA issued a final response denying the petition, and the North Carolina attorney general filed a petition in the D.C. Court of Appeals seeking a review of the agency’s denial. In 2009, the D.C. Court of Appeals remanded the EPA’s denial to the agency for reconsideration. The outcome of the remand proceeding cannot be predicted.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Environmental groups and 13 states filed a joint petition with the D.C. Court of Appeals arguing that the EPA's particulate matter rule does not adequately restrict levels of particulate matter, especially with respect to the annual and secondary standards. In 2009, the D.C. Court of Appeals remanded the annual and secondary standards to the EPA for further review and consideration. In November 2011, environmental groups petitioned the court to require the EPA to issue a proposal regarding reconsideration of the standards by February 15, 2012 and issue a final rule by September 15, 2012. On January 23, 2012, the EPA replied to the petition with a schedule that would require the agency to issue a proposed rule by June 2012 and a final rule by June 2013. The outcome of this matter cannot be predicted.
In 2008, the EPA revised the 8-hour primary and secondary standards for the NAAQS for ground-level ozone. Additional nonattainment areas may be designated in PEC’s and PEF’s service territories as a result of these revised standards. A number of states, environmental groups and industry associations filed petitions against the revised NAAQS in the D.C. Court of Appeals. The EPA requested the D.C. Court of Appeals to suspend proceedings in the case while the EPA evaluates whether to maintain, modify or otherwise reconsider the revised NAAQS. In 2009, the EPA announced that it was reconsidering the level of the ozone NAAQS and it will stay plans to designate nonattainment areas until after the reconsideration has been completed.
In 2010, the EPA announced a proposed revision to the primary ozone NAAQS. In addition, the EPA proposed a cumulative seasonal secondary standard. On September 2, 2011, President Obama announced that the EPA would withdraw the proposed revision. As a result, the ozone NAAQS promulgated in 2008 will be implemented, and the review of the standard has been deferred until 2013. With respect to the 2008 standard, all areas in our service territories are currently in compliance.
In 2010, the EPA announced a revision to the primary NAAQS for nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Currently, there are no monitors reporting violation of this new standard in our service territories, but an expanded monitoring network will provide additional data, which could result in additional nonattainment areas. Additionally, the EPA revised the 1-hour NAAQS for SO2 in 2010. Implementation of the new 1-hour NAAQS for SO2 uses air quality modeling along with monitoring data in determining whether areas are attaining the new standard, which is likely to expand the number of nonattainment areas. No additional nonattainment areas have been designated to date in our service territories. Should additional nonattainment areas for the NAAQS for NO2 and SO2 be designated in our service territories, we may be required to install additional emission controls at some of our facilities. The outcome of these matters cannot be predicted.
On July 13, 2011, the EPA made available its proposed action on the combined review of the secondary NAAQS for NOx and sulfur oxides (SOx) and expects to issue a final rule by March 2012. In this rulemaking, the EPA is proposing to retain the existing secondary standards for NO2 and SO2 and is also proposing a new set of secondary standards identical to the health-based primary standards it set in 2010. For NOx, the new standard would be 100 parts per billion averaged over one hour, measured as NO2. For SOx, the new standard would be 75 parts per billion averaged over one hour, measured as SO2. Should nonattainment areas for secondary NAAQS for NOx and SOx be designated in our service territories, we may be required to install additional emission controls at some of our facilities. The outcome of these matters cannot be predicted.
93

WATER QUALITY
General
As a result of the operation of certain pollution control equipment required to address the air quality issues outlined previously, new sources of wastewater discharge will be generated at certain affected facilities. Integration of these new wastewater discharges into the existing wastewater treatment processes is currently ongoing and will result in permitting, construction and treatment requirements imposed on the Utilities now and into the future. The future costs of complying with these requirements could be material to our or the Utilities’ results of operations or financial position.
In 2009, the EPA concluded after a multi-year study of power plant wastewater discharges that regulations have not kept pace with changes in the electric power industry since the regulations were issued in 1982, including addressing impacts to wastewater discharge from operation of air pollution control equipment. As a result, the EPA has announced that it plans to revise the regulations that govern wastewater discharge, which may result in operational changes and additional compliance costs in the future. The outcome of this matter cannot be predicted.
More stringent effluent limitations contained in the current water discharge permit for the Mayo Steam Electric Plant became effective in June 2011. PEC is currently negotiating the issuance of a special order by consent with the North Carolina Division of Water Quality, which would defer the agency’s enforcement of the more stringent effluent limitations due to the plant’s inability to achieve compliance with those limitations. The special order by consent, if issued, is expected to include the required development and installation of enhanced water pollution control technology and application of less stringent interim effluent limitations until PEC’s planned project to bring the plant into compliance with the more stringent effluent limitations is completed. However, since the special order by consent has not yet been issued in final form, it is not possible to determine the extent of the planned project. Moreover, the special order by consent does not prevent actions by the EPA or third parties. Thus, the outcome of these matters cannot be determined.
On October 5, 2011, Earthjustice, on behalf of the Sierra Club and Florida Wildlife Federation, filed a petition seeking review of the water discharge permit issued to CR1, CR2 and CR3 (See Note 22D).
Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act
Section 316(b) requires cooling water intake structures to reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impacts. The EPA promulgated a rule implementing Section 316(b) in respect to existing power plants in July 2004.
A number of states, environmental groups and others sought judicial review of the July 2004 rule. In 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an opinion and order remanding provisions of the rule to the EPA, and the EPA suspended the rule pending further rulemaking, with the exception of the requirement that permitted facilities must meet any requirements under Section 316(b) as determined by the permitting authorities on a case-by-case, best professional judgment basis. Following appeal, in 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion holding that the EPA, in selecting the “best technology” pursuant to Section 316(b), does have the authority to reject technology when its costs are “wholly disproportionate” to the benefits expected. Also, the U.S. Supreme Court held that EPA’s site-specific variance procedure (contained in the July 2004 rule) was permissible in that the procedure required testing to determine whether costs would be “significantly greater than” the benefits before a variance would be considered. As a result of these developments, our plans and associated estimated costs to comply with Section 316(b) will need to be reassessed and determined in accordance with any revised or new implementing rule after it is established by the EPA. In December 2010, consent decrees were entered in two pending federal actions brought by environmental groups against the EPA requiring the EPA to issue proposed Section 316(b) rules by March 28, 2011, and to issue a final decision by July 27, 2012.
On April 20, 2011, the EPA published its proposed regulations for cooling water intake structures at existing power generating, manufacturing and industrial facilities that withdraw more than two million gallons of water per day from waters of the U.S. and use at least 25 percent of the water they withdraw exclusively for cooling purposes. The proposed regulations would establish nationwide, uniform standards for impingement mortality (immobilization of
94

aquatic organisms against an intake screen) and case-by-case, site-specific standards for entrainment mortality (lethal effects due to passage of aquatic organisms into a cooling system). Comments on the proposed rule have been timely submitted by affected parties, including PEC and PEF. The outcome of this matter cannot be predicted.
OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS
Global Climate Change
State, federal and international attention to global climate change is expected to result in the regulationThe Duke Energy Registrants’ greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions consist primarily of CO2 and other GHGs. While state-level study groups have been active in all three of our jurisdictions, we continue to believe that this issue requires a national policy framework – one that provides certainty and consistency. Our balanced solution as discussed in “Other Matters – Energy Demand” is a comprehensive plan to meet the anticipated demand in our service territories and provides a solid basis for slowing and reducing CO2 emissions by focusing on energy efficiency, alternative and renewable energy and a state-of-the-art power system.
The EPA has begun the process of regulating GHG emissions through use of the CAA. In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the EPA has the authority under the CAA to regulate CO2 emissions with most coming from new automobiles. According to the EPA this also results in stationary sources, such astheir fleet of coal-fired power plants being subjectin the U.S. In 2014, the Duke Energy Registrants’ U.S. power plants emitted approximately 135 million tons of CO2. CO2 emissions from Duke Energy’s international operations were approximately 2 million tons. The Duke Energy Registrants’ future CO2 emissions will be influenced by variables including new regulations, economic conditions that affect electricity demand, and the Duke Energy Registrants’ decisions regarding generation technologies deployed to regulation ofmeet customer electricity needs.
The Duke Energy Registrants are taking actions that will result in reduced GHG emissions underover time. These actions will lower the CAA. In 2009,Duke Energy Registrants’ exposure to any future mandatory GHG emission reduction requirements or carbon tax, whether a result of federal legislation or EPA regulation. Under any future scenario involving mandatory GHG limitations, the EPA announced that six GHGs (CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride) pose a threatDuke Energy Registrants would plan to public health and welfare under the CAA. A numberseek recovery of parties have filed petitions for review of this finding in the D.C. Court of Appeals. The full impact of regulation under GHG initiatives and any final legislation, if enacted, cannot be determined at this time; however, we anticipate that it could result in significant cost increases over time for which the Utilities would seek corresponding rate recovery. We are preparing for a carbon-constrained future and are actively engaged in helping shape effective policies to address the issue.
In 2010, the EPA announced a schedule for development of a new source performance standard for new and existing fossil fuel-fired electric utility units. Under the schedule, the EPA was to propose the standard by September 30, 2011, and issue the final rule by May 2012. The EPA is now expected to propose the standard in the first quarter of 2012.
compliance costs associated with their regulated operations through appropriate regulatory mechanisms.
The EPA issuedDuke Energy Registrants recognize certain groups associate severe weather events with climate change, and forecast the final “tailoring rule,” which establishes the thresholds for applicability of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program permitting requirements for GHG emissions from stationary sources such as power plants and manufacturing facilities. Prevention of Significant Deterioration is a construction air pollution permitting program designed to ensure air quality does not degrade beyond the NAAQS levels or beyond specified incremental amounts above a prescribed baseline level. The tailoring rule initially raises the permitting applicability threshold for GHG emissions to 75,000 tons per year. These developments require PEC and PEF to address GHG emissions in new air quality permits. The permitting requirements for GHG emissions from stationary sources began on January 2, 2011. A number of parties have filed petitions for review of the tailoring rule in the D.C. Court of Appeals. The impact ofpossibility these developments cannot be predicted.
In 2009, the EPA issued the final GHG emissions reporting rule, which establishes a national protocol for the reporting of annual GHG emissions. Facilities that emit greater than 25,000 metric tons per year of GHGs must report annual emissions by March 31 of the following year. The reporting requirements began in 2011 with year 2010 emissions and we complied with the requirement of the reporting rule. Because the rule builds on current emission-reporting requirements, compliance with the requirements is not expected toweather events could have a material impact on future results of operations should they occur more frequently and with greater severity. However, the Utilities.
There are ongoing effortsuncertain nature of potential changes of extreme weather events (such as increased frequency, duration, and severity), the long period of time over which any potential changes might take place, and the inability to reach a new international climate change treaty to succeed the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol was originally adopted by the United Nations to address global climate change by reducing emissionspredict these with any degree of CO2 and other GHGs. Although the treaty went into effect in 2005, the United States has not ratified it. In 2009, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change convened the 15th Conference of the Parties to conduct further negotiations on GHG emissions reductions. At the conclusion of the conference, a number of the parties, including the United States, entered into a nonbinding accord calling upon the parties to submit emission reduction targets for 2020accuracy, make estimating any potential future financial risk to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat byDuke Energy Registrants’ impossible. Currently, the end of January 2010. In 2010, President Obama submitted a proposalDuke Energy Registrants plan and prepare for extreme weather events they experience from time to Congresstime, such as ice storms, tornadoes, hurricanes, severe thunderstorms, high winds and droughts.
The Duke Energy Registrants routinely take steps to reduce the U.S. GHG emissions in
95

the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, subject to future congressional action. To date, Congress has not enacted legislation implementing the president’s proposal.
Reductions in CO2 emissions to the levels specified by the Kyoto Protocol, potential new international treaties or federal or state proposals could be materially adverse to our financial position or results of operations if associated costs of control or limitation cannot be recovered from ratepayers. The cost impact of legislation or regulation to address global climate change would dependsevere weather events on the specific legislation or regulation enacted and cannot be determined at this time.
In May 2011, PEC and PEF were named, along with numerous other defendants, in a complaint of a class action lawsuit. Plaintiffs claim that defendants’ GHG emissions contributed to the frequency and intensity of storms such as Hurricane Katrina. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter (See Note 22C).
REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT
The Utilities’ operations in North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida are regulated by the NCUC, the SCPSC and the FPSC, respectively. The Utilities are also subject to regulation by the FERC, the NRC and other federal and state agencies common to the utility business. As a result of regulation, many of the fundamental business decisions, as well as the rate of return the Utilities are permitted the opportunity to earn, are subject to the approval of one or more of these governmental agencies.
To our knowledge, there is currently no enacted or proposed legislation in North Carolina, South Carolina or Florida that would give retail ratepayers the right to choose their electricity provider or otherwise restructure or deregulate the electric industry. We cannot anticipate if any of these states will move to increase retail competition in the electric industry.
Current retail rate matters affected by state regulatory authorities are discussed in Notes 8B and 8C. This discussion identifies specific retail rate matters, the status of the issues and the associated effects on our consolidated financial statements.
On April 28, 2010, we accepted a grant from the DOE for $200 million in federal matching infrastructure funds. In addition to providing the Utilities real-time information about the state of their electric grids, the smart grid transition will enable customersdistribution systems. The Duke Energy Registrants’ electric generating facilities are designed to better understand and manage their energy use, and will provide for more efficient integrationwithstand extreme weather events without significant damage. The Duke Energy Registrants maintain an inventory of renewable energy resources. Supplementing the DOE grant, the Utilities will invest more than $300 million in smart grid projects, which include enhancements to distribution equipment, installation of 160,000 additional smart meters and additional public infrastructure for plug-in electric vehicles. Projects funded by the grant must be completed by April 2013.
Through December 31, 2011, we have incurred $225 million of allowable, 50 percent reimbursable, smart grid project costs, and have submitted to the DOE requests for reimbursement of $112 million, of which we have received $89 million.
Concerns about climate changecoal and oil price volatility have ledon site to proposed and enacted legislation atmitigate the federal and state levelseffects of any potential short-term disruption in fuel supply so they can continue to increase renewable energy and GHG emissions.
The NC REPS requires PEC to file an annual compliance report with the NCUC demonstrating the actions it has taken to comply with the NC REPS requirement. The rules measure compliance with the NC REPS requirement via renewable energy certificates earned after January 1, 2008. North Carolina electric power suppliers with a renewable energy compliance obligation, including PEC, are participating in the renewable energy certificate tracking system, which came online July 1, 2010. North Carolina law mandates that utilities achieve a targeted amount of energy from specified renewable energy resources or implementation of energy-efficiency measures beginning with a 3 percent requirement in 2012 escalating to 12.5 percent in 2021. PEC expects to be in compliance with this requirement.
In 2007, the governor of Florida issued executive orders to address reduction of GHG emissions. The executive orders include adoption of a maximum allowable emissions level of GHGs for Florida utilities, which will require, at a minimum, the following three reduction milestones: by 2017, emissions not greater than Year 2000 utility sector
96

emissions; by 2025, emissions not greater than Year 1990 utility sector emissions; and by 2050, emissions not greater than 20 percent of Year 1990 utility sector emissions. The executive orders also requested that the FPSC initiate a rulemaking that would (1) require Florida utilities to produce at least 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources; (2) reduce the cost of connecting solar and other renewable energy technologies to Florida’s power grid by adopting uniform statewide interconnection standards for all utilities; and (3) authorize a uniform, statewide method to enable residential and commercial customers who generate electricity from onsite renewable technologies of up to 1 MW in capacity to offset their consumption over a billing period by allowing their electric meters to turn backward when they generate electricity (net metering).
In response to the executive orders, Florida energy law enacted in 2008 includes provisions that required the FPSC to develop a renewable portfolio standard that the FPSC would present to the legislature for ratification and also includes provisions that direct the FDEP to develop rules establishing a cap-and-trade program to regulate GHG emissions that the FDEP would present to the legislature no earlier than January 2010 for ratification. To date, the Florida legislature has not ratified or enacted any renewable portfolio standard or cap-and-trade rules or programs. Until these agency actions are finalized, we cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Our balanced solution, as described in “Energy Demand,” demonstrates our commitment to environmental responsibility.
ENERGY DEMAND
Implementing state and federal energy policies, promoting environmental stewardship and providing reliable electricity to meet the anticipated long-term growth within the Utilities’ service territories will require a balanced approach. The three main elements of this balanced solution are: (1) energy efficiency; (2) alternative and renewable energy; and (3) a state-of-the-art power system.
We are continuing the expansion and enhancement of our DSM and EE programs because energy efficiency is one of the most effective ways to reduce energy costs, offset the need for new power plants and protect the environment. DSM programs include programs and initiatives that shift the timing of electricity use from peak to nonpeak periods, such as load management, electricity system and operating controls, direct load control, interruptible load, and electric system equipment and operating controls. Our previously discussed smart grid projects will aid in these initiatives. EE programs include any equipment, physical or program change that results in less energy used to perform the same function. We provide our residential customers with home energy audits and offer EE programs that provide incentives for customersan uninterrupted supply of electricity. The Duke Energy Registrants have a program in place to implement measures that reduce energy use. For business customers, we also provide energy audits and other tools, including an interactive Internet website with online calculators, programs and efficiency tips, to help them reduceeffectively manage the impact of future droughts on their energy use.
We are actively engaged in a variety of alternative and renewable energy projects to pursue the generation of electricity from biomass, solar, hydrogen and landfill-gas technologies. Among our projects, we have executed contracts to purchase approximately 350 MW of electricity generated from biomass, including over 200 MW for compliance with NC REPS. The majority of these projects should be online within the next five years. In addition, we have executed purchased power agreements for approximately 30 MW of electricity generated from solar photovoltaic generation, with the majority purchased for compliance with NC REPS. Of the 30 MW of purchased solar photovoltaic generation, 12 MW are online and the remainder is expected to come online during 2012. Additionally, customers across our service territory have connected more than 11 MW of solar photovoltaic energy systems to our grid. Progress Energy offers a range of solar incentives and programs, which have increased,and will continue to significantly increase our use of solar energy over the next decade.
We are pursuing numerous options to create a state-of-the-art power system, including investments in smart grid technology and advanced environmental controls on our coal-fired plants. In the coming years, we will continue to invest in existing nuclear plants and evaluate plans for building or co-owning new generating plants. Due to the anticipated long-term growth in our service territories, retirement of existing coal generation and potential changes in environmental regulations, we are constructing new natural gas-fueled generating facilities in the Carolinas and we estimate that we will require new generating facilities in both Florida and the Carolinas in the first half of the next decade. In addition to nuclear generation, we are evaluating natural gas-fired plants, renewable generation resources, energy-efficiency initiatives and economic purchased power to meet this increased need. At this time, no
97

definitive decisions have been made to construct or when to construct our proposed new nuclear plants (See “Nuclear – Potential New Construction”) or to acquire new generation from another utility’s regional nuclear project. In the near term, we will focus our efforts on modernizing the power system and pursuing all elements of a balanced portfolio while looking to new nuclear capacity as a critical part of the long-term mix.
In 2009, PEC announced a coal-to-gas modernization strategy whereby the 11 remaining coal-fired generating facilities in North Carolina that do not have scrubbers would be retired prior to the end of their useful lives and their approximately 1,500 MW of generating capacity replaced with new natural gas-fueled facilities. The original strategy called for the retirement of the coal-fired units by the end of 2017; however, we currently expect the plants will be retired no later than the end of 2013. PEC has received approval from the NCUC for construction of an approximately 950-MW natural gas-fueled generating facility at a site in Wayne County, N.C., to be placed in service in January 2013. PEC has also received approval from the NCUC to construct an approximately 620-MW natural gas-fueled generating facility at a site in New Hanover County, N.C., to replace the existing coal-fired generation at this site. The facility is projected to be placed in service in December 2013. After 2013, PEC will continue to operate its Roxboro, Mayo and Asheville coal-fired plants in North Carolina, which have state-of-the-art emission controls. Emissions of NOx, SO2, mercury and other pollutants have been reduced significantly at these sites.
NUCLEAR
operations.
Nuclear generating units are regulated by the NRC. In the event of noncompliance, the NRC has the authority to impose fines, set license conditions, shut down a nuclear unit or take some combination of these actions, depending upon its assessment of the severity of the situation, until compliance is achieved. Our nuclear units are periodically removed from service to accommodate normal refueling and maintenance outages, repairs, uprates and certain other modifications.Matters
In light ofFollowing the events at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station in Japan, Duke Energy conducted thorough inspections at each of its seven nuclear sites during 2011. The initial inspections did not identify any significant vulnerabilities, however, Duke Energy is reviewing designs to evaluate safety margins to external events. Emergency-response capabilities, written procedures and engineering specifications were reviewed to verify each site’s ability to respond in the unlikely event of station blackout. Duke Energy is working within the nuclear industry to improve safety standards and margin using the three layers of safety approach used in the U.S.: protection, mitigation and emergency response. Emergency equipment is currently being added at each station to perform key safety functions in the event that backup power sources are lost permanently. These improvements are in addition to the numerous layers of safety measures and systems previously in place.
In March 2011, the NRC formed a task force to conduct a comprehensive review of processes and regulations to determine whether the agency should make additional improvements to the nuclear regulatory system. On July 13, 2011, the task force proposed a set of improvements designed to ensure protection, enhance accident mitigation, strengthen emergency preparedness and improve efficiency of NRC programs. The recommendations were further prioritized into three tiers based on the safety enhancement level. On March 12, 2012, the NRC issued three regulatory orders requiring safety enhancements related to mitigation strategies to respond to extreme natural events resulting in the loss of power at a plant, ensuring reliable hardened containment vents and enhancing spent fuel pool instrumentation.
On August 30, 2012, the NRC issued implementation guidance to enable power plants to achieve compliance with the orders issued in March 2012. Plants were required to submit implementation plans to the NRC by February 28, 2013, and complete implementation of the safety enhancements within two refueling outages or by December 31, 2016, whichever comes first. Each plant is also expectedrequired to issue a longer-term reportreassess their seismic and flooding hazards using present-day methods and information, conduct inspections to ensure protection against hazards in the current design basis, and re-evaluate emergency communications systems and staffing levels.

73


PART II

Duke Energy is committed to compliance with recommendations forall safety enhancements ordered by the Commission’s consideration by early 2012.NRC in connection with the March 12, 2012, regulatory orders noted above, the cost of which could be material. Until such time as the NRC-mandated reassessment of flooding and seismic hazards is complete the exact scope and cost of compliance modifications to Duke Energy’s sites will not be known. With the ongoing investigations into the nature and extent of damages in Japan, the underlying causesNRC’s continuing review of the situation and the lack of clarity around regulatory and political responses, weremaining recommendations, Duke Energy cannot predict to what extent the NRC will impose additional licensing and safety-related requirements, or the costs of complying with such requirements. See Item 1A, “Risk Factors."
In September 2009, CR3 began an outage for normal refueling and maintenance, as well as its uprate project to increase its generating capacity and to replace two steam generators. During preparations to replace the steam generators, we discovered a delamination within the concreteUpon receipt of the outer wall of the containment structure, which has resulted in an extension of the outage. After a comprehensive analysis, we have determined that the concrete delamination at CR3 was caused by redistribution of stresses on the containment wall that occurred when we created an opening to accommodate the replacement of the unit’s steam generators. In March 2011, engineers investigated and subsequently determined that a new delamination had occurred in another area of the structure after initial repair work was completed and during the late stages of retensioning the containment building. Subsequent to March 2011, monitoring equipment has detected additional changes and further damage in the partially tensioned containment building and additional cracking or delaminations could occur during the repair process. Engineering design of the repair is under way. A number of factors could affect the repair plan, the return-to-service date and costs, including regulatory reviews, final engineering designs, contract negotiations, the ultimate work scope completion, testing, weather, the impact of new information discovered during additional testing and analysis and other developments. (See Note 8C).
PEC’s nuclear units have operating licenses granted by the NRC that have been renewed to 2030 and 2046. The NRC operating license held by PEF for CR3 currently expires in December 2016. On March 9, 2009, the NRC docketed, or accepted for review, PEF’s application for a 20-year renewal on the operating license for CR3, which would extend the operating license through 2036, when approved. Docketing the application does not preclude additional requests for information as the review proceeds, nor does it indicate whether the NRC will renew the
98

license. The license renewal application for CR3 is currently under review by the NRC. The NRC’s remaining open items in the license renewal review process are associated with the containment structure repair. Once the repair design has been completed and evaluated, the NRC may proceed with the renewal application review of the containment structure. Assuming the repair is successful, management believes CR3 will satisfy the requirements for the license renewal.
POTENTIAL NEW CONSTRUCTION
While we have not made a final determination on nuclear construction, we continue to take steps to keep open the option of building a plant or plants. During 2008, PEC and PEF filed COL applications to potentially construct new nuclear plants in North Carolina and Florida (See Item 1A, “Risk Factors”). The NRC estimated that it will take approximately three to four years to review and process the COL applications. We have focused on the potential nuclear plant construction in Florida given the need for more fuel diversity in Florida and anticipated federal and state policies to reduce GHG emissions as well as existing state legislative policy that is supportive of nuclear projects.
In 2006, we announced that PEF selected Levy to evaluate for possible future nuclear expansion. We selected the Westinghouse Electric AP1000 reactor design as the technology upon which to base PEF’s application submission. In 2007, PEF completed the purchase of approximately 5,000 acres for Levy and associated transmission needs. On July 30, 2008, PEF filed its COL application with the NRC for two reactors. PEF also completed and submitted a Limited Work Authorization request for Levy concurrent with the COL application. The FPSC issued the final order granting PEF’s petition for the Determination of Need for Levy on August 12, 2008. On October 6, 2008, the NRC docketed the Levy nuclear project application. On February 24, 2009, PEF received the NRC’s schedule for review and approval of the COL.
PEF’s initial schedule anticipated performing certain site work pursuant to the Limited Work Authorization prior to COL receipt. However, in 2009, the NRC staff determined that certain schedule-critical work that PEF had proposed to perform within the scope of the Limited Work Authorization will not be authorized until the NRC issues the COL. Consequently, excavation and foundation preparation work will be shifted until after COL issuance, which is expected in 2013 if the current licensing schedule remains on track. This factor alone resulted in a minimum 20-month schedule shift later than the originally anticipated timeframe. Since then, regulatory and economic conditions have changed, resulting in additional schedule shifts. These conditions include the permitting and licensing process, national and state economic conditions, short-term natural gas prices and other FPSC decisions. Uncertainty regarding PEF’s access to capital on reasonable terms, PEF’s ability to secure joint owners and increasing uncertainty surrounding carbon regulation and its costs could be other factors to affect the Levy schedule.
PEF signed the EPC agreement on December 31, 2008, with Westinghouse Electric Company LLC and Stone & Webster, Inc. for two Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear units to be constructed at Levy. More than half of the approximate $7.650 billion contract price is fixed or firm with agreed upon escalation factors. The EPC agreement includes various incentives, warranties, performance guarantees, liquidated damage provisions and parent guarantees designed to incent the contractor to perform efficiently. For termination without cause, the EPC agreement contains exit provisions with termination fees, which may be significant, that vary based on the termination circumstances. We executed an amendment to the EPC agreement in 2010 due to the schedule shifts previously discussed. Additionally, in light of the schedule shifts in the Levy nuclear project, PEF completed vendor negotiations in July 2011 to continue or suspend purchase orders for long lead time equipment without material fees or charges.
The total escalated cost for the two generating units was estimated in PEF’s petition for the Determination of Need for Levy to be approximately $14 billion. This total cost estimate included land, plant components, financing costs, construction, labor, regulatory fees and the initial core for the two units. An additional $3 billion was estimated for the necessary transmission equipment and approximately 200 miles of transmission lines associated with the project. PEF’s 2011 nuclear cost-recovery filing included an updated analysis that demonstrated continued feasibility of the Levy project with PEF’s current estimated range of total escalated cost, including transmission, of $17.2 billion to $22.5 billion. The filed estimated cost range primarily reflects cost escalation resulting from the schedule shifts. Many factors will affect the total cost of the project and once PEF receives the COL, it will further refine the project timeline and budget. As previously discussed, we continue to evaluate the Levy project on an ongoing basis.
99

In 2006, we announced that PEC selected a site at Harris to evaluate for possible future nuclear expansion. We selected the Westinghouse Electric AP1000 reactor design as the technology upon which to base PEC’s application submission. On February 19, 2008, PEC filed its COL application with the NRC for two additional reactors at Harris. On April 17, 2008, the NRC docketed the Harris application. If we receive approvalguidance from the NRC and applicable state agencies, and if the decisions to build are made, a new plant would not be online until the middle of the next decade (See “Energy Demand” above).
SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL MATTERS
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 provides the framework for development by the federal government of interim storage and permanent disposal facilities for high-level radioactive waste materials. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 promotes increased usage of interim storage of spent nuclear fuel at existing nuclear plants. We will continue to maximize the use of spent fuel storage capability within our own facilities for as long as feasible.
With certain modifications and additional approvals by the NRC, including the installation and/or expansion of on-site dry cask storage facilities at Robinson, Brunswick and CR3, the Utilities’ spent nuclear fuel storage facilitiescollaborative industry review, Duke Energy will be sufficientable to provide storage space for spent fuel generated on their respective systems through the expiration of the operating licenses, including any license renewals, for their nuclear generating units. Harris has sufficient storage capacity through the expiration of its renewed operating licenses.
See Note 22D for discussion of the status of the Utilities’ contracts with the DOE for spent nuclear fuel storage.
SYNTHETIC FUELS TAX CREDITS
Historically, we had substantial operationsdetermine an implementation plan and associated with the production and sale of coal-based solid synthetic fuels, which qualified for federal income tax credits so long as certain requirements were satisfied. Tax credits generated under the synthetic fuels tax credit program (including those generated by Florida Progress prior to our acquisition) were $1.891 billion, of which $1.026 billion has been used through December 31, 2011, to offset regular federal income tax liability and $865 million is being carried forward as deferred tax credits that do not expire.
costs. See Note 22D and Item 1A, “Risk Factors,” for additionalfurther discussion related to our previous synthetic fuels operations and the associated tax credits generated under the synthetic fuels tax credit program.of applicable risk factors.
LEGAL
We are subject to federal, state and local legislation and court orders. The specific issues, the status of the issues, accruals associated with issue resolutions and our associated exposures are discussed in detail in Note 22D.
NEW ACCOUNTING STANDARDS
New Accounting Standards
See Note 31 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Summary of Significant Accounting Policies” for a discussion of the impact of new accounting standards.

ITEM 7A. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK
100


PEC
The information required by this item is incorporated herein by reference to the following portions of Progress Energy’s MD&A, insofar as they relate to PEC: “Results of Operations,” “Application of Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates,” “Liquidity and Capital Resources” and “Other Matters.”
The following MD&A and the information incorporated herein by reference contain forward-looking statements that involve estimates, projections, goals, forecasts, assumptions, risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results or outcomes to differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements. Please review “Safe Harbor for Forward-Looking Statements” and Item 1A, “Risk Factors,” for a discussion of the factors that may impact any such forward-looking statements made herein.
LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES
OVERVIEW
PEC has primarily used a combination of debt securities, commercial paper and its revolving credit agreement for liquidity needs in excess of cash provided by operations. PEC also participates in the utility money pool, which allows PEC and PEF to lend and borrow to and from each other and borrow from, but not lend to, the Parent.
See discussion of credit ratings in Progress Energy “Credit Rating Matters.”
PEC expects to have sufficient resources to meet its future obligations through a combination of cash from operations, availability under its credit facility, money pool borrowings, issuances of commercial paper and long-term debt and/or contributions of equity from the Parent.
CASH FLOW DISCUSSION
HISTORICAL FOR 2011 AS COMPARED TO 2010 AND 2010 AS COMPARED TO 2009
Cash Flows from Operations
Net cash provided by operating activities decreased $381 million for 2011, when compared to 2010. The decrease was primarily due to $269 million higher cash used for inventory, a $122 million increase in pension plan funding, the $107 million less favorable impact of weather as previously discussed and $33 million paid for interest rate hedges terminated in conjunction with the issuance of long-term debt in 2011, partially offset by $205 million in lower net cash for taxes. The increase in cash used for inventory was primarily due to higher coal purchases in 2011 reflecting anticipated winter consumption and inventory levels that remained high at year-end (due to lower natural gas prices) combined with higher 2010 consumption of existing inventory levels to meet system requirements resulting from favorable weather.
Net cash provided by operating activities increased $235 million in 2010, when compared to 2009. The increase was primarily due to the $115 million favorable impact of weather partially offset by $78 million higher nuclear plant outage and maintenance costs included in O&M, both as previously discussed; $141 million lower cash used for inventory, primarily due to higher coal consumption as a result of favorable weather in 2010 that was fulfilled through the 2010 usage of inventory from year-end 2009; $86 million lower cash used for pension and other benefits primarily due to a reduction of contributions made in 2010; and $37 million lower cash paid for income taxes. These amounts were partially offset by a $108 million decrease in the over-recovery of fuel as a result of higher fuel costs in 2010.
Investing Activities
Net cash used by investing activities increased $239 million in 2011, when compared with 2010. The increase was primarily due to a $200 million change in advances to affiliated companies.
Net cash used by investing activities increased $67 million in 2010, when compared with 2009. The increase was primarily due to a $359 million increase in gross property additions and a $61 million increase in nuclear fuel additions, partially offset by a $351 million decrease in advances to affiliated companies. The increase in property
101

additions is primarily due to increased capital expenditures at the Wayne County, New Hanover County and Harris generating facilities. The increase in nuclear fuel additions was primarily due to the three nuclear refueling and maintenance outages in 2010, compared to two in 2009.
Financing Activities
Net cash provided by financing activities increased $215 million for 2011, when compared to 2010. The increase was primarily due to the $500 million issuance of first mortgage bonds in 2011 and $185 million in commercial paper borrowings in 2011, partially offset by the $585 million payment of dividends to the Parent in 2011 compared to $100 million in 2010.
Net cash used by financing activities decreased $10 million for 2010, when compared to 2009. The decrease was primarily due to the $400 million payment at maturity of long-term debt in 2009, the $110 million net repayment of commercial paper in 2009 and a $100 million reduction in dividends paid to the Parent in 2010 compared to 2009. These impacts were partially offset by $600 million issuance of first mortgage bonds in 2009.
On September 15, 2011, PEC issued $500 million 3.00% First Mortgage Bonds due September 15, 2021. A portion of the net proceeds was used to repay outstanding short-term debt and the remainder was used for general corporate purposes, including construction expenditures.
On October 15, 2010, PEC entered into a new $750 million, three-year RCA with a syndication of 22 financial institutions. The RCA is used to provide liquidity support for PEC’s issuances of commercial paper and other short-term obligations, and for general corporate purposes. The RCA will expire on October 15, 2013. The prior $450 million RCA was terminated effective October 15, 2010 (See “Credit Facilities and Registration Statements”).
On January 15, 2009, PEC issued $600 million of First Mortgage Bonds, 5.30% Series, due 2019. A portion of the proceeds was used to repay the maturity of PEC’s $400 million 5.95% Senior Notes, due March 1, 2009. The remaining proceeds were used to repay PEC’s outstanding short-term debt and for general corporate purposes.
On June 18, 2009, PEC entered into a Seventy-seventh Supplemental Indenture to its Mortgage and Deed of Trust, dated May 1, 1940, as supplemented, in connection with certain amendments to the mortgage. The amendments are set forth in the Seventy-seventh Supplemental Indenture and include an amendment to extend the maturity date of the mortgage by 100 years. The maturity date of the mortgage is now May 1, 2140.
SHORT-TERM DEBT
At December 31, 2011, PEC had an outstanding short-term debt balance consisting primarily of commercial paper borrowing totaling $219 million at a weighted average interest rate of 0.51%.
At the end of each month during the three months ended December 31, 2011, PEC had a maximum short-term debt balance of $219 million and an average short-term debt balance of $73 million at a weighted average interest rate of 0.51%. PEC’s short-term debt during the three months ended December 31, 2011, consisted primarily of commercial paper and money pool borrowings.
At the end of each month during the year ended December 31, 2011, PEC had a maximum short-term debt balance of $219 million and an average short-term debt balance of $83 million at a weighted average interest rate of 0.39%. PEC’s short-term debt during the year ended December 31, 2011, consisted primarily of commercial paper and money pool borrowings.
FUTURE LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES
PEC’s estimated capital requirements for 2012, 2013 and 2014 are approximately $1.4 billion, $1.3 billion and $1.4 billion, respectively, and primarily reflect construction expenditures to support customer growth, add regulated generation and upgrade existing facilities as discussed in Progress Energy “Capital Expenditures.”
PEC expects to fund its capital requirements primarily through a combination of cash from operations, issuance of long-term debt and/or contributions of equity from the Parent. In addition, PEC has a $750 million credit facility that
102

supports the issuance of commercial paper. Access to the commercial paper market and the utility money pool provide additional liquidity to help meet PEC’s working capital requirements.
At December 31, 2011, the current portion of PEC’s long-term debt was $500 million. We expect to fund the $500 million of First Mortgage Bonds due July 15, 2012, with a combination of cash from operations, commercial paper borrowings and/or long-term debt.
Over the long term, meeting the anticipated load growth will require a balanced approach, including energy conservation and efficiency programs, development and deployment of new energy technologies, and new generation, transmission and distribution facilities, including new generating facilities in the Carolinas currently under construction and the potential for additional new baseload generating facilities toward the middle of the next decade. This approach will require PEC to make significant capital investments. See Progress Energy “Introduction – Strategy” for additional information. PEC may pursue joint ventures or similar arrangements with third parties in order to share some of the financing and operational risks associated with new baseload generation.
PEC typically files a shelf registration statement with the SEC under which it may issue an unlimited number or amount of various long-term debt securities and preferred stock. We expect to file a new shelf registration statement with the SEC, as PEC’s previously filed shelf registration statement for these securities expired November 17, 2011. (See “Credit Facilities and Registration Statements.”)
CAPITALIZATION RATIOS
 
The following table shows each component of capitalization as a percentage of total capitalization at December 31, 2011 and 2010. In addition to total equity and preferred stock, total capitalization includes the following in total debt: long-term debt, net, current portion of long-term debt and capital lease obligations.
  2011  2010 
Total equity  53.2%  57.9%
Preferred stock  0.6%  0.7%
Total debt  46.2%  41.4%

See the discussion“Management’s Discussion and Analysis of PEC’s future liquidityResults of Operations and capital resources, including financial market impacts, under Progress Energy and see Note 12 for further information regarding PEC’s debt and credit facility.

OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS AND CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS
See discussion under Progress Energy and Notes 22A, 22B and 22C for information on PEC’s off-balance sheet arrangements and contractual obligations at December 31, 2011.
GUARANTEES
See discussion under Progress Energy and Note 22C for a discussion of PEC’s guarantees.
MARKET RISK AND DERIVATIVES
Under its risk management policy, PEC may use a variety of instruments, including swaps, options and forward contracts, to manage exposure to fluctuations in commodity prices and interest rates. See Note 18 and Item 7A, “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk,” for a discussion of market risk and derivatives.
CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS
PEC is party to numerous contracts and arrangements obligating it to make cash payments in future years. These contracts include financial arrangements such as debt agreements and leases, as well as contracts for the purchase of goods and services. In most cases, these contracts contain provisions for price adjustments, minimum purchase levels and other financial commitments. The commitment amounts presented in the following table are estimates and therefore will likely differ from actual purchase amounts. Further disclosure regarding PEC’s contractual
103

obligations is included in the respective notes to the PEC Consolidated Financial Statements. PEC takes into consideration the future commitments when assessing its liquidity and future financing needs.
The following table reflects PEC’s contractual cash obligations and other commercial commitments at December 31, 2011, in the respective periods in which they are due:
                
 (in millions)
 Total  
Less than
1 year
  1-3 years  3-5 years  
More than
5 years
 
 Long-term debt (See Note 12)(a)
 $4,199  $500  $405  $700  $2,594 
 Interest payments on long-term debt(b)
  1,794   193   301   235   1,065 
 Capital lease obligations (See Note 22B)
  18   2   10   -   6 
 Operating leases (See Note 22B)(c)
  764   29   96   97   542 
 Fuel and purchased power (See Note 22A)(d)
  6,838   1,252   1,864   1,482   2,240 
 Other purchase obligations (See Note 22A)
  913   354   230   87   242 
 Minimum pension funding requirements(e)
  183   61   93   29   - 
 Other postretirement benefits(f)
  244   19   43   48   134 
 Uncertain tax positions(g)
  -   -   -   -   - 
 Other commitments(h)
  78   13   26   26   13 
Total $15,031  $2,423  $3,068  $2,704  $6,836 
(a)PEC’s maturing debt obligations are generally expected to be repaid with cash from operations or refinanced with new debt issuances in the capital markets.
(b)Interest payments on long-term debt are based on the interest rate effective at December 31, 2011.
(c)Amounts include certain related executory cost commitments.
(d)Essentially all of PEC’s fuel and certain purchased power costs are eligible for recovery through cost-recovery clauses in accordance with state and federal regulations and therefore do not require separate liquidity support. Amounts exclude precedent and conditional contracts of $1.510 billion. (See Note 22A.)
(e)Represents the projected minimum required contributions to the qualified pension trust for a total of 10 years. These amounts are subject to change significantly based on factors such as pension asset earnings and market interest rates.
(f)Represents projected benefit payments for a total of 10 years related to PEC’s postretirement health and life plans and are subject to change based on factors such as experienced claims and general health care cost trends.
(g)Uncertain tax positions of $73 million are not reflected in this table as PEC cannot predict when open income tax years will be closed with completed examinations. PEC is not aware of any tax positions for which it is reasonably possible that the total amounts of unrecognized tax benefits will significantly increase or decrease during the 12-month period ending December 31, 2012.
(h)By NCUC order, in 2008, PEC began transitioning North Carolina jurisdictional amounts currently retained internally to its external decommissioning funds. The transition of the original $131 million must be complete by December 31, 2017, and at least 10 percent must be transitioned each year.

104


PEF
The information required by this item is incorporated herein by reference to the following portions of Progress Energy’s MD&A, insofar as they relate to PEF: “Results of Operations,” “Application of Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates,” “Liquidity and Capital Resources” and “Other Matters.”
The following MD&A and the information incorporated herein by reference contain forward-looking statements that involve estimates, projections, goals, forecasts, assumptions, risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results or outcomes to differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements. Please review “Safe Harbor for Forward-Looking Statements” and Item 1A, “Risk Factors,” for a discussion of the factors that may impact any such forward-looking statements made herein.
LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES
OVERVIEW
PEF has primarily used a combination of debt securities, equity contributions from the Parent, commercial paper and its revolving credit agreement for liquidity needs in excess of cash provided by operations. PEF also participates in the utility money pool, which allows PEC and PEF to lend and borrow to and from each other and borrow from, but not lend to, the Parent.
See discussion of credit ratings in Progress Energy “Credit Rating Matters.”
PEF expects to have sufficient resources to meet its future obligations through a combination of cash from operations, availability under its credit facility, money pool borrowings, issuances of commercial paper and long-term debt and/or contributions of equity from the Parent.
CASH FLOW DISCUSSION
HISTORICAL FOR 2011 AS COMPARED TO 2010 AND 2010 AS COMPARED TO 2009
Cash Flows from Operations
Net cash provided by operating activities decreased $439 million for 2011, when compared to 2010. The decrease was primarily due to $161 million lower recovery of capacity costs, the $112 million less favorable impact of weather as previously discussed, a $78 million increase in pension plan funding, $72 million decrease in NEIL reimbursements for CR3 replacement power costs and $33 million paid for interest rate hedges terminated in conjunction with the issuance of long-term debt in 2011. The change in recovery of capacity costs in 2011 was primarily due to the $51 million refund of prior-year over-recovery of capacity costs and the 2010 collection of $110 million of previously under-recovered capacity costs.
Net cash provided by operating activities increased $67 million in 2010, when compared with 2009. The increase was primarily due to the $88 million favorable impact of weather as previously discussed; $98 million net cash receipts from income taxes in 2010 compared to $184 million of net cash payments for income taxes in 2009; and $56 million lower cash used for inventory, primarily due to higher coal consumption in 2010 as a result of favorable weather that was fulfilled through 2010 usage of inventory from year-end 2009. These amounts were partially offset by an $81 million under-recovery of fuel in 2010 compared to a $103 million over-recovery of fuel in 2009 driven by lower fuel rates in 2010 and $6 million of net payments of cash collateral to counterparties on derivative contracts in 2010 compared to $190 million net refunds of cash collateral in 2009.
Investing Activities
Net cash used by investing activities decreased $280 million in 2011, when compared with 2010. The decrease was primarily due to a $198 million decrease in gross property additions, primarily due to lower spending for environmental compliance and nuclear projects; $27 million of litigation judgment proceeds; and $24 million increase in receipt of smart grid grant reimbursement.
105

Net cash used by investing activities decreased $541 million in 2010, when compared with 2009. The decrease was primarily due to a $435 million decrease in gross property additions and a $64 million increase in cash provided by insurance proceeds. The decrease in property additions was driven by decreases in environmental compliance spending and expenditures for nuclear projects. The increase in cash provided by insurance proceeds is driven by the receipt of NEIL insurance proceeds for repairs due to the CR3 extended outage.
Financing Activities
Net cash used by financing activities increased $306 million for 2011, when compared to 2010. The increase was primarily due to the combined $600 million issuance of first mortgage bonds in March 2010 and the $460 million increase in payment of dividends to the Parent in 2011, partially offset by a $300 million issuance of first mortgage bonds in August 2011, $233 million of commercial paper borrowings in 2011 and the $211 million change in advances from affiliated companies.
Net cash provided by financing activities decreased $374 million for 2010, when compared to 2009. The decrease was primarily due to a $620 million contribution from the Parent in 2009, a $361 million decrease in advances from affiliates and a $300 million retirement at maturity of long-term debt in 2010. The decreases are partially offset by the $600 million issuance of first mortgage bonds in 2010 and $371 million repayment of commercial paper in 2009.
On July 15, 2011, PEF paid at maturity $300 million of its 6.65% First Mortgage Bonds with proceeds from short-term debt borrowings.
On August 18, 2011, PEF issued $300 million 3.10% First Mortgage Bonds due August 15, 2021. The net proceeds were used to repay a portion of outstanding short-term debt, of which $300 million was issued to repay PEF’s July 15, 2011 maturity.
On March 25, 2010, PEF issued $250 million of 4.55% First Mortgage Bonds due 2020 and $350 million of 5.65% First Mortgage Bonds due 2040. Proceeds were used to repay the outstanding balance of PEF’s notes payable to affiliated companies, to repay the maturity of PEF’s $300 million 4.50% First Mortgage Bonds due June 1, 2010, and for general corporate purposes.
On October 15, 2010, PEF entered into a new $750 million, three-year RCA with a syndication of 22 financial institutions. The RCA is used to provide liquidity support for PEF’s issuances of commercial paper and other short-term obligations, and for general corporate purposes. The RCA will expire on October 15, 2013. The prior $450 million RCA was terminated effective October 15, 2010 (See “Credit Facilities and Registration Statements”).
In 2009, PEF did not issue or retire long-term debt.
SHORT-TERM DEBT
At December 31, 2011, PEF had outstanding short-term debt consisting primarily of commercial paper borrowings totaling $241 million at an interest rate of 0.51 percent.
At the end of each month during the three months ended December 31, 2011, PEF had a maximum short-term debt balance of $249 million and an average short-term debt balance of $179 million at a weighted average interest rate of 0.46 percent. PEF’s short-term debt during the three months ended December 31, 2011, included only commercial paper and money pool borrowings.
At the end of each month during the year ended December 31, 2011, PEF had a maximum short-term debt balance of $350 million and an average short-term debt balance of $106 million at a weighted average interest rate of 0.40 percent. PEF’s short-term debt during the year ended December 31, 2011, included only commercial paper and money pool borrowings.
FUTURE LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES
PEF’s estimated capital requirements for 2012, 2013 and 2014 are approximately $720 million to $820 million, $830 million to $930 million, and $760 million, respectively, and primarily reflect construction expenditures to
106

support customer growth, add regulated generation and upgrade existing facilities as discussed in Progress Energy “Capital Expenditures.” PEF’s estimated capital requirements for 2012 and 2013 include potential nuclear construction expenditures, primarily related to PEF’s Levy project. Because of announced schedule shifts, we negotiated an amendment to the Levy EPC agreement (See discussion under “Other Matters – Nuclear – Potential New Construction”). The forecasted capital expenditures reflect the announced schedule shift. Project spending for 2014 and beyond will be determined once the timing for the receipt of the COL is known and more detailed estimates have been developed based on this and other factors. Future nuclear construction expenditures are dependent upon, and may vary significantly based upon, the decision to build, regulatory approval schedules, timing and escalation of project costs, and the percentages of joint ownership. These expenditures are subject to cost-recovery provisions in PEF’s jurisdiction (See Note 8C).
PEF’s estimated capital expenditures exclude estimates for the repair of the CR3 containment building and the completion of the extended power uprate project. Estimates of these projects will be developed upon the completion of ongoing engineering and project planning, the resolution of negotiations with NEIL regarding insurance coverage of the second CR3 delamination, and final decisions regarding repair versus retirement.
PEF expects to fund its capital requirements primarily through a combination of cash from operations, issuance of long-term debt and/or contributions of equity from the Parent. In addition, PEF has a $750 million credit facility that supports the issuance of commercial paper. Access to the commercial paper market and the utility money pool provide additional liquidity to help meet PEF’s working capital requirements.
Over the long term, meeting the anticipated load growth will require a balanced approach, including energy conservation and efficiency programs, development and deployment of new energy technologies, and new generation, transmission and distribution facilities, potentially including new baseload generating facilities in Florida toward the middle of the next decade. This approach will require PEF to make significant capital investments. PEF may pursue joint ventures or similar arrangements with third parties in order to share some of the financing and operational risks associated with new baseload generation.
PEF typically files a shelf registration statement with the SEC under which it may issue an unlimited number or amount of various long-term debt securities and preferred stock. We expect to file a new shelf registration statement with the SEC, as PEF’s previously filed shelf registration statement for these securities expired November 17, 2011 (See “Credit Facilities and Registration Statements”).
CAPITALIZATION RATIOS
The following table shows each component of capitalization as a percentage of total capitalization at December 31, 2011 and 2010. In addition to total equity and preferred stock, total capitalization includes the following in total debt: long-term debt, net, current portion of long-term debt, notes payable to affiliated companies and capital lease obligations.
  2011  2010 
Total common stock equity  48.5%  50.9%
Preferred stock  0.4%  0.3%
Total debt  51.1%  48.8%

See the discussion of PEF’s future liquidity and capital resources, including financial market impacts, under Progress Energy and see Note 12 for further information regarding PEF’s debt and credit facility.
OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS AND CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS
See discussion under Progress Energy and Notes 22A, 22B and 22C for information on PEF’s off-balance sheet arrangements and contractual obligations at December 31, 2011.
107

MARKET RISK AND DERIVATIVES
Under its risk management policy, PEF may use a variety of instruments, including swaps, options and forward contracts, to manage exposure to fluctuations in commodity prices and interest rates. See Note 18 and Item 7A, “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk,” for a discussion of market risk and derivatives.
CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS
This information called for by Item 7 is omitted for PEF pursuant to Instruction I(2)(a) to Form 10-K (Omission of Information by Certain Wholly Owned Subsidiaries).

108

ITEM 7A.QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK
We are exposed to various risks related to changes in market conditions. Market risk represents the potential loss arising from adverse changes in market rates and prices. We have a risk management committee that includes senior executives from various business groups. The risk management committee is responsible for administering risk management policies and monitoring compliance with those policies by all subsidiaries. Under our risk policy, we may use a variety of instruments, including swaps, options and forward contracts, to manage exposure to fluctuations in commodity prices and interest rates. Such instruments contain credit risk to the extent that the counterparty fails to perform under the contract. We minimize such risk by performing credit and financial reviews using a combination of financial analysis and publicly available credit ratings of such counterparties (See Note 18). Both PEC and PEF also have limited counterparty exposure for commodity hedges (primarily gas and oil hedges) by spreading concentration risk over a number of counterparties.
The following disclosures about market risk contain forward-looking statements that involve estimates, projections, goals, forecasts, assumptions, risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results or outcomes to differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements. Please review Item 1A, “Risk Factors,” and “Safe Harbor for Forward-Looking Statements” for a discussion of the factors that may impact any such forward-looking statements made herein.
Certain market risks are inherent in our financial instruments, which arise from transactions entered into in the normal course of business. Our primary exposures are changes in interest rates with respect to our long-term debt and commercial paper, fluctuations in the return on marketable securities with respect to our NDT funds, changes in the market value of CVOs and changes in energy-related commodity prices.
These financial instruments are held for purposes other than trading. The risks discussed below do not include the price risks associated with nonfinancial instrument transactions and positions associated with our operations, such as purchase and sales commitments and inventory.
PROGRESS ENERGY
INTEREST RATE RISK
As part of our debt portfolio management and daily cash management, we have variable rate long-term debt and may have commercial paper and/or loans outstanding under our RCA facilities, which are also exposed to floating interest rates. Approximately 11 percent and 7 percent of consolidated debt had variable rates at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
Based on our variable rate long-term and short-term debt balances at December 31, 2011, a 100 basis point change in interest rates would result in an annual pre-tax interest expense change of approximately $15 million. We had $671 million of outstanding short-term debt at December 31, 2011.
From time to time, we use interest rate derivative instruments to adjust the mix between fixed and floating rate debt in our debt portfolio, to mitigate our exposure to interest rate fluctuations associated with certain debt instruments and to hedge interest rates with regard to future fixed-rate debt issuances.
The notional amounts of interest rate derivatives are not exchanged and do not represent exposure to credit loss. In the event of default by a counterparty, the exposure in the transaction is the cost of replacing the agreements at current market rates.
We use a number of models and methods to determine interest rate risk exposure and fair value of derivative positions. For reporting purposes, fair values and exposures of derivative positions are determined as of the end of the reporting period using the Bloomberg Financial Markets system.
In accordance with GAAP, interest rate derivatives that qualify as hedges are separated into one of two categories: cash flow hedges or fair value hedges. Cash flow hedges are used to reduce exposure to changes in cash flow due to fluctuating interest rates. Fair value hedges are used to reduce exposure to changes in fair value due to interest rate changes.
109

The following tables provide information, at December 31, 2011 and 2010, about our interest rate risk-sensitive instruments. The tables present principal cash flows and weighted-average interest rates by expected maturity dates for the fixed and variable rate long-term debt and Parent-obligated mandatorily redeemable preferred securities of trust. The tables also include estimates of the fair value of our interest rate risk-sensitive instruments based on quoted market prices for these or similar issues. For interest rate forward contracts, the tables present notional amounts and weighted-average interest rates by contractual mandatory termination dates for 2012 to 2016 and thereafter and the related fair value. Notional amounts are used to calculate the settlement amounts under the interest rate forward contracts. See Note 18 for more information on interest rate derivatives.
                         
 December 31, 2011
                      Fair Value December 31,
2011
 
                        
 (dollars in millions)
 2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  Thereafter  Total   
 Fixed-rate long-term debt
 $950  $830  $300  $1,000  $300  $8,449  $11,829  $14,128 
Average interest rate  6.67%  4.96%  6.05%  5.18%  5.63%  5.80%  5.76%    
 Variable-rate long-term debt
  -   -   -   -   -  $861  $861  $861 
Average interest rate  -   -   -   -   -   0.30%  0.30%    
 Debt to affiliated trust(a)
  -   -   -   -   -  $309  $309  $318 
Interest rate  -   -   -   -   -   7.10%  7.10%    
 Interest rate forward contracts(b) $400  $100  $-   -   -   -  $500  $(93)
Average pay rate  4.23%  4.37%  -   -   -   -   4.26%    
Average receive rate (c)  (c)   -   -   -   -  (c)     
(a)Florida Progress Funding CorporationCondition - Junior Subordinated Deferrable Interest Notes.
(b)Notional amounts of 10-year forward starting swaps are categorized by mandatory cash settlement date.
(c)Rate is 3-month London Inter Bank Offered Rate (LIBOR), which was 0.58% at December 31, 2011.

At December 31, 2011, Progress Energy had $500 million notional of open forward starting swaps, including $250 million notional at PEC and $50 million notional at PEF.
 December 31, 2010
                      
Fair Value
December 31,
2010
 
                        
 (dollars in millions)
 2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  Thereafter  Total   
 Fixed-rate long-term debt
 $1,000  $950  $830  $300  $1,000  $7,449  $11,529  $12,826 
Average interest rate  6.96%  6.67%  4.96%  6.05%  5.18%  6.18%  6.11%    
 Variable-rate long-term debt
  -   -   -   -   -  $861  $861  $861 
Average interest rate  -   -   -   -   -   0.53%  0.53%    
 Debt to affiliated trust(a)
  -   -   -   -   -  $309  $309  $315 
Interest rate  -   -   -   -   -   7.10%  7.10%    
 Interest rate forward contracts(b) $550  $400  $100   -   -   -  $1,050  $(35)
Average pay rate  4.19%  4.23%  4.37%  -   -   -   4.22%    
Average receive rate (c)  (c)  (c)   -   -   -  (c)     
(a)Florida Progress Funding Corporation - Junior Subordinated Deferrable Interest Notes.
(b)Notional amounts of 10-year forward starting swaps are categorized by mandatory cash settlement date.
(c)Rate is 3-month LIBOR, which was 0.30% at December 31, 2010.

At December 31, 2010, Progress Energy had $1.050 billion notional of open forward starting swaps, including $350 million notional at PEC and $200 million notional at PEF.
MARKETABLE SECURITIES PRICE RISK
The Utilities maintain trust funds, pursuant to NRC requirements, to fund certain costs of decommissioning their nuclear plants. These funds are primarily invested in stocks, bonds and cash equivalents, which are exposed to price
110

fluctuations in equity markets and to changes in interest rates. At December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the fair value of these funds was $1.647 billion and $1.571 billion, respectively, including $1.088 billion and $1.017 billion, respectively, for PEC and $559 million and $554 million, respectively, for PEF. We actively monitor our portfolio by benchmarking the performance of our investments against certain indices and by maintaining, and periodically reviewing, target allocation percentages for various asset classes. The accounting for nuclear decommissioning recognizes that the Utilities’ regulated electric rates provide for recovery of these costs net of any trust fund earnings, and, therefore, fluctuations in trust fund marketable security returns do not affect earnings. See Note 14 for further information on the trust fund securities.
CONTINGENT VALUE OBLIGATIONS MARKET VALUE RISK
CVOs are recorded at fair value, and gains and losses from changes in fair value are recognized in earnings. The 18.5 million outstanding CVOs not held by Progress Energy at December 31, 2011, had a fair value of $14 million. The 98.6 million CVOs outstanding at December 31, 2010, had a fair value of $15 million. We perform sensitivity analyses to estimate our exposure to the market risk of the CVOs. The sensitivity analyses performed on the CVOs use observable prices obtained from brokers or quote services to measure the potential loss in earnings from a hypothetical 10 percent adverse change in market prices over the next 12 months. A hypothetical 10 percent increase in the December 31, 2011 market price would result in a $1 million increase in the fair value of the CVOs and a corresponding increase in the CVO liability.
COMMODITY PRICE RISK
We are exposed to the effects of market fluctuations in the price of natural gas, coal, fuel oil, electricity and other energy-related products marketed and purchased as a result of our ownership of energy-related assets. Our exposure to these fluctuations is significantly limited by the cost-based regulation of the Utilities. Each state commission allows electric utilities to recover certain of these costs through various cost-recovery clauses to the extent the respective commission determines that such costs are prudent. Therefore, while there may be a delay in the timing between when these costs are incurred and when these costs are recovered from the ratepayers, changes from year to year have no material impact on operating results. In addition, most of our long-term power sales contracts shift substantially all fuel price risk to the purchaser.
Most of our physical commodity contracts are not derivatives or qualify as normal purchases or sales. Therefore, such contracts are not recorded at fair value. At December 31, 2011, substantially all derivative commodity instrument positions were subject to retail regulatory treatment.
See Note 18 for additional information with regard to our commodity contracts and use of economic and cash flow derivative financial instruments.
PEC
PEC has certain market risks inherent in its financial instruments, which arise from transactions entered into in the normal course of business. PEC’s primary exposures are changes in interest rates with respect to long-term debt and commercial paper, fluctuations in the return on marketable securities with respect to its NDT funds and changes in energy-related commodity prices.
The information required by this item is incorporated herein by reference to Progress Energy’s Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk insofar as it relates to PEC.Risk.”

74

111


INTEREST RATE RISKPART II

ITEM 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
The following tables provide information at December 31, 2011 and 2010, about PEC’s interest rate risk-sensitive instruments:
 December 31, 2011
                      Fair Value 
                       December 31, 
 (dollars in millions)
 2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  Thereafter  Total  2011 
 Fixed-rate long-term debt
 $500  $405  $-  $700  $-  $1,974  $3,579  $4,102 
Average interest rate  6.50%  5.14%  -   5.21%  -   5.18%  5.36%    
 Variable-rate long-term debt
  -   -   -   -   -  $620  $620  $620 
Average interest rate  -   -   -   -   -   0.20%  0.20%    
 Interest rate forward contracts(a)  $ 200   $ 50    -    -    -    -   $ 250   $ (46 )
Average pay rate  4.27%  4.43%  -   -   -   -   4.30%    
Average receive rate (b)  (b)       -   -   -  (b)     
(a)Notional amounts of 10-year forward starting swaps are categorized by mandatory cash settlement date.
(b)
Rate is 3-month LIBOR, which was 0.58% at December 31, 2011.

At December 31, 2011, PEC had $250 million notional of open forward starting swaps to mitigate exposure to interest rate risk in anticipation of future debt issuances.
 December 31, 2010
                      Fair Value 
                       December 31, 
 (dollars in millions)
 2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  Thereafter  Total  2010 
 Fixed-rate long-term debt
 $-  $500  $405  $-  $700  $1,474  $3,079  $3,413 
Average interest rate  -   6.50%  5.14%  -   5.21%  5.91%  5.75%    
 Variable-rate long-term debt
  -   -   -   -   -  $620  $620  $620 
Average interest rate  -   -   -   -   -   0.54%  0.54%    
 Interest rate forward contracts(a)  $ 100   $ 200   $ 50    -    -    -   $ 350   $ (8 )
Average pay rate  4.31%  4.27%  4.43%  -   -   -   4.30%    
Average receive rate (b)  (b)  (b)   -   -   -  (b)     
(a)Notional amounts of 10-year forward starting swaps are categorized by mandatory cash settlement date.
(b)Rate is 3-month LIBOR, which was 0.30% at December 31, 2010.

At December 31, 2010, PEC had $350 million notional of open forward starting swaps to mitigate exposure to interest rate risk in anticipation of future debt issuances.
COMMODITY PRICE RISK
PEC is exposed to the effects of market fluctuations in the price of natural gas, coal, fuel oil, electricity and other energy-related products marketed and purchased as a result of its ownership of energy-related assets. PEC’s exposure to these fluctuations is significantly limited by the cost-based regulation. Each state commission allows electric utilities to recover certain of these costs through various cost-recovery clauses to the extent the respective commission determines that such costs are prudent. Therefore, while there may be a delay in the timing between when these costs are incurred and when these costs are recovered from the ratepayers, changes from year to year have no material impact on operating results. See “Commodity Price Risk” discussion under Progress Energy mentioned previously and Note 18 for additional information with regard to PEC’s commodity contracts and use of derivative financial instruments.

112


PEF
PEF has certain market risks inherent in its financial instruments, which arise from transactions entered into in the normal course of business. PEF’s primary exposures are changes in interest rates with respect to long-term debt and commercial paper, fluctuations in the return on marketable securities with respect to its NDT funds, and changes in energy-related commodity prices.
The information required by this item is incorporated herein by reference to Progress Energy’s Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk insofar as it relates to PEF.
INTEREST RATE RISK
The following tables provide information at December 31, 2011 and 2010, about PEF’s interest rate risk-sensitive instruments:
 December 31, 2011
                      Fair Value 
                       December 31, 
 (dollars in millions)
 2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  Thereafter  Total  2011 
 Fixed-rate long-term debt
 $-  $425  $-  $300  $-  $3,525  $4,250  $5,193 
Average interest rate  -   4.80%  -   5.10%  -   5.74%  5.60%    
 Variable-rate long-term debt
  -   -   -   -   -  $241  $241  $241 
Average interest rate  -   -   -   -   -   0.57%  0.57%    
Interest rate forward contracts(a)
  -  $50  $-   -   -   -  $50  $(9)
Average pay rate  -   4.30%  -   -   -   -   4.30%    
Average receive rate     (b)       -   -   -  (b)     
(a)Notional amounts of 10-year forward starting swaps are categorized by mandatory cash settlement date.
(b)Rate is 3-month LIBOR, which was 0.58% at December 31, 2011.

At December 31, 2011, PEF had $50 million notional of open forward starting swaps to mitigate exposure to interest rate risk in anticipation of future debt issuances.
 December 31, 2010
                      Fair Value 
                       December 31, 
 (dollars in millions)
 2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  Thereafter  Total  2010 
 Fixed-rate long-term debt
 $300  $-  $425  $-  $300  $3,225  $4,250  $4,730 
Average interest rate  6.65%  -   4.80%  -   5.10%  5.99%  5.85%    
 Variable-rate long-term debt
  -   -   -   -   -  $241  $241  $241 
Average interest rate  -   -   -   -   -   0.52%  0.52%    
Interest rate forward contracts(a)
 $150   -  $50   -   -   -  $200  $(7)
Average pay rate  4.18%  -   4.30%  -   -   -   4.21%    
Average receive rate (b)   -   -(b)  -   -   -  (b)     
(a)Notional amounts of 10-year forward starting swaps are categorized by mandatory cash settlement date.
(b)Rate is 3-month LIBOR, which was 0.30% at December 31, 2010.

At December 31, 2010, PEF had $200 million notional of open forward starting swaps to mitigate exposure to interest rate risk in anticipation of future debt issuances.
COMMODITY PRICE RISK
PEF is exposed to the effects of market fluctuations in the price of natural gas, coal, fuel oil, electricity and other energy-related products marketed and purchased as a result of its ownership of energy-related assets. PEF’s exposure to these fluctuations is significantly limited by its cost-based regulation. The FPSC allows PEF to recover
113

certain fuel and purchased power costs to the extent the FPSC determines that such costs are prudent. Therefore, while there may be a delay in the timing between when these costs are incurred and when these costs are recovered from the ratepayers, changes from year to year have no material impact on operating results. See “Commodity Price Risk” discussion under Progress Energy mentioned previously and Note 18 for additional information with regard to PEF’s commodity contracts and use of derivative financial instruments.

114

ITEM 8.
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
The following financial statements, supplementary data and financial statement schedules are included herein:
Duke Energy Corporation (Duke Energy)
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
77
Consolidated Statements of Operations
Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income
Consolidated Balance Sheets
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows 
Consolidated Statements of Changes in Equity
 Page
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy Carolinas)
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income
Consolidated Balance Sheets
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
Consolidated Statements of Changes in Member’s Equity
Progress Energy, Inc. (Progress Energy) 
117
Comprehensive Income118
119
120
121
122


Florida Power Corporation d/b/a ProgressDuke Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF)(Duke Energy Florida) 
128
Comprehensive Income129
130
131
132
132
  
Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. (Duke Energy Ohio)
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income
Consolidated Balance Sheets
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
Consolidated Statements of Changes in Common Stockholder’s Equity
Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. (Duke Energy Indiana)
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income
Consolidated Balance Sheets
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
Consolidated Statements of Changes in Common Stockholder’s Equity
Combined Notes to theConsolidated Financial Statements for Progress Energy, Inc., Carolina Power & Light Company d/b/a Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. and Florida Power Corporation d/b/a Progress Energy Florida, Inc. 

75


PART II

139
Note 3 – New Accounting StandardsBusiness Segments142
Regulatory Matters143
Note 6 – Debt and Credit Facilities
Note 7 – Guarantees and Indemnifications
Note 8 – Joint Ownership of Generating and Transmission Facilities
Note 9 – Asset Retirement Obligations
Note 10 – Property, Plant and Equipment144
149
150
150
160
160
Goodwill and Intangible Assets164
Investments in Unconsolidated Affiliates165
169
170
179
187
115

188
201
208
Note 14 – Derivatives and Hedging
Note 15 – Investments in Debt and Equity Securities
Note 16 – Fair Value Measurements
Note 17 – Variable Interest Entities
Note 18 – Common Stock
Note 19 – Severance
Note 20 – Financial Information by Business SegmentStock-Based Compensation209
Employee Benefit Plans211
Income Taxes217
Other Income and Expenses, Net224
Note 25 – Quarterly Financial Data (Unaudited)234

76


Each of the preceding combined notes to the financial statements of the Progress Registrants are applicable to Progress Energy, Inc. but not to each of PEC and PEF. The following table sets forth which notes are applicable to each of PEC and PEF.
RegistrantApplicable Notes
PEC1 through 3, 5 through 8, 10 through 15, 17 through 19, 21, 22, and 24
PEF1 through 3, 5 through 8, 10 through 15, 17 through 19, 21, 22, and 24


116

PART II

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of
TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND SHAREHOLDERS OF PROGRESS ENERGY, INC.:Duke Energy Corporation
Charlotte, North Carolina
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of ProgressDuke Energy Inc.Corporation and subsidiaries (the “Company”"Company") as of December 31, 20112014 and 2010,2013, and the related consolidated statements of income,operations, comprehensive income, changes in total equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2011. Our audits2014. We also includedhave audited the consolidatedCompany's internal control over financial statement schedule listedreporting as of December 31, 2014, based on criteria established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. The Company's management is responsible for these financial statements, for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting, and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in the Index at Item 15. These financial statements and financial statement schedule are the responsibility of the Company’s management.accompanying Management’s Annual Report On Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on thethese financial statements and an opinion on the Company's internal control over financial statement schedulereporting based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amountsmisstatement and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, such consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Progress Energy, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2011, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Also, in our opinion, such consolidated financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein.
We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the Company’swhether effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2011, based on the criteria establishedwas maintained in Internal Control–Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission and our report dated February 28, 2012 expressed an unqualified opinion on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Raleigh, North Carolina
February 28, 2012

117


 
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS of INCOME 
(in millions except per share data)         
Years ended December 31 2011  2010  2009 
Operating revenues $8,907  $10,190  $9,885 
Operating expenses            
Fuel used in electric generation  2,893   3,300   3,752 
Purchased power  1,093   1,279   911 
Operation and maintenance  2,036   2,027   1,894 
Depreciation, amortization and accretion  701   920   986 
Taxes other than on income  562   580   557 
Other  34   30   13 
Total operating expenses  7,319   8,136   8,113 
Operating income  1,588   2,054   1,772 
Other income (expense)            
Interest income  2   7   14 
Allowance for equity funds used during construction  103   92   124 
Other, net  (58)  -   6 
Total other income, net  47   99   144 
Interest charges            
Interest charges  760   779   718 
Allowance for borrowed funds used during construction  (35)  (32)  (39)
Total interest charges, net  725   747   679 
Income from continuing operations before income tax  910   1,406   1,237 
Income tax expense  323   539   397 
Income from continuing operations  587   867   840 
Discontinued operations, net of tax  (5)  (4)  (79)
Net income  582   863   761 
Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests, net of tax  (7)  (7)  (4)
Net income attributable to controlling interests $575  $856  $757 
Average common shares outstanding – basic  296   291   279 
Basic and diluted earnings per common share            
Income from continuing operations attributable to controlling interests,
  net of tax
 $1.96  $2.96  $2.99 
Discontinued operations attributable to controlling interests, net of tax  (0.02)  (0.01)  (0.28)
Net income attributable to controlling interests $1.94  $2.95  $2.71 
Dividends declared per common share $2.119  $2.480  $2.480 
Amounts attributable to controlling interests            
Income from continuing operations, net of tax $580  $860  $836 
Discontinued operations, net of tax  (5)  (4)  (79)
Net income attributable to controlling interests $575  $856  $757 
See Notes to Progress Energy, Inc. Consolidated Financial Statements.

118


 
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS 
(in millions) December 31, 2011  December 31, 2010 
ASSETS      
Utility plant      
Utility plant in service $31,065  $29,708 
Accumulated depreciation  (12,001)  (11,567)
Utility plant in service, net  19,064   18,141 
Other utility plant, net  217   220 
Construction work in progress  2,449   2,205 
Nuclear fuel, net of amortization  767   674 
Total utility plant, net  22,497   21,240 
Current assets        
Cash and cash equivalents  230   611 
Receivables, net  889   1,033 
Inventory  1,438   1,226 
Regulatory assets  275   176 
Derivative collateral posted  147   164 
Deferred tax assets  371   156 
Prepayments and other current assets  133   110 
Total current assets  3,483   3,476 
Deferred debits and other assets        
Regulatory assets  3,025   2,374 
Nuclear decommissioning trust funds  1,647   1,571 
Miscellaneous other property and investments  407   413 
Goodwill  3,655   3,655 
Other assets and deferred debits  345   325 
Total deferred debits and other assets  9,079   8,338 
Total assets $35,059  $33,054 
CAPITALIZATION AND LIABILITIES        
Common stock equity        
Common stock without par value, 500 million shares authorized, 295
  million and 293 million shares issued and outstanding, respectively
 $7,434  $7,343 
Accumulated other comprehensive loss  (165)  (125)
Retained earnings  2,752   2,805 
Total common stock equity  10,021   10,023 
Noncontrolling interests  4   4 
Total equity  10,025   10,027 
Preferred stock of subsidiaries  93   93 
Long-term debt, affiliate  273   273 
Long-term debt, net  11,718   11,864 
Total capitalization  22,109   22,257 
Current liabilities        
Current portion of long-term debt  950   505 
Short-term debt  671   - 
Accounts payable  909   994 
Interest accrued  200   216 
Dividends declared  78   184 
Customer deposits  340   324 
Derivative liabilities  436   259 
Accrued compensation and other benefits  195   175 
Other current liabilities  306   298 
Total current liabilities  4,085   2,955 
Deferred credits and other liabilities        
Noncurrent income tax liabilities  2,355   1,696 
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits  103   110 
Regulatory liabilities  2,700   2,635 
Asset retirement obligations  1,265   1,200 
Accrued pension and other benefits  1,625   1,514 
Derivative liabilities  352   278 
Other liabilities and deferred credits  465   409 
Total deferred credits and other liabilities  8,865   7,842 
Commitments and contingencies (Notes 21 and 22)        
Total capitalization and liabilities $35,059  $33,054 
   
See Notes to Progress Energy, Inc. Consolidated Financial Statements. 

119


    
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS of CASH FLOWS    
(in millions)         
Years ended December 31 2011  2010  2009 
Operating activities         
Net income $582  $863  $761 
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating activities            
Depreciation, amortization and accretion  870   1,083   1,135 
Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits, net  353   478   220 
Deferred fuel (credit) cost  (102)  (2)  290 
Allowance for equity funds used during construction  (103)  (92)  (124)
Amount to be refunded to customers (Note 8C)  288   -   - 
Pension, postretirement and other employee benefits  180   198   135 
Other adjustments to net income  50   49   136 
Cash provided (used) by changes in operating assets and liabilities            
Receivables  175   (200)  26 
Inventory  (210)  98   (99)
Derivative collateral posted  20   (23)  200 
Other assets  (23)  (1)  14 
Income taxes, net  51   90   (14)
Accounts payable  (69)  125   (26)
Accrued pension and other benefits  (396)  (164)  (285)
Other liabilities  (51)  35   (98)
Net cash provided by operating activities  1,615   2,537   2,271 
Investing activities            
Gross property additions  (2,066)  (2,221)  (2,295)
Nuclear fuel additions  (226)  (221)  (200)
Purchases of available-for-sale securities and other investments  (5,017)  (7,009)  (2,350)
Proceeds from available-for-sale securities and other investments  4,970   6,990   2,314 
Insurance proceeds  79   64   - 
Other investing activities  48   (3)  (1)
Net cash used by investing activities  (2,212)  (2,400)  (2,532)
Financing activities            
Issuance of common stock, net  53   434   623 
Dividends paid on common stock  (734)  (717)  (693)
Payments of short-term debt with original maturities greater than 90 days  -   -   (629)
Net increase (decrease) in short-term debt  667   (140)  (381)
Proceeds from issuance of long-term debt, net  1,286   591   2,278 
Retirement of long-term debt  (1,000)  (400)  (400)
Other financing activities  (56)  (19)  8 
Net cash provided (used) by financing activities  216   (251)  806 
Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents  (381)  (114)  545 
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year  611   725   180 
Cash and cash equivalents at end of year $230  $611  $725 
Supplemental disclosures            
Cash paid for interest less amount capitalized, net $793  $709  $701 
Cash (received) paid for income taxes  (78)  (56)  87 
Significant noncash transactions            
Accrued property additions  334   313   252 
Asset retirement obligation additions and estimate revisions  (4)  (36)  (384)
      
See Notes to Progress Energy, Inc. Consolidated Financial Statements.     

120


                     
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS of CHANGES in TOTAL EQUITY          
  Common Stock     Accumulated          
  Outstanding  Unearned  Other          
        ESOP  Comprehensive  Retained  Noncontrolling  Total 
 (in millions except per share data)
 Shares  Amount  Shares  (Loss) Income  Earnings  Interests  Equity 
                      
 Balance, December 31, 2008
  264  $6,206  $(25) $(116) $2,622  $6  $8,693 
 Net income(a)
      -   -   -   757   -   757 
 Other comprehensive income
      -   -   29   -   -   29 
 Issuance of shares
  17   623   -   -   -   -   623 
 Allocation of ESOP shares
      8   13   -   -   -   21 
 Stock-based compensation expense
      36   -   -   -   -   36 
 Dividends ($2.480 per share)
      -   -   -   (704)  -   (704)
 Distributions to noncontrolling
  interests
      -   -   -   -   (1)  (1)
 Other
      -   -   -   -   1   1 
                             
 Balance, December 31, 2009
  281   6,873   (12)  (87)  2,675   6   9,455 
 Cumulative effect of change in
  accounting principle
      -   -   -   -   (2)  (2)
 Net income(a)
      -   -   -   856   3   859 
 Other comprehensive loss
      -   -   (38)  -   -   (38)
 Issuance of shares
  12   434   -   -   -   -   434 
 Allocation of ESOP shares
      9   12   -   -   -   21 
 Stock-based compensation expense
      27   -   -   -   -   27 
 Dividends ($2.480 per share)
      -   -   -   (726)  -   (726)
 Distributions to noncontrolling
  interests
      -   -   -   -   (2)  (2)
 Other
      -   -   -   -   (1)  (1)
                             
 Balance, December 31, 2010
  293   7,343   -   (125)  2,805   4   10,027 
 Net income(a)
      -   -   -   575   3   578 
 Other comprehensive loss
      -   -   (40)  -   -   (40)
 Issuance of shares
  2   53   -   -   -   -   53 
 Stock-based compensation expense
      38   -   -   -   -   38 
 Dividends ($2.119 per share)
      -   -   -   (628)  -   (628)
 Distributions to noncontrolling
  interests
      -   -   -   -   (3)  (3)
 Balance, December 31, 2011
  295  $7,434  $-  $(165) $2,752  $4  $10,025 
(a)For the year ended December 31, 2011, consolidated net income of $582 million includes $4 million attributable to preferred shareholders of subsidiaries. For the year ended December 31, 2010, consolidated net income of $863 million includes $4 million attributable to preferred shareholders of subsidiaries. For the year ended December 31, 2009, consolidated net income of $761 million includes $4 million attributable to preferred shareholders of subsidiaries. Income attributable to preferred shareholders of subsidiaries is not a component of total equity and is excluded from the table above.
See Notes to Progress Energy, Inc. Consolidated Financial Statements

121


       
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS of COMPREHENSIVE INCOME    
(in millions)   
Years ended December 31, 2011  2010  2009 
Net income $582  $863  $761 
Other comprehensive income (loss)            
Reclassification adjustments included in net income            
Change in cash flow hedges (net of tax expense of $5, $4 and $4)  8   6   6 
Change in unrecognized items for pension and other postretirement
  benefits (net of tax expense of $3, $2 and $3)
  5   3   4 
Net unrealized (losses) gains on cash flow hedges (net of tax benefit
  (expense) of $56, $22 and $(10))
  (87)  (34)  16 
Net unrecognized items for pension and other postretirement benefits
  (net of tax (expense) benefit of $(24), $8 and $(1))
  34   (13)  2 
Other (net of tax benefit of $-)  -   -   1 
Other comprehensive (loss) income  (40)  (38)  29 
Comprehensive income  542   825   790 
Comprehensive income attributable to noncontrolling interests,
  net of tax
  (7)  (7)  (4)
Comprehensive income attributable to controlling interests $535  $818  $786 
             
See Notes to Progress Energy, Inc. Consolidated Financial Statements.            

122


TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND SHAREHOLDERS OF CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY d/b/a PROGRESS ENERGY CAROLINAS, INC.:
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Carolina Power & Light Company d/b/a Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. and subsidiaries (“PEC”) as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, and the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, changes in total equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2011.all material respects. Our audits also included the consolidated financial statement schedule listed in the Index at Item 15. These financial statements and financial statement schedule are the responsibility of PEC’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the financial statements and financial statement schedule based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. PEC is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of PEC’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well asand evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, such consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Carolina Power & Light Company d/b/a Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2011, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Also, in our opinion, such consolidated financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Raleigh, North Carolina
February 28, 2012

123


 
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS of INCOME    
(in millions)         
Years ended December 31 2011  2010  2009 
Operating revenues $4,528  $4,922  $4,627 
Operating expenses            
Fuel used in electric generation  1,387   1,686   1,680 
Purchased power  315   302   229 
Operation and maintenance  1,182   1,158   1,072 
Depreciation, amortization and accretion  514   479   470 
Taxes other than on income  211   218   210 
Other  34   8   - 
Total operating expenses  3,643   3,851   3,661 
Operating income  885   1,071   966 
Other income (expense)            
Interest income  1   3   5 
Allowance for equity funds used during construction  71   64   33 
Other, net  (1)  -   (18)
Total other income, net  71   67   20 
Interest charges            
Interest charges  205   205   207 
Allowance for borrowed funds used during construction  (21)  (19)  (12)
Total interest charges, net  184   186   195 
Income before income tax  772   952   791 
Income tax expense  256   350   277 
Net income  516   602   514 
Net loss attributable to noncontrolling interests, net of tax  -   1   2 
Net income attributable to controlling interests  516   603   516 
Preferred stock dividend requirement  (3)  (3)  (3)
Net income available to parent $513  $600  $513 
      
See Notes to Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. Consolidated Financial Statements.     

124


 
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS 
(in millions) December 31, 2011  December 31, 2010 
ASSETS      
Utility plant      
Utility plant in service $17,439  $16,388 
Accumulated depreciation  (7,567)  (7,324)
Utility plant in service, net  9,872   9,064 
Other utility plant, net  181   184 
Construction work in progress  1,294   1,233 
Nuclear fuel, net of amortization  540   480 
Total utility plant, net  11,887   10,961 
Current assets        
Cash and cash equivalents  20   230 
Receivables, net  492   519 
Receivables from affiliated companies  13   44 
Inventory  775   590 
Deferred fuel cost  31   71 
Income taxes receivable  8   90 
Deferred tax assets  142   65 
Prepayments and other current assets  68   47 
Total current assets  1,549   1,656 
Deferred debits and other assets        
Regulatory assets  1,310   987 
Nuclear decommissioning trust funds  1,088   1,017 
Miscellaneous other property and investments  188   183 
Other assets and deferred debits  80   95 
Total deferred debits and other assets  2,666   2,282 
Total assets $16,102  $14,899 
CAPITALIZATION AND LIABILITIES        
Common stock equity        
Common stock without par value, 200 million shares authorized, 160
  million shares issued and outstanding
 $2,148  $2,130 
Accumulated other comprehensive loss  (71)  (33)
Retained earnings  3,011   3,083 
Total common stock equity  5,088   5,180 
Preferred stock  59   59 
Long-term debt, net  3,693   3,693 
Total capitalization  8,840   8,932 
Current liabilities        
Current portion of long-term debt  500   - 
Short-term debt  188   - 
Notes payable to affiliated companies  31   - 
Accounts payable  527   534 
Payables to affiliated companies  41   109 
Interest accrued  77   74 
Customer deposits  116   106 
Derivative liabilities  130   53 
Accrued compensation and other benefits  110   99 
Other current liabilities  85   81 
Total current liabilities  1,805   1,056 
Deferred credits and other liabilities        
Noncurrent income tax liabilities  1,976   1,608 
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits  98   104 
Regulatory liabilities  1,543   1,461 
Asset retirement obligations  896   849 
Accrued pension and other benefits  687   723 
Other liabilities and deferred credits  257   166 
Total deferred credits and other liabilities  5,457   4,911 
Commitments and contingencies (Notes 21 and 22)        
Total capitalization and liabilities $16,102  $14,899 
   
See Notes to Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. Consolidated Financial Statements. 

125


 
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS of CASH FLOWS 
(in millions)         
Years ended December 31 2011  2010  2009 
Operating activities         
Net income $516  $602  $514 
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating activities            
Depreciation, amortization and accretion  659   602   585 
Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits, net  262   285   64 
Deferred fuel cost  43   79   187 
Allowance for equity funds used during construction  (71)  (64)  (33)
Pension, postretirement and other employee benefits  67   78   65 
Other adjustments to net income  (50)  4   67 
Cash provided (used) by changes in operating assets and liabilities            
Receivables  106   (76)  42 
Receivables from affiliated companies  31   (11)  (4)
Inventory  (184)  85   (56)
Other assets  (16)  (24)  28 
Income taxes, net  92   (54)  50 
Accounts payable  (26)  51   (18)
Payables to affiliated companies  (68)  37   (10)
Accrued pension and other benefits  (247)  (95)  (181)
Other liabilities  23   19   (17)
Net cash provided by operating activities  1,137   1,518   1,283 
Investing activities            
Gross property additions  (1,232)  (1,198)  (839)
Nuclear fuel additions  (211)  (183)  (122)
Purchases of available-for-sale securities and other investments  (571)  (489)  (696)
Proceeds from available-for-sale securities and other investments  515   437   642 
Changes in advances to affiliated companies  2   202   (149)
Other investing activities  28   1   1 
Net cash used by investing activities  (1,469)  (1,230)  (1,163)
Financing activities            
Dividends paid on preferred stock  (3)  (3)  (3)
Dividends paid to parent  (585)  (100)  (200)
Net increase (decrease) in short-term debt  185   -   (110)
Proceeds from issuance of long-term debt, net  495   -   595 
Retirement of long-term debt  -   -   (400)
Changes in advances from affiliated companies  31   -   - 
Contributions from parent  -   14   15 
Other financing activities  (1)  (4)  - 
Net cash provided (used) by financing activities  122   (93)  (103)
Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents  (210)  195   17 
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year  230   35   18 
Cash and cash equivalents at end of year $20  $230  $35 
Supplemental disclosures            
Cash paid for interest less amount capitalized, net $199  $166  $171 
Cash (received) paid for income taxes, net  (97)  108   144 
Significant noncash transactions            
Accrued property additions  236   198   91 
Asset retirement obligation additions and estimate revisions  (4)  1   (386)
  
See Notes to Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. Consolidated Financial Statements. 

126


 
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS of CHANGES in TOTAL EQUITY 
  Common Stock  Unearned  Accumulated          
  Outstanding  ESOP  Other          
        Common  Comprehensive  Retained  Noncontrolling  Total 
 (in millions)
 Shares  Amount  Stock  (Loss) Income  Earnings  Interests  Equity 
 Balance, December 31, 2008
  160  $2,083  $(25) $(35) $2,278  $4  $4,305 
 Net income
      -   -   -   516   (2)  514 
 Other comprehensive income
      -   -   8   -   -   8 
 Allocation of ESOP shares
      10   13   -   -   -   23 
 Stock-based compensation expense
      15   -   -   -   -   15 
 Dividends paid to parent
      -   -   -   (200)  -   (200)
 Preferred stock dividends at stated
  rates
      -   -   -   (3)  -   (3)
 Tax dividend
      -   -   -   (3)  -   (3)
 Other
      -   -   -   -   1   1 
 Balance, December 31, 2009
  160   2,108   (12)  (27)  2,588   3   4,660 
 Cumulative effect of change in
  accounting principle
      -   -   -   -   (2)  (2)
 Net income
      -   -   -   603   (1)  602 
 Other comprehensive loss
      -   -   (6)  -   -   (6)
 Allocation of ESOP shares
      10   12   -   -   -   22 
 Stock-based compensation expense
      12   -   -   -   -   12 
 Dividends paid to parent
      -   -   -   (100)  -   (100)
 Preferred stock dividends at stated
  rates
      -   -   -   (3)  -   (3)
 Tax dividend
      -   -   -   (5)  -   (5)
 Balance, December 31, 2010
  160   2,130   -   (33)  3,083   -   5,180 
 Net income
      -   -   -   516   -   516 
 Other comprehensive loss
      -   -   (38)  -   -   (38)
 Stock-based compensation expense
      18   -   -   -   -   18 
 Dividends paid to parent
      -   -   -   (585)  -   (585)
 Preferred stock dividends at stated
  rates
      -   -   -   (3)  -   (3)
 Balance, December 31, 2011
  160  $2,148  $-  $(71) $3,011  $-  $5,088 

    
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS of COMPREHENSIVE INCOME    
(in millions)      
Years ended December 31, 2011  2010  2009 
Net income $516  $602  $514 
Other comprehensive income (loss)            
Reclassification adjustments included in net income            
Change in cash flow hedges (net of tax expense of $3, $3 and $2)  5   4   3 
Net unrealized (losses) gains on cash flow hedges (net of tax benefit
  (expense) of $28, $6 and $(3))
  (43)  (10)  5 
Other comprehensive (loss) income  (38)  (6)  8 
Comprehensive income  478   596   522 
Comprehensive loss attributable to noncontrolling interests, net of tax  -   1   2 
Comprehensive income attributable to controlling interests $478  $597  $524 
             
See Notes to Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. Consolidated Financial Statements.         

127


TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND SHAREHOLDERS OF FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION d/b/a PROGRESS ENERGY FLORIDA, INC.:
We have audited the accompanying balance sheets of Florida Power Corporation d/b/a Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (“PEF”) as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, and the related statements of income, comprehensive income, changes in common stock equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2011. Our audits also included the financial statement schedule listed in the Index at Item 15. These financial statements and financial statement schedule are the responsibility of PEF’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the financial statements and financial statement schedule based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. PEF is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of PEF’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, such financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Florida Power Corporation d/b/a Progress Energy Florida, Inc. as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2011, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Also, in our opinion, such financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Raleigh, North Carolina
February 28, 2012

128


    
STATEMENTS of INCOME    
(in millions)         
Years ended December 31 2011  2010  2009 
Operating revenues $4,369  $5,254  $5,251 
Operating expenses            
Fuel used in electric generation  1,506   1,614   2,072 
Purchased power  778   977   682 
Operation and maintenance  881   912   839 
Depreciation, amortization and accretion  169   426   502 
Taxes other than on income  350   362   347 
Other  (13)  4   7 
Total operating expenses  3,671   4,295   4,449 
Operating income  698   959   802 
Other income (expense)            
Interest income  1   1   4 
Allowance for equity funds used during construction  32   28   91 
Other, net  2   (1)  5 
Total other income, net  35   28   100 
Interest charges            
Interest charges  253   271   258 
Allowance for borrowed funds used during construction  (14)  (13)  (27)
Total interest charges, net  239   258   231 
Income before income tax  494   729   671 
Income tax expense  180   276   209 
Net income  314   453   462 
Preferred stock dividend requirement  (2)  (2)  (2)
Net income available to parent $312  $451  $460 
      
See Notes to Progress Energy Florida, Inc. Financial Statements.     

129


 
BALANCE SHEETS 
(in millions) December 31, 2011  December 31, 2010 
ASSETS      
Utility plant      
Utility plant in service $13,461  $13,155 
Accumulated depreciation  (4,356)  (4,168)
Utility plant in service, net  9,105   8,987 
Held for future use  36   36 
Construction work in progress  1,155   972 
Nuclear fuel, net of amortization  227   194 
Total utility plant, net  10,523   10,189 
Current assets        
Cash and cash equivalents  16   249 
Receivables, net  372   496 
Receivables from affiliated companies  19   11 
Inventory  663   636 
Regulatory assets  244   105 
Derivative collateral posted  123   140 
Deferred tax assets  138   77 
Prepayments and other current assets  39   29 
Total current assets  1,614   1,743 
Deferred debits and other assets        
Regulatory assets  1,602   1,387 
Nuclear decommissioning trust funds  559   554 
Miscellaneous other property and investments  42   43 
Other assets and deferred debits  144   140 
Total deferred debits and other assets  2,347   2,124 
Total assets $14,484  $14,056 
CAPITALIZATION AND LIABILITIES        
Common stock equity        
Common stock without par value, 60 million shares authorized,
  100 shares issued and outstanding
 $1,757  $1,750 
Accumulated other comprehensive loss  (27)  (4)
Retained earnings  2,945   3,144 
Total common stock equity  4,675   4,890 
Preferred stock  34   34 
Long-term debt, net  4,482   4,182 
Total capitalization  9,191   9,106 
Current liabilities        
Current portion of long-term debt  -   300 
Short-term debt  233   - 
Notes payable to affiliated companies  8   9 
Accounts payable  358   439 
Payables to affiliated companies  25   60 
Interest accrued  54   83 
Customer deposits  224   218 
Derivative liabilities  268   188 
Accrued compensation and other benefits  53   47 
Other current liabilities  112   121 
Total current liabilities  1,335   1,465 
Deferred credits and other liabilities        
Noncurrent income tax liabilities  1,405   1,065 
Regulatory liabilities  1,071   1,084 
Asset retirement obligations  369   351 
Accrued pension and other benefits  598   522 
Capital lease obligations  189   199 
Derivative liabilities  231   190 
Other liabilities and deferred credits  95   74 
Total deferred credits and other liabilities  3,958   3,485 
Commitments and contingencies (Notes 21 and 22)        
Total capitalization and liabilities $14,484  $14,056 
   
See Notes to Progress Energy Florida, Inc. Financial Statements. 

130


 
STATEMENTS of CASH FLOWS 
(in millions)         
Years ended December 31 2011  2010  2009 
Operating activities         
Net income $314  $453  $462 
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating activities            
Depreciation, amortization and accretion  174   446   527 
Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits, net  234   324   64 
Deferred fuel (credit) cost  (145)  (81)  103 
Allowance for equity funds used during construction  (32)  (28)  (91)
Amount to be refunded to customers (Note 8C)  288   -   - 
Pension, postretirement and other employee benefits  62   79   28 
Other adjustments to net income  26   44   88 
Cash provided (used) by changes in operating assets and liabilities            
Receivables  78   (110)  (15)
Receivables from affiliated companies  (8)  (3)  7 
Inventory  (26)  13   (43)
Derivative collateral posted  19   (6)  190 
Other assets  (4)  (17)  15 
Income taxes, net  51   50   (75)
Accounts payable  (46)  79   (11)
Payables to affiliated companies  (35)  (2)  7 
Accrued pension and other benefits  (137)  (61)  (83)
Other liabilities  (48)  24   (36)
Net cash provided by operating activities  765   1,204   1,137 
Investing activities            
Gross property additions  (816)  (1,014)  (1,449)
Nuclear fuel additions  (15)  (38)  (78)
Purchases of available-for-sale securities and other investments  (4,435)  (6,386)  (1,540)
Proceeds from available-for-sale securities and other investments  4,438   6,390   1,545 
Insurance proceeds  76   64   - 
Other investing activities  45   (3)  (6)
Net cash used by investing activities  (707)  (987)  (1,528)
Financing activities            
Dividends paid on preferred stock  (2)  (2)  (2)
Dividends paid to parent  (510)  (50)  - 
Net increase (decrease) in short-term debt  233   -   (371)
Proceeds from issuance of long-term debt, net  296   591   - 
Retirement of long-term debt  (300)  (300)  - 
Changes in advances from affiliated companies  (1)  (212)  149 
Contributions from parent  -   -   620 
Other financing activities  (7)  (12)  (7)
Net cash (used) provided by financing activities  (291)  15   389 
Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents  (233)  232   (2)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year  249   17   19 
Cash and cash equivalents at end of year $16  $249  $17 
Supplemental disclosures            
Cash paid for interest less amount capitalized, net $287  $241  $228 
Cash (received) paid for income taxes  (83)  (98)  184 
Significant noncash transactions            
Accrued property additions  93   111   156 
  
See Notes to Progress Energy Florida, Inc. Financial Statements. 

131


 
STATEMENTS of CHANGES in COMMON STOCK EQUITY 
  Common Stock  Accumulated     Total 
  Outstanding  Other     Common 
        Comprehensive  Retained  Stock 
(in millions except shares outstanding) Shares  Amount  (Loss) Income  Earnings  Equity 
Balance, December 31, 2008  100  $1,116  $(1) $2,284  $3,399 
Net income      -   -   462   462 
Other comprehensive income      -   4   -   4 
Stock-based compensation expense      8   -   -   8 
Contributions from parent      620   -   -   620 
Preferred stock dividends at stated rates      -   -   (2)  (2)
Tax dividend      -   -   (1)  (1)
Balance, December 31, 2009  100   1,744   3   2,743   4,490 
Net income      -   -   453   453 
Other comprehensive loss      -   (7)  -   (7)
Stock-based compensation expense      6   -   -   6 
Dividends paid to parent      -   -   (50)  (50)
Preferred stock dividends at stated rates      -   -   (2)  (2)
Balance, December 31, 2010  100   1,750   (4)  3,144   4,890 
Net income      -   -   314   314 
Other comprehensive loss      -   (23)  -   (23)
Stock-based compensation expense      7   -   -   7 
Dividends paid to parent      -   -   (510)  (510)
Preferred stock dividends at stated rates      -   -   (2)  (2)
Tax dividend      -   -   (1)  (1)
Balance, December 31, 2011  100  $1,757  $(27) $2,945  $4,675 

    
STATEMENTS of COMPREHENSIVE INCOME      
(in millions)      
Years ended December 31, 2011  2010  2009 
Net income $314  $453  $462 
Other comprehensive (loss) income            
Net unrealized (losses) gains on cash flow hedges (net of tax benefit
  (expense) of $15, $4 and $(2))
  (23)  (7)  4 
Other comprehensive (loss) income  (23)  (7)  4 
Comprehensive income $291  $446  $466 
             
See Notes to Progress Energy Florida, Inc. Financial Statements.         

132


PROGRESS ENERGY, INC.
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY d/b/a/ PROGRESS ENERGY CAROLINAS, INC.
FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION d/b/a PROGRESS ENERGY FLORIDA, INC.

COMBINED NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

In this report, Progress Energy, which includes Progress Energy, Inc. holding company (the Parent) and its regulated and nonregulated subsidiaries on a consolidated basis, is at times referred to as “we,” “us” or “our.” When discussing Progress Energy’s financial information, it necessarily includes the results of PEC and PEF (collectively, the Utilities). The term “Progress Registrants” refers to each of the three separate registrants: Progress Energy, PEC and PEF. The information in these combined notes relates to each of the Progress Registrants as noted in the Index to the Combined Notes. However, neither of the Utilities makes any representation as to information related solely to Progress Energy or the subsidiaries of Progress Energy other than itself.

PROGRESS ENERGY
The Parent is a holding company headquartered in Raleigh, N.C., subject to regulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
Our reportable segments are PEC and PEF, both of which are primarily engaged in the generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electricity. The Corporate and Other segment primarily includes amounts applicable to the activities of the Parent and Progress Energy Service Company, LLC (PESC) and other miscellaneous nonregulated businesses (Corporate and Other) that do not separately meet the quantitative disclosure requirements as a reportable business segment. See Note 20 for further information about our segments.
PEC
PEC is a regulated public utility primarily engaged in the generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electricity in portions of North Carolina and South Carolina. PEC’s subsidiaries are involved in insignificant nonregulated business activities. PEC is subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC), Public Service Commission of South Carolina (SCPSC), the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the FERC.
PEF
PEF is a regulated public utility primarily engaged in the generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electricity in west-central Florida. PEF is subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC), the NRC and the FERC.
B.BASIS OF PRESENTATION
These financial statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP), including GAAP for regulated operations. The financial statements include the activities of the Parent and our majority-owned and controlled subsidiaries. The Utilities are subsidiaries of Progress Energy, and, as such, their financial condition and results of operations and cash flows are also consolidated, along with our nonregulated subsidiaries, in our consolidated financial statements. Intercompany balances and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.
Noncontrolling interests in subsidiaries along with the income or loss attributed to these interests are included in noncontrolling interests in both the Consolidated Balance Sheets and in the Consolidated Statements of Income. The results of operations for noncontrolling interests are reported on a net of tax basis if the underlying subsidiary is structured as a taxable entity.
133

Unconsolidated investments in companies over which we do not have control, but have the ability to exercise influence over operating and financial policies, are accounted for under the equity method of accounting. These investments are primarily in limited liability corporations and limited liability partnerships, and the earnings from these investments are recorded on a pre-tax basis. Other investments are stated principally at cost. These equity and cost method investments are included in miscellaneous other property and investments in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. See Note 13 for more information about our investments.
Our presentation of operating, investing and financing cash flows combines the respective cash flows from our continuing and discontinued operations as permitted under GAAP.
These combined notes accompany and form an integral part of Progress Energy’s and PEC’s consolidated financial statements and PEF’s financial statements.
Certain amounts for 2010 and 2009 have been reclassified to conform to the 2011 presentation.
C.CONSOLIDATION OF VARIABLE INTEREST ENTITIES
We consolidate all voting interest entities in which we own a majority voting interest and all variable interest entities (VIEs) for which we are the primary beneficiary. We determine whether we are the primary beneficiary of a VIE through a qualitative analysis that identifies which variable interest holder has the controlling financial interest in the VIE. The variable interest holder who has both of the following has the controlling financial interest and is the primary beneficiary: (1) the power to direct the activities of the VIE that most significantly impact the VIE’s economic performance and (2) the obligation to absorb losses of, or the right to receive benefits from, the VIE that could potentially be significant to the VIE. In performing our analysis, we consider all relevant facts and circumstances, including: the design and activities of the VIE, the terms of the contracts the VIE has entered into, the nature of the VIE’s variable interests issued and how they were negotiated with or marketed to potential investors, and which parties participated significantly in the design or redesign of the entity.
PROGRESS ENERGY
Progress Energy, through its subsidiary PEC, is the primary beneficiary of, and consolidates an entity that qualifies for rehabilitation tax credits under Section 47 of the Internal Revenue Code. Our variable interests are debt and equity investments in the VIE. There were no changes to our assessment of the primary beneficiary for this VIE during 2009 through 2011. No financial or other support has been provided to the VIE during the periods presented.
The following table sets forth the carrying amount and classification of our investment in the VIE as reflected in the Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31:
       
(in millions) 2011  2010 
Miscellaneous other property and investments $12  $12 
Cash and cash equivalents  1   - 
Prepayments and other current assets  -   1 
Accounts payable  -   5 
         
The assets of the VIE are collateral for, and can only be used to settle, its obligations. The creditors of the VIE do not have recourse to our general credit or the general credit of PEC, and there are no other arrangements that could expose us to losses.
Progress Energy, through its subsidiary PEC, is the primary beneficiary of two VIEs that were established to lease buildings to PEC under capital lease agreements. Our maximum exposure to loss from these leases is a $7.5 million mandatory fixed price purchase option for one of the buildings. Total lease payments to these counterparties under the lease agreements were $2 million annually in 2011, 2010 and 2009. We have requested the necessary information to consolidate these entities; both entities from which the necessary financial information was requested declined to provide the information to us, and, accordingly, we have applied the information scope exception provided by GAAP to the entities. We believe the effect of consolidating the entities would have an insignificant
134

impact on our common stock equity, net earnings or cash flows. However, because we have not received any financial information from the counterparties, the impact cannot be determined at this time.
PEC
See discussion of PEC’s variable interests in VIEs within the Progress Energy section.
PEF
PEF has no significant variable interests in VIEs.
D.SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
USE OF ESTIMATES AND ASSUMPTIONS
In preparing consolidated financial statements that conform to GAAP, management must make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the consolidated financial statements, and amounts of revenues and expenses reflected during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.
REVENUE RECOGNITION
We recognize revenue when it is realized or realizable and earned when all of the following criteria are met: persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists; delivery has occurred or services have been rendered; our price to the buyer is fixed or determinable; and collectability is reasonably assured. We recognize electric utility revenues as service is rendered to customers. Operating revenues include unbilled electric utility base revenues earned when service has been delivered but not billed by the end of the accounting period. The amount of unbilled revenues can vary significantly from period to period as a result of numerous factors, including seasonality, weather, customer usage patterns and customer mix. Customer prepayments are recorded as deferred revenue and recognized as revenues as the services are provided.
Periodically, we are permitted to start charging customers for proposed rate increases prior to receiving final approval from our regulatory authorities. Such amounts charged are subject to refund upon issuance of the final rate order. In addition, we may be required to refund amounts to customers for previously recognized revenues, through approved orders or settlement agreements, which are not related to proposed rate increases. We recognize revenue subject to refund when it is earned, and separately establish a reserve for amounts that could be refunded when it is probable that revenue will be refunded to customers. See Note 8C for discussion of revenue to be refunded in connection with the 2012 settlement agreement.
FUEL COST DEFERRALS
Fuel expense includes fuel costs and other recoveries that were previously deferred through fuel clauses established by the Utilities’ regulators. These clauses allow the Utilities to recover fuel costs, fuel-related costs and portions of purchased power costs through surcharges on customer rates. These deferred fuel costs are recognized in revenues and fuel expenses as they are billable to customers.
EXCISE TAXES
The Utilities collect from customers certain excise taxes levied by the state or local government upon the customers. The Utilities account for sales and use tax on a net basis and gross receipts tax, franchise taxes and other excise taxes on a gross basis.
135

The amount of gross receipts tax, franchise taxes and other excise taxes included in operating revenues and taxes other than on income in the statements of income for the years ended December 31 were as follows:
          
(in millions) 2011  2010  2009 
Progress Energy $315  $345  $333 
PEC  110   119   108 
PEF  205   226   225 
             
RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
Our subsidiaries provide and receive services, at cost, to and from the Parent and its subsidiaries, in accordance with FERC regulations. The costs of the services are billed on a direct-charge basis, whenever possible, and on allocation factors for general costs that cannot be directly attributed. In the subsidiaries’ financial statements, billings from affiliates are capitalized or expensed depending on the nature of the services rendered.
UTILITY PLANT
Utility plant in service is stated at historical cost less accumulated depreciation. We capitalize all construction-related direct labor and material costs of units of property as well as indirect construction costs. The cost of renewals and betterments is also capitalized. Maintenance and repairs of property (including planned major maintenance activities), and replacements and renewals of items determined to be less than units of property, are charged to maintenance expense as incurred, with the exception of nuclear outages at PEF. Pursuant to a regulatory order, PEF accrues for nuclear outage costs in advance of scheduled outages, which generally occur every two years. Maintenance activities under long-term service agreements with third parties are capitalized or expensed as appropriate as if the Utilities had performed the activities. Generally, the cost of units of property replaced or retired, less salvage, is charged to accumulated depreciation. For generating facilities to be retired or abandoned significantly before the end of their useful lives, the net carrying value is reclassified from plant in service, net to other utility plant, net when it becomes probable they will be retired or abandoned. When such facilities are removed from service, the remaining net carrying value is then reclassified to regulatory assets in accordance with the expected ratemaking treatment. Removal or disposal costs that do not represent asset retirement obligations (AROs) are charged to a regulatory liability.
Allowance for funds used during construction (AFUDC) represents the estimated costs of capital funds necessary to finance the construction of new regulated assets. As prescribed in the regulatory uniform system of accounts, AFUDC is charged to the cost of the plant. Both the debt and equity components of AFUDC are noncash amounts within the Consolidated Statements of Income. The equity funds component of AFUDC is credited to other income, and the borrowed funds component is credited to interest charges.
Nuclear fuel is classified as a fixed asset and included in the utility plant section of the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Nuclear fuel in the front-end fuel processing phase is considered work in progress and not amortized until placed in service.
DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION – UTILITY PLANT
Substantially all depreciation of utility plant other than nuclear fuel is computed on the straight-line method based on the estimated remaining useful life of the property, adjusted for estimated salvage (See Note 5A). Pursuant to their rate-setting authority, the NCUC, SCPSC and FPSC can also grant approval to accelerate or reduce depreciation and amortization rates of utility assets (See Note 8).
Amortization of nuclear fuel costs is computed primarily on the units-of-production method and included within fuel used in electric generation in the Consolidated Statements of Income.
FEDERAL GRANT
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, signed into law in February 2009, contains provisions promoting energy efficiency (EE) and renewable energy. On April 28, 2010, we accepted a grant from the United States
136

Department of Energy (DOE) for $200 million in federal matching infrastructure funds in support of our smart grid initiatives. PEC and PEF each will receive up to $100 million over a three-year period as project work progresses. The DOE will provide reimbursement for 50 percent of allowable project costs, as incurred, up to the DOE’s maximum obligation of $200 million. Projects funded by the grant must be completed by April 2013.
In accounting for the federal grant, we have elected to reduce the cost basis of select smart grid projects. As the select capital projects are placed into service, this will reduce depreciation expense over the life of the assets. Reimbursements by the DOE are deferred as a short-term or long-term liability on the Consolidated Balance Sheets based on their expected date of application to the select projects. Reimbursements related to capital projects are included in other investing activities in the Statement of Cash Flows when cash is received.
ASSET RETIREMENT OBLIGATIONS
AROs are legal obligations associated with the retirement of certain tangible long-lived assets. The present values of retirement costs for which we have a legal obligation are recorded as liabilities with an equivalent amount added to the asset cost and depreciated over the useful life of the associated asset. The liability is then accreted over time by applying an interest method of allocation to the liability. Accretion expense is included in depreciation, amortization and accretion in the Consolidated Statements of Income. AROs have no impact on the income of the Utilities as the effects are offset by the establishment of regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in order to reflect the ratemaking treatment of the related costs.
CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS
We consider cash and cash equivalents to include unrestricted cash on hand, cash in banks and temporary investments purchased with an original maturity of three months or less.
RECEIVABLES, NET
We record accounts receivable at net realizable value. This value includes an allowance for estimated uncollectible accounts to reflect any loss anticipated on the accounts receivable balances. The allowance for uncollectible accounts reflects our estimate of probable losses inherent in the accounts receivable, unbilled revenue, and other receivables balances. We calculate this allowance based on our history of write-offs, level of past due accounts, prior rate of recovery experience and relationships with and economic status of our customers.
INVENTORY
We account for inventory, including emission allowances, using the average cost method. We value inventory of the Utilities at historical cost consistent with ratemaking treatment. Materials and supplies are charged to inventory when purchased and then expensed or capitalized to plant, as appropriate, when installed. Materials reserves are established for excess and obsolete inventory.
REGULATORY ASSETS AND LIABILITIES
The Utilities’ operations are subject to GAAP for regulated operations, which allows a regulated company to record costs that have been or are expected to be allowed in the ratemaking process in a period different from the period in which the costs would be charged to expense by a nonregulated enterprise. Accordingly, the Utilities record assets and liabilities that result from the regulated ratemaking process that would not be recorded under GAAP for nonregulated entities. These regulatory assets and liabilities represent expenses deferred for future recovery from customers or obligations to be refunded to customers and are primarily classified in the Consolidated Balance Sheets as regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities (See Note 8A). Management continually assesses whether regulatory assets are probable of future recovery by considering factors such as applicable regulatory changes and recent rate orders applicable to other regulated entities. Additionally, management continually assesses whether any regulatory liabilities have been incurred. The regulatory assets and liabilities are amortized consistent with the treatment of the related cost in the ratemaking process.
137

NUCLEAR COST DEFERRALS
PEF accounts for costs incurred in connection with the proposed nuclear expansion in Florida in accordance with FPSC regulations, which establish an alternative cost-recovery mechanism. PEF is allowed to accelerate the recovery of prudently incurred siting, preconstruction costs, AFUDC and incremental operation and maintenance expenses resulting from the siting, licensing, design and construction of a nuclear plant through PEF’s capacity cost-recovery clause. Nuclear costs are deemed to be recovered up to the amount of the FPSC-approved projections, and the deferral of unrecovered nuclear costs accrues a carrying charge equal to PEF’s approved AFUDC rate. Unrecovered nuclear costs eligible for accelerated recovery are deferred and recorded as regulatory assets in the Consolidated Balance Sheets and are amortized in the period the costs are collected from customers.
GOODWILL AND INTANGIBLE ASSETS
Goodwill is subject to at least an annual assessment for impairment by applying a two-step, fair value-based test. This assessment could result in periodic impairment charges. We perform our annual goodwill impairment test as of October 31 each year and perform an interim test between annual tests if events or circumstances occur that would more likely than not reduce the fair value of a reporting unit below its carrying value. Intangible assets are amortized based on the economic benefit of their respective lives.
UNAMORTIZED DEBT PREMIUMS, DISCOUNTS AND EXPENSES
Long-term debt premiums, discounts and issuance expenses are amortized over the terms of the debt issues. Any expenses or call premiums associated with the reacquisition of debt obligations by the Utilities are amortized over the applicable lives using the straight-line method consistent with ratemaking treatment (See Note 8A).
INCOME TAXES
We and our affiliates file a consolidated federal income tax return. The consolidated income tax of Progress Energy is allocated to PEC and PEF in accordance with the Intercompany Income Tax Allocation Agreement (Tax Agreement). The Tax Agreement provides an allocation that recognizes positive and negative corporate taxable income. The Tax Agreement provides for an equitable method of apportioning the carryover of uncompensated tax benefits, which primarily relate to deferred synthetic fuels tax credits. Income taxes are provided for as if PEC and PEF filed separate returns.
Deferred income taxes have been provided for temporary differences. These occur when the book and tax carrying amounts of assets and liabilities differ. Investment tax credits related to regulated operations have been deferred and are being amortized over the estimated service life of the related properties. Credits for the production and sale of synthetic fuels are deferred credits to the extent they cannot be or have not been utilized in the annual consolidated federal income tax returns, and are included in income tax expense (benefit) of discontinued operations in the Consolidated Statements of Income. We accrue for uncertain tax positions when it is determined that it is more likely than not that the benefit will not be sustained on audit by the taxing authority, including resolutions of any related appeals or litigation processes, based solely on the technical merits of the associated tax position. If the recognition threshold is met, the tax benefit recognized is measured at the largest amount of the tax benefit that, in our judgment, is greater than 50 percent likely to be realized. Interest expense on tax deficiencies and uncertain tax positions is included in net interest charges, and tax penalties are included in other, net in the Consolidated Statements of Income.
DERIVATIVES
GAAP requires that an entity recognize all derivatives as assets or liabilities on the balance sheet and measure those instruments at fair value, unless the derivatives meet the GAAP criteria for normal purchases or normal sales and are designated as such. We generally designate derivative instruments as normal purchases or normal sales whenever the criteria are met. If normal purchase or normal sale criteria are not met, we will generally designate the derivative instruments as cash flow or fair value hedges if the related hedge criteria are met. We have elected not to offset fair value amounts recognized for derivative instruments and related collateral assets and liabilities with the same counterparty under a master netting agreement. Certain economic derivative instruments (primarily fuel-related) receive regulatory accounting treatment, under which unrealized gains and losses are recorded as regulatory
138

liabilities and assets, respectively, until the contracts are settled. Cash flows from derivative instruments are generally included in cash provided by operating activities on the Statements of Cash Flows. See Note 18 for additional information regarding risk management activities and derivative transactions.
LOSS CONTINGENCIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITIES
We accrue for loss contingencies, such as unfavorable results of litigation, when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. When a range of the probable loss exists and no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount, we record a loss contingency at the minimum amount in the range. With the exception of legal fees that are incremental direct costs of an environmental remediation effort, we do not accrue an estimate of legal fees when a contingent loss is initially recorded, but rather when the legal services are actually provided.
As discussed in Note 21, we accrue environmental remediation liabilities when the criteria for loss contingencies have been met. We record accruals for probable and estimable costs, including legal fees, related to environmental sites on an undiscounted basis. Environmental expenditures that relate to an existing condition caused by past operations and that have no future economic benefits are expensed. Accruals for estimated losses from environmental remediation obligations generally are recognized no later than completion of the remedial feasibility study. Such accruals are adjusted as additional information develops or circumstances change. Certain environmental expenses receive regulatory accounting treatment, under which the expenses are recorded as regulatory assets. Recoveries of environmental remediation costs from other parties are recognized when their receipt is deemed probable or on actual receipt of recovery. Environmental expenditures that have future economic benefits are capitalized in accordance with our asset capitalization policy.
IMPAIRMENT OF LONG-LIVED ASSETS AND INVESTMENTS
We review the recoverability of long-lived tangible and intangible assets whenever impairment indicators exist. Examples of these indicators include current period losses, combined with a history of losses or a projection of continuing losses, or a significant decrease in the market price of a long-lived asset group. If an impairment indicator exists for assets to be held and used, then the asset group is tested for recoverability by comparing the carrying value to the sum of undiscounted expected future cash flows directly attributable to the asset group. If the asset group is not recoverable through undiscounted cash flows or the asset group is to be disposed of, then an impairment loss is recognized for the difference between the carrying value and the fair value of the asset group.
We review our equity investments to evaluate whether or not a decline in fair value below the carrying value is an other-than-temporary decline. We consider various factors, such as the investee’s cash position, earnings and revenue outlook, liquidity and management’s ability to raise capital in determining whether the decline is other-than-temporary. If we determine that an other-than-temporary decline in value exists, the investments are written down to fair value with a new cost basis established.
On January 8, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the Merger Agreement). Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Progress Energy will be acquired by Duke Energy in a stock-for-stock transaction (the Merger) and become a wholly owned subsidiary of Duke Energy. The Merger Agreement originally had a termination date of January 8, 2012, which has been extended by the parties to July 8, 2012.
Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, each share of Progress Energy common stock will be canceled and converted into the right to receive 2.6125 shares of Duke Energy common stock. Each outstanding option to acquire, and each outstanding equity award relating to, one share of Progress Energy common stock will be converted into an option to acquire, or an equity award relating to, 2.6125 shares of Duke Energy common stock. The board of directors of Duke Energy approved a reverse stock split, at a ratio of 1-for-3, subject to completion of the Merger. Accordingly, the adjusted exchange ratio is expected to be 0.87083 of a share of Duke Energy common stock, options and equity awards for each Progress Energy common share, option and equity award.
139

The combined company, to be called Duke Energy, will have an 18-member board of directors. The board will be comprised of, subject to their ability and willingness to serve, all 11 current directors of Duke Energy and seven current directors of Progress Energy. At the time of the Merger, William D. Johnson, Chairman, President and CEO of Progress Energy, will be President and CEO of Duke Energy, and James E. Rogers, Chairman, President and CEO of Duke Energy, will be the Executive Chairman of the board of directors of Duke Energy, subject to their ability and willingness to serve.
Consummation of the Merger is subject to customary conditions, including, among others things, approval by the shareholders of each company, expiration or termination of the applicable Hart-Scott-Rodino Act waiting period, and receipt of approvals, to the extent required, from the FERC, the Federal Communications Commission, the NRC, the NCUC, the Kentucky Public Service Commission and the SCPSC. Although there are no merger-specific regulatory approvals required in Indiana, Ohio or Florida, the companies will continue to update the public service commissions in those states on the Merger, as applicable and as required. The status of these matters is as follows, and we cannot predict the outcome of pending approvals:
Shareholder Approval
·  On August 23, 2011, the Merger was approved by the shareholders of Progress Energy and Duke Energy.
Federal Regulatory Approvals
·  On March 28, 2011, Progress Energy and Duke Energy submitted their Hart-Scott-Rodino filing with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for review under U.S. antitrust laws. The 30-day waiting period required by the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act expired without Progress Energy or Duke Energy having received requests for additional information. Progress Energy and Duke Energy have met their obligations under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act. However, the period in which Progress Energy and Duke Energy may close the Merger consistent with their Hart-Scott-Rodino obligations will expire on April 26, 2012. Because the Merger is not expected to close on or before April 26, 2012, Progress Energy and Duke Energy intend to make new filings under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act in order to be able to close the Merger after such date and continue to meet their obligations under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act.
·  On January 5, 2012, the Federal Communications Commission extended its approval of the Assignment of Authorization filings to transfer control of certain licenses. The extended approval expires on July 12, 2012.
·  On September 30, 2011, the FERC, which assesses market power-related issues, conditionally approved the merger application filed by Progress Energy and Duke Energy. The approval is subject to the FERC’s acceptance of market power mitigation measures to address the FERC’s finding that the combined company could have an adverse effect on competition in the North Carolina and South Carolina wholesale power markets. Progress Energy and Duke Energy filed a market power mitigation plan with the FERC on October 17, 2011 that proposed a “virtual divestiture” under which power up to a certain amount would have been offered into the wholesale market rather than the sale or divestiture of physical assets. A virtual divestiture is one option the FERC indicated could be used to mitigate its market power concerns. On December 14, 2011, the FERC affirmed its conditional approval of the merger, but the FERC rejected the proposed market power mitigation plan. On February 22, 2012, Progress Energy and Duke Energy filed a notification with the NCUC of their intention to file a second market power mitigation plan with the FERC. The revised mitigation plan consists of two phases. Phase 1 is an interim mitigation that consists of a virtual divestiture whereby the companies propose a three-year plan to sell capacity and firm energy during the summer (June – August) and winter (December – February) to new market participants. Together, the companies would sell 800 MWs during summer off-peak hours, 475 MWs during summer peak hours, 225 MWs during winter off-peak hours, and 25 MWs during winter peak hours. The companies expect to secure contracts with potential buyers prior to filing the mitigation plan with the FERC. Phase 2 is a permanent mitigation that consists of constructing up to eight transmission projects in the combined service territories, which will expand the capability to import wholesale power into the Carolinas. The construction, preliminarily estimated to cost $75 million to $150 million, would begin after the Merger closes and take approximately three years to complete. The companies will be working with the North Carolina Public Staff and the South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff (ORS) on appropriate state ratemaking treatment associated with the measures in the revised market mitigation plan and other merger-related issues. Final agreement to the proposed mitigation efforts will be subject to resolution of the state
140

ratemaking issues. The NCUC has up to 30 days to review the revised mitigation plan before it is filed with the FERC.
·  
On April 4, 2011, Progress Energy and Duke Energy made two additional filings with the FERC. The first filing is a Joint Dispatch Agreement, pursuant to which PEC and Duke Energy Carolinas will agree to jointly dispatch their generation facilities in order to achieve certain of the operating efficiencies expected to result from the Merger. The second filing is a joint open access transmission tariff (OATT) pursuant to which PEC and Duke Energy Carolinas will agree to provide transmission service over their transmission facilities under a single transmission rate. On December 14, 2011, in conjunction with the aforementioned decision on the proposed market power mitigation plan, the FERC dismissed these related filings as not ripe for decision. As allowed under the FERC’s December 14, 2011 order, Progress Energy and Duke Energy intend to refile the Joint Dispatch Agreement and OATT upon filing of the second market power mitigation plan with the FERC.
·  On December 2, 2011, the NRC approved the filing requesting an indirect transfer of control of licenses for Progress Energy’s nuclear facilities to include Duke Energy as the ultimate parent corporation on these licenses.
State Regulatory Approvals
·  On April 4, 2011, Progress Energy and Duke Energy filed a merger approval application and an application for approval of a Joint Dispatch Agreement between PEC and Duke Energy Carolinas with the NCUC. On September 2, 2011, the North Carolina Public Staff filed a settlement agreement with the NCUC. On September 6, 2011, Progress Energy and Duke Energy signed a settlement with the ORS, a party to the North Carolina proceedings to resolve the ORS’s issues in the North Carolina proceeding. Under the settlement agreement with the North Carolina Public Staff, Progress Energy and Duke Energy will provide $650 million in system fuel cost savings for customers in North Carolina and South Carolina over the five years following the close of the Merger, maintain their current level of community support in North Carolina for the next four years, and provide $15 million for low-income energy assistance and workforce development in North Carolina. The settlement agreement also provides that direct merger-related expenses will not be recovered from customers; however, PEC may request recovery of costs incurred to create operational savings. The NCUC held hearings regarding the application on September 20-22, 2011. On November 23, 2011, Progress Energy and Duke Energy filed proposed orders and briefs with the NCUC. The docket will remain open pending the FERC’s issuance of its final orders on the merger-related actions before the FERC.
·  On April 25, 2011, Progress Energy and Duke Energy filed an application for approval of the merger of PEC and Duke Energy Carolinas and an application for approval of a Joint Dispatch Agreement between PEC and Duke Energy Carolinas with the SCPSC. On September 13, 2011, Progress Energy and Duke Energy withdrew the application of the merger of PEC and Duke Energy Carolinas, as the merger of these entities is not likely to occur for several years after the close of the Merger. The SCPSC held hearings regarding the application for approval of the Joint Dispatch Agreement on December 12, 2011. During the hearing, PEC, Duke Energy Carolinas and the ORS agreed to terminate the settlement agreement, which resolved the ORS's issues in the NCUC merger proceeding, and replaced it with a commitment by PEC and Duke Energy Carolinas to provide PEC’s and Duke Energy Carolinas’ retail customers in South Carolina pro rata benefits equivalent to those approved by the NCUC in its order ruling upon PEC’s and Duke Energy Carolinas’ merger application. The docket will remain open pending the FERC’s issuance of its final orders on the merger-related actions before the FERC.
·  On October 28, 2011, the Kentucky Public Service Commission approved Progress Energy’s and Duke Energy’s merger-related settlement agreement with the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
The Merger Agreement includes certain restrictions, limitations and prohibitions as to actions we may or may not take in the period prior to consummation of the Merger. Among other restrictions, the Merger Agreement limits our total capital spending, limits the extent to which we can obtain financing through long-term debt and equity, and we may not, without the prior approval of Duke Energy, increase our quarterly common stock dividend of $0.62 per share. In the fourth quarter of 2011, our board of directors declared a partial dividend payment to Progress Energy shareholders to align Progress Energy’s dividend payment schedule with that of Duke Energy such that following
141

the closing of the Merger, all stockholders of the combined company would receive dividends under the Duke Energy dividend schedule.
Certain substantial changes in ownership of Progress Energy, including the Merger, can impact the timing of the utilization of tax credit carry forwards and net operating loss carry forwards (See Note 15).
The Merger Agreement contains certain termination rights for both companies; under specified circumstances we may be required to pay Duke Energy $400 million and Duke Energy may be required to pay us $675 million. In addition, under specified circumstances each party may be required to reimburse the other party for up to $30 million of merger-related expenses.
Certain Progress Energy shareholders filed class action lawsuits in the state and federal courts in North Carolina against Progress Energy and each of the members of Progress Energy’s board of directors, which have been subsequently settled (See Note 22D).
In connection with the Merger, we established an employee retention plan for certain eligible employees. Payments under the plan are contingent upon the consummation of the Merger and the employees’ continued employment through a specified time period following the Merger. These payments will be recorded as compensation expense following consummation of the Merger. We estimate the costs of the retention plan to be $14 million.
In connection with the Merger, we announced plans to offer a voluntary severance plan (VSP) to certain eligible employees. Payments under the plan are contingent upon the consummation of the Merger. The window for eligible employees to request a voluntary end to their employment under the VSP opened on November 7, 2011, and ended on November 30, 2011. Approximately 650 employees requested and were approved for separation under the VSP in December 2011. The cost of the VSP is estimated to be between $90 million to $100 million, including $65 million to $70 million and $25 million to $30 million related to PEC and PEF, respectively. If the employee is not required to work for a significant period after the consummation of the Merger, the costs of any benefits paid under the VSP will be measured and recorded upon consummation of the Merger. If a significant retention period exists, the costs of benefits equal to what would be paid under our existing severance plan will be measured and recorded upon consummation of the Merger. Any additional benefits paid under the VSP will be recorded ratably over the remaining service periods of the affected employees.
In addition, we evaluated our business needs for office space after the Merger and formulated an exit plan to vacate one of our corporate headquarters buildings. Under the plan, we will gradually vacate the premises beginning in the fourth quarter of 2011 through January 1, 2013. In December 2011, we executed an agreement with a third party to sublease the building until 2035. The estimated exit cost liability associated with this exit plan is $17 million for us, of which $12 million of expense is attributable to PEC and $5 million to PEF. The exit cost liability will be recognized proportionately as we vacate the premises. During the fourth quarter of 2011, we recorded exit cost liabilities of $5 million for us, of which $3 million of expense is attributable to PEC and $2 million to PEF. These costs are included in merger and integration-related costs.
In connection with the Merger, we incurred merger and integration-related costs of $46 million, net of tax, including $25 million, net of tax, and $21 million, net of tax, at PEC and PEF, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2011. These costs are included in operations and maintenance (O&M) expense in our Consolidated Statements of Income.
FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT AND DISCLOSURES
In January 2010, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) 2010-06, “Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (Topic 820): Improving Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements,” which amends Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 820 to clarify certain existing disclosure requirements and to require a number of additional disclosures, including amounts and reasons for significant transfers between the three levels of the fair value hierarchy, and presentation of certain information in the reconciliation of recurring Level 3 measurements on a gross basis. ASU 2010-06 was effective for us on January 1,
142

2010, with certain disclosures effective January 1, 2011. The adoption of ASU 2010-06 resulted in additional disclosures in the notes to the financial statements but did not have an impact on our or the Utilities’ financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
In May 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-04, “Fair Value Measurement (Topic 820): Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRSs,” which amends ASC 820 to develop a single, converged fair value framework between GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). ASU 2011-04 is effective prospectively for us on January 1, 2012. The adoption of ASU 2011-04 will result in changes in certain fair value measurement principles, as well as additional disclosure in the notes to the financial statements. However, the impact of adoption is not expected to be significant to our or the Utilities’ financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
GOODWILL IMPAIRMENT TESTING
In September 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-08, “Testing Goodwill for Impairment,” which amends the guidance in ASC 350 on testing goodwill for impairment. Under the revised guidance, we have the option of performing a qualitative assessment before calculating the fair value of our reporting units. If it is determined in the qualitative assessment that it is more likely than not that the fair value of the reporting unit is less than its carrying amount, we would proceed to the two-step goodwill impairment test. Otherwise, no further impairment testing would be required. ASU 2011-08 is effective for us on January 1, 2012. The adoption of ASU 2011-08 is effective for both interim and annual goodwill tests and will give us the option to perform the qualitative assessment to determine the need for a two-step goodwill impairment test. The impact of the adoption is not expected to be significant to our or the Utilities’ financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
DISCLOSURES ABOUT OFFSETTING ASSETS AND LIABILITIES
In December 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-11, “Disclosures About Offsetting Assets and Liabilities,” which adds new disclosures to help financial statement users better understand the impact of offsetting arrangements on our balance sheet. The adoption of ASU 2011-11 will add disclosures showing both gross and net information about instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the balance sheet and instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting arrangement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for us on January 1, 2013, and will be retroactively applied.
We have completed our business strategy of divesting nonregulated businesses to reduce our business risk and focus on core operations of the Utilities. Included in discontinued operations, net of tax are amounts related to adjustments of our prior sales of diversified businesses. These adjustments are generally due to guarantees and indemnifications provided for certain legal, tax and environmental matters. See Note 22C for further discussion of our guarantees. The ultimate resolution of these matters could result in additional adjustments in future periods. The information below presents the impacts of the divestitures on net income attributable to controlling interests.
A.TERMINALS OPERATIONS AND SYNTHETIC FUELS BUSINESSES
Prior to 2008, we had substantial operations associated with the production of coal-based solid synthetic fuels as defined under Section 29 (Section 29) of the Code and as redesignated effective 2006 as Section 45K of the Code (Section 45K and, collectively, Section 29/45K). The production and sale of these products qualified for federal income tax credits so long as certain requirements were satisfied. As a result of the expiration of the tax credit program, all of our synthetic fuels businesses were abandoned and all operations ceased as of December 31, 2007. During 2008, we also sold coal terminals and docks in West Virginia and Kentucky. The accompanying consolidated financial statements reflect the operations of our terminal operations and synthetic fuels businesses as discontinued operations.
On October 21, 2009, a jury delivered a verdict in a lawsuit against Progress Energy and a number of our subsidiaries and affiliates. As a result, during the year ended December 31, 2009, we recorded an after-tax charge of $74 million to discontinued operations. See Note 22D for further discussion.
143

Results of coal terminals and docks and synthetic fuels businesses discontinued operations for the years ended December 31 were as follows:
     
(in millions) 2011  2010  2009 
Loss before income taxes and noncontrolling interest $(8) $(11) $(125)
Income tax benefit, including tax credits  3   5   47 
Loss from discontinued operations attributable to controlling interests $(5) $(6) $(78)
             
The total income tax benefit presented in the preceding table includes deferred income tax benefit (expense) of $28 million, $124 million and $(86) million for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively, related to synthetic fuels tax credits.
B.OTHER DIVERSIFIED BUSINESSES
Also included in discontinued operations are amounts related to adjustments of our prior sales of other diversified businesses. During the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, gains and losses related to post-closing adjustments and pre-divestiture contingencies of other diversified businesses were not material to our results of operations.
The balances of electric utility plant in service at December 31 are listed below, with a range of depreciable lives (in years) for each:
                      
  Depreciable  Progress Energy  PEC  PEF 
(in millions) Lives  2011  2010  2011  2010  2011  2010 
Production plant  3-41  $16,728  $16,042  $9,978  $9,354  $6,585  $6,523 
Transmission plant  7-75   3,853   3,530   1,825   1,626   2,028   1,904 
Distribution plant  13-67   9,053   8,715   4,887   4,687   4,166   4,028 
General plant and other  5-35   1,431   1,421   749   721   682   700 
Utility plant in service     $31,065  $29,708  $17,439  $16,388  $13,461  $13,155 

Generally, electric utility plant at PEC and PEF, other than nuclear fuel, is pledged as collateral for the first mortgage bonds of PEC and PEF, respectively (See Note 12). In the 2012 settlement agreement, PEF agreed to remove PEF’s Crystal River Unit No. 3 Nuclear Plant (CR3) from rate base and will reclassify CR3 to a regulatory asset and suspend depreciation expense (See Note 8C).
As discussed in Note 8B, PEC intends to retire no later than December 31, 2013, all of its coal-fired generating facilities in North Carolina that do not have scrubbers. These facilities total approximately 1,500 megawatts (MW) at four sites. On October 1, 2011, PEC retired the Weatherspoon coal-fired generating units. At December 31, 2011, the $15 million net carrying value of this retired facility is included in regulatory assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
AFUDC is charged to the cost of the plant for certain projects in accordance with the regulatory provisions for each jurisdiction. Regulatory authorities consider AFUDC an appropriate charge for inclusion in the rates charged to customers by the Utilities over the service life of the property. The composite AFUDC rate for PEC’s electric utility plant was 8.7 percent in 2011 and 9.2 percent in 2010 and 2009. The composite AFUDC rate for PEF’s electric utility plant was 7.4 percent, effective beginning April 1, 2010, based on its authorized return on equity (ROE) approved in the 2010 settlement agreement. This rate was unchanged by the 2012 settlement agreement (See Note 8C). Prior to April 1, 2010, the composite AFUDC rate for PEF’s electric utility plant was 8.8 percent.
144

Our depreciation provisions on utility plant and amortization of other utility plant, net, as a percent of average depreciable property other than nuclear fuel, were 2.3 percent, 2.0 percent and 2.4 percent in 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. The depreciation provisions related to utility plant and amortization of other utility plant, net were $675 million, $635 million and $626 million in 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. In addition to utility plant depreciation provisions, depreciation, amortization and accretion expense also includes decommissioning cost provisions, ARO accretion, cost of removal provisions (See Note 5C) and regulatory approved expenses (See Notes 8 and 21).
PEC’s depreciation provisions on utility plant and amortization of other utility plant, net, as a percent of average depreciable property other than nuclear fuel, were 2.1 percent for 2011, 2010 and 2009. The depreciation provisions related to utility plant and amortization of other utility plant, net were $360 million, $338 million and $328 million in 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. In addition to utility plant depreciation provisions, depreciation, amortization and accretion expense also includes decommissioning cost provisions, ARO accretion, cost of removal provisions (See Note 5C) and regulatory approved expenses (See Note 8B).
PEF’s depreciation provisions on utility plant, as a percent of average depreciable property other than nuclear fuel, were 2.4 percent in 2011, 1.9 percent in 2010 and 2.7 percent in 2009. The depreciation provisions related to utility plant were $315 million, $297 million and $299 million in 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. In addition to utility plant depreciation provisions, depreciation, amortization and accretion expense also includes decommissioning cost provisions, ARO accretion, cost of removal provisions (See Note 5C) and regulatory approved expenses (See Note 8C).
During 2010, PEF updated the depreciation rates approved by the FPSC in the 2009 base rate case. The rate change was effective January 1, 2010, and resulted in a decrease in depreciation expense of $43 million for 2010. Additionally, in December 2010, PEF filed the FPSC-approved depreciation rates with the FERC for use in its formula transmission rate for its OATT. The FERC filing requested depreciation rates be applied retroactively to January 1, 2010, whereby, if approved, the depreciation rate changes would result in a reduction to the depreciation expense charged to PEF’s OATT customers, beginning June 1, 2011. The FERC on July 15, 2011, rejected the proposed adjustments to depreciation reserves.
Nuclear fuel, net of amortization at December 31, 2011 and 2010, was $767 million and $674 million, respectively, for Progress Energy; $540 million and $480 million, respectively, for PEC and $227 million and $194 million, respectively, for PEF. The amount not yet in service at December 31, 2011 and 2010, was $575 million and $367 million, respectively, for Progress Energy; $322 million and $199 million, respectively, for PEC and $253 million and $168 million, respectively, for PEF. Amortization of nuclear fuel costs, including disposal costs associated with obligations to the DOE and costs associated with obligations to the DOE for the decommissioning and decontamination of enrichment facilities, was $160 million, $132 million and $159 million for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. This amortization expense is included in fuel used in electric generation in the Consolidated Statements of Income. PEC’s amortization of nuclear fuel costs for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 was $160 million, $132 million and $134 million, respectively. PEF’s amortization of nuclear fuel costs for the year ended December 31, 2009, was $25 million. PEF did not have any amortization of nuclear fuel costs for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010, due to the CR3 outage (See Note 8C).
PEF’s construction work in progress related to certain nuclear projects receives regulatory treatment. At December 31, 2011, PEF had $555 million of accelerated recovery of construction work in progress, of which $177 million was a component of a nuclear cost-recovery clause regulatory asset. At December 31, 2010, PEF had $519 million of accelerated recovery of construction work in progress, of which $237 million was a component of a nuclear cost-recovery clause regulatory asset. See Note 8C for further discussion of PEF’s nuclear cost recovery.
B.JOINT OWNERSHIP OF GENERATING FACILITIES
PEC and PEF hold ownership interests in certain jointly owned generating facilities. Each is entitled to shares of the generating capability and output of each unit equal to their respective ownership interests. Each also pays its ownership share of additional construction costs, fuel inventory purchases and operating expenses, except in certain instances where agreements have been executed to limit certain joint owners’ maximum exposure to the additional

145


costs. Each of the Utilities' share of operating costs of the jointly owned generating facilities is included within the corresponding line in the Statements of Income. The co-owner of Intercession City Unit P11 has exclusive rights to the output of the unit during the months of June through September. PEF has that right for the remainder of the year.

PEC’s and PEF’s ownership interests in the jointly owned generating facilities are listed below with related information at December 31:
   Company        Construction 
(in millions)  Ownership  Plant  Accumulated  Work in 
SubsidiaryFacility Interest  Investment  Depreciation  Progress 
2011              
PECMayo  83.83% $807  $296  $13 
PECHarris  83.83%  3,254   1,635   66 
PECBrunswick  81.67%  1,739   951   52 
PECRoxboro Unit 4  87.06%  733   470   12 
PEFCrystal River Unit 3  91.78%  909   498   803 
PEFIntercession City Unit P11  66.67%  23   12   - 
                  
2010                  
PECMayo  83.83% $798  $294  $8 
PECHarris  83.83%  3,255   1,604   16 
PECBrunswick  81.67%  1,702   939   38 
PECRoxboro Unit 4  87.06%  706   457   22 
PEFCrystal River Unit 3  91.78%  901   497   648 
PEFIntercession City Unit P11  66.67%  23   11   - 
                  
In the tables above, plant investment and accumulated depreciation are not reduced by the regulatory disallowances related to the Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant (Harris), which are not applicable to the joint owner’s ownership interest in Harris.
In the tables above, construction work in progress for CR3 is not reduced by the accelerated recovery of qualifying project costs under the FPSC nuclear cost-recovery rule (see Note 8C).
C.ASSET RETIREMENT OBLIGATIONS
At December 31, 2011 and 2010, our asset retirement costs included in utility plant related to nuclear decommissioning of irradiated plant, net of accumulated depreciation totaled $87 million and $90 million, respectively. PEC had immaterial asset retirement costs included in utility plant related to nuclear decommissioning of irradiated plant at December 31, 2011 and 2010. Primarily due to the impact of updated escalation factors in 2010, as discussed below, at December 31, 2011 and 2010, PEF had no asset retirement costs included in utility plant related to nuclear decommissioning of irradiated plant. At December 31, 2011 and 2010, additional PEF-related asset retirement costs, net of accumulated depreciation, of $87 million and $90 million, respectively, were recorded at Progress Energy as purchase accounting adjustments recognized when we purchased Florida Progress Corporation (Florida Progress) in 2000.
The fair value of funds set aside in the Utilities’ nuclear decommissioning trust (NDT) funds for the nuclear decommissioning liability totaled $1.647 billion and $1.571 billion at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively (See Notes 13 and 14). The fair value of funds set aside in the NDT funds for the nuclear decommissioning liability totaled $1.088 billion and $1.017 billion at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively, for PEC and $559 million and $554 million, respectively, for PEF (See Notes 13 and 14). Net NDT unrealized gains are included in regulatory liabilities (See Note 8A).
Progress Energy’s and PEC’s nuclear decommissioning cost provisions, which are included in depreciation and amortization expense, were $31 million each in 2011, 2010 and 2009. As discussed below, PEF has suspended its
146

accrual for nuclear decommissioning. Management believes that nuclear decommissioning costs that have been and will be recovered through rates by PEC and PEF will be sufficient to provide for the costs of decommissioning.
We recognized a benefit of $98 million in 2011 and expenses of $87 million and $141 million in 2010 and 2009, respectively, for the disposal or removal of utility assets that do not meet the definition of AROs, which are included in depreciation, amortization and accretion expense. PEC’s related expenses were $125 million, $122 million and $106 million in 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. Due to a $250 million and $60 million cost of removal credit in 2011 and 2010, respectively, as allowed by the 2010 settlement agreement approved by the FPSC (See Note 8C), PEF recognized a benefit of $223 million and $35 million in 2011 and 2010, respectively. PEF’s related expenses were $35 million in 2009.
The Utilities recognize removal, nonirradiated decommissioning and dismantlement of fossil generation plant costs in regulatory liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets (See Note 8A). At December 31, such costs consisted of:
                   
  Progress Energy  PEC  PEF 
(in millions) 2011  2010  2011  2010  2011  2010 
Removal costs $1,302  $1,503  $1,065  $1,000  $237  $503 
Nonirradiated decommissioning costs  223   233   185   172   38   61 
Dismantlement costs  125   121   -   -   125   121 
Non-ARO cost of removal $1,650  $1,857  $1,250  $1,172  $400  $685 
                         
The NCUC requires that PEC update its cost estimate for nuclear decommissioning every five years. PEC received a new site-specific estimate of decommissioning costs for Robinson Nuclear Plant (Robinson) Unit No. 2, Brunswick Nuclear Plant (Brunswick) Units No. 1 and No. 2, and Harris, in December 2009, which was filed with the NCUC on March 16, 2010. PEC’s estimate is based on prompt dismantlement decommissioning, which reflects the cost of removal of all radioactive and other structures currently at the site, with such removal occurring after operating license expiration. These decommissioning cost estimates also include interim spent fuel storage costs associated with maintaining spent nuclear fuel on site until such time that it can be transferred to a DOE facility (See Note 22D). These estimates, in 2009 dollars, were $687 million for Unit No. 2 at Robinson, $591 million for Brunswick Unit No. 1, $585 million for Brunswick Unit No. 2 and $1.126 billion for Harris. The estimates are subject to change based on a variety of factors including, but not limited to, cost escalation, changes in technology applicable to nuclear decommissioning and changes in federal, state or local regulations. The cost estimates exclude the portion attributable to North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency (Power Agency), which holds an undivided ownership interest in Brunswick and Harris. See Note 8D for information about the NRC operating licenses held by PEC.
The FPSC requires that PEF update its cost estimate for nuclear decommissioning every five years. PEF received a new site-specific estimate of decommissioning costs for CR3 in October 2008, which PEF filed with the FPSC in 2009 as part of PEF’s base rate filing. However, the FPSC deferred review of PEF’s nuclear decommissioning study from the rate case to be addressed in 2010 in order for FPSC staff to assess PEF’s study in combination with other utilities anticipated to submit nuclear decommissioning studies in 2010. PEF was not required to prepare a new site-specific nuclear decommissioning study in 2010; however, PEF was required to update the 2008 study with the most currently available escalation rates in 2010, which was filed with the FPSC in December 2010. We expect the FPSC to issue an order in 2012. PEF’s estimate is based on prompt dismantlement decommissioning and includes interim spent fuel storage costs associated with maintaining spent nuclear fuel on site until such time that it can be transferred to a DOE facility (See Note 22D). The estimate, in 2008 dollars, is $751 million and is subject to change based on a variety of factors including, but not limited to, cost escalation, changes in technology applicable to nuclear decommissioning and changes in federal, state or local regulations. The cost estimate excludes the portion attributable to other co-owners of CR3. See Note 8D for information about the NRC operating license held by PEF for CR3. Based on the 2008 estimate, assumed operating license renewal and updated escalation factors in 2010, PEF decreased its asset retirement cost to zero and its ARO liability by approximately $37 million in 2010. Retail accruals on PEF’s reserves for nuclear decommissioning were previously suspended under the terms of previous base rate settlement agreements. PEF expects to continue this suspension based on its 2010 nuclear decommissioning filing. No nuclear decommissioning reserve accrual is recorded at PEF following a FERC accounting order issued in November 2006.
147

The FPSC requires that PEF update its cost estimate for fossil plant dismantlement every four years. PEF received an updated fossil dismantlement study estimate in 2008, which PEF filed with the FPSC in 2009 as part of PEF’s base rate filing. As a result of the base rate case, the FPSC approved an annual fossil dismantlement accrual of $4 million. PEF’s reserve for fossil plant dismantlement was approximately $148 million and $144 million at December 31, 2011 and 2010, including amounts in the ARO liability for asbestos abatement, discussed below.
PEC and PEF have recognized ARO liabilities related to asbestos abatement costs. The ARO liabilities related to asbestos abatement costs were $23 million and $26 million at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively, at PEC and $29 million and $27 million at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively, at PEF.
Additionally, PEC and PEF have recognized ARO liabilities related to landfill capping costs. The ARO liabilities related to landfill capping costs were $6 million and $3 million at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively, at PEC and $7 million and $6 million at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively, at PEF.
We have identified but not recognized AROs related to electric transmission and distribution and telecommunications assets as the result of easements over property not owned by us. These easements are generally perpetual and require retirement action only upon abandonment or cessation of use of the property for the specified purpose. The ARO is not estimable for such easements, as we intend to utilize these properties indefinitely. In the event we decide to abandon or cease the use of a particular easement, an ARO would be recorded at that time.
The following table presents the changes to the AROs during the years ended December 31. Revisions to prior estimates of the PEC and PEF regulated ARO are primarily related to the updated cost estimates for nuclear decommissioning and asbestos described above.
          
(in millions) 
Progress
Energy
  PEC  PEF 
Asset retirement obligations at January 1, 2010 $1,170  $801  $369 
Additions  4   4   - 
Accretion expense  65   46   19 
Revisions to prior estimates  (39)  (2)  (37)
Asset retirement obligations at December 31, 2010  1,200   849   351 
Accretion expense  67   49   18 
Revisions to prior estimates  (2)  (2)  - 
Asset retirement obligations at December 31, 2011 $1,265  $896  $369 
D.INSURANCE
The Utilities are members of Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (NEIL), which provides primary and excess insurance coverage against property damage to members’ nuclear generating facilities. Under the primary program, each company is insured for $500 million at each of its respective nuclear plants. In addition to primary coverage, NEIL also provides decontamination, premature decommissioning and excess property insurance with limits of $1.750 billion on each nuclear plant.
Insurance coverage against incremental costs of replacement power resulting from prolonged accidental outages at nuclear generating units is also provided through membership in NEIL. Both PEC and PEF are insured under this program, following a 12-week deductible period, for 52 weeks in the amounts ranging from $3.5 million to $4.5 million per week. Additional weeks of coverage ranging from 71 weeks to 110 weeks are provided at 80 percent of the above weekly amounts. For the current policy period, the companies are subject to retrospective premium assessments of up to approximately $29 million with respect to the primary coverage, $40 million with respect to the decontamination, decommissioning and excess property coverage, and $25 million for the incremental replacement power costs coverage, in the event covered losses at insured facilities exceed premiums, reserves, reinsurance and other NEIL resources. Pursuant to regulations of the NRC, each company’s property damage insurance policies provide that all proceeds from such insurance be applied, first, to place the plant in a safe and stable condition after an accident and, second, to decontaminate the plant, before any proceeds can be used for decommissioning, plant
148

repair or restoration. Each company is responsible to the extent losses may exceed limits of the coverage described above. At December 31, 2011, PEF has an outstanding claim with NEIL for CR3 (See Notes 6 and 8C).
Both of the Utilities are insured against public liability for a nuclear incident up to $12.595 billion per occurrence. Under the current provisions of the Price Anderson Act, which limits liability for accidents at nuclear power plants, each company, as an owner of nuclear units, can be assessed for a portion of any third-party liability claims arising from an accident at any commercial nuclear power plant in the United States. In the event that public liability claims from each insured nuclear incident exceed the primary level of coverage provided by American Nuclear Insurers, each company would be subject to pro rata assessments of up to $117.5 million for each reactor owned for each incident. Payment of such assessments would be made over time as necessary to limit the payment in any one year to no more than $17.5 million per reactor owned per incident. Both the maximum assessment per reactor and the maximum yearly assessment are adjusted for inflation at least every five years. The next scheduled adjustment is due on or before August 29, 2013.
Under the NEIL policies, if there were multiple terrorism losses within one year, NEIL would make available one industry aggregate limit of $3.240 billion for noncertified acts, along with any amounts it recovers from reinsurance, government indemnity or other sources up to the limits for each claimant. If terrorism losses occurred beyond the one-year period, a new set of limits and resources would apply.
The Utilities self-insure their transmission and distribution lines against loss due to storm damage and other natural disasters. PEF maintains a storm damage reserve and has a regulatory mechanism to recover the costs of named storms on an expedited basis (See Note 8C).
For loss or damage to non-nuclear properties, excluding self-insured transmission and distribution lines, the Utilities are insured under an all-risk property insurance program with a total limit of $600 million per loss. The basic deductible is $2.5 million per loss, and there is no outage or replacement power coverage under this program.

Income taxes receivable and interest income receivables are not included in receivables. These amounts are included in prepayments and other current assets or shown separately on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. At December 31 receivables were comprised of:
             
  Progress Energy  PEC  PEF 
(in millions) 2011  2010  2011  2010  2011  2010 
Trade accounts receivable $520  $651  $276  $346  $244  $303 
Unbilled accounts receivable  157   223   102   136   55   87 
Other receivables  168   75   123   47   20   12 
NEIL receivable (Note 8C)  71   119   -   -   71   119 
Allowance for doubtful receivables  (27)  (35)  (9)  (10)  (18)  (25)
Total receivables, net $889  $1,033  $492  $519  $372  $496 
                         
Other receivables for Progress Energy and PEC above include $92 million at December 31, 2011, related to the award from the DOE for asserted damages associated with spent nuclear fuel (See Note 22D).
149

At December 31 inventory was comprised of:
             
  Progress Energy  PEC  PEF 
(in millions) 2011  2010  2011  2010  2011  2010 
Fuel for production $681  $542  $323  $192  $358  $350 
Materials and supplies  747   676   446   395   301   281 
Emission allowances  4   8   1   3   3   5 
Other  6   -   5   -   1   - 
Total inventory $1,438  $1,226  $775  $590  $663  $636 
                         
Emission allowances above exclude long-term emission allowances included in other assets and deferred debits on the Consolidated Balance Sheets for Progress Energy, PEC and PEF of $28 million, $4 million and $24 million, respectively, at December 31, 2011. Long-term emission allowances for Progress Energy, PEC and PEF were $33 million, $5 million and $28 million, respectively, at December 31, 2010.
8.REGULATORY MATTERS
On January 8, 2011, Progress Energy and Duke Energy entered into the Merger Agreement. See Note 2 for regulatory information related to the Merger with Duke Energy.
A. REGULATORY ASSETS AND LIABILITIES
As regulated entities, the Utilities are subject to the provisions of GAAP for regulated operations. Accordingly, the Utilities record certain assets and liabilities resulting from the effects of the ratemaking process that would not be recorded under GAAP for nonregulated entities. Regulatory assets may be recorded for certain employee benefit costs of unregulated affiliates that will be allocated to the Utilities and recovered through rates of the Utilities. Our and the Utilities’ ability to continue to meet the criteria for application of GAAP for regulated operations could be affected in the future by competitive forces and restructuring in the electric utility industry. In the event that GAAP for regulated operations no longer applies to a separable portion of our operations, related regulatory assets and liabilities would be eliminated unless an appropriate regulatory recovery mechanism was provided. Additionally, such an event would require the Utilities to determine if any impairment to other assets, including utility plant, exists and write down impaired assets to their fair values.
Except for portions of deferred fuel costs and loss on reacquired debt, all regulatory assets earn a return or the cash has not yet been expended, in which case the assets are offset by liabilities that do not incur a carrying cost. We expect to fully recover our regulatory assets and refund our regulatory liabilities through customer rates under current regulatory practice.

150

At December 31 the balances of regulatory assets (liabilities) were as follows:
 PROGRESS ENERGY
   
 (in millions)
 2011  2010 
 Deferred fuel costs – current (Notes 8B and 8C)
 $275  $169 
 Nuclear deferral (Note 8C)
  -   7 
Total current regulatory assets  275   176 
 Nuclear deferral (Note 8C)(a)
  117   178 
 Deferred impact of ARO (Note 5C)(b)
  137   122 
 Income taxes recoverable through future rates(c)
  352   302 
 Loss on reacquired debt(d)
  29   31 
 Postretirement benefits (Note 17)(e)
  1,506   1,105 
 Derivative mark-to-market adjustment (Note 18A)(f)
  708   505 
 DSM/Energy-efficiency deferral (Note 8B)(g)
  92   57 
 Other
  84   74 
Total long-term regulatory assets  3,025   2,374 
 Environmental (Note 8C)
  (7)  (45)
 Energy conservation (Note 8C)
  (19)  (11)
 Nuclear deferral (Note 8C)
  (15)  - 
 Other current regulatory liabilities
  (7)  (3)
Total current regulatory liabilities  (48)  (59)
 Amount to be refunded to customers (Note 8C)(h)
  (288)  - 
 Non-ARO cost of removal (Note 5C)(b)
  (1,650)  (1,857)
 Deferred impact of ARO (Note 5C)(b)
  (146)  (143)
 Net nuclear decommissioning trust unrealized gains (Note 5C)(i)
  (412)  (421)
 Storm reserve (Note 8C)(j)
  (132)  (136)
 Other
  (72)  (78)
Total long-term regulatory liabilities  (2,700)  (2,635)
Net regulatory assets (liabilities) $552  $(144)
 PEC
   
 (in millions)
 2011  2010 
 Deferred fuel costs – current (Note 8B)
 $31  $71 
 Deferred impact of ARO (Note 5C)(b)
  124   112 
 Income taxes recoverable through future rates(c)
  140   103 
 Loss on reacquired debt(d)
  12   13 
 Postretirement benefits (Note 17)(e)
  691   545 
 Derivative mark-to-market adjustment (Note 18A)(f)
  200   121 
 DSM/Energy-efficiency deferral (Note 8B)(g)
  92   57 
 Other
  51   36 
Total long-term regulatory assets  1,310   987 
 Deferred fuel costs – current (Note 8B)
  (2)  - 
 Non-ARO cost of removal (Note 5C)(b)
  (1,250)  (1,172)
 Net nuclear decommissioning trust unrealized gains (Note 5C)(i)
  (266)  (267)
 Other
  (27)  (22)
Total long-term regulatory liabilities  (1,543)  (1,461)
Net regulatory liabilities $(204) $(403)

151



 PEF
   
 (in millions)
 2011  2010 
 Deferred fuel costs – current (Note 8C)
 $244  $98 
 Nuclear deferral (Note 8C)
  -   7 
Total current regulatory assets  244   105 
 Nuclear deferral (Note 8C)(a)
  117   178 
 Income taxes recoverable through future rates(c)
  212   199 
 Loss on reacquired debt(d)
  17   18 
 Postretirement benefits (Note 17)(e)
  702   560 
 Derivative mark-to-market adjustment (Note 18A)(f)
  508   384 
 Other
  46   48 
Total long-term regulatory assets  1,602   1,387 
 Environmental (Note 8C)
  (7)  (45)
 Energy conservation (Note 8C)
  (19)  (11)
 Nuclear deferral (Note 8C)
  (15)  - 
 Other current regulatory liabilities
  (5)  (3)
Total current regulatory liabilities  (46)  (59)
 Amount to be refunded to customers (Note 8C)(h)
  (288) ��- 
 Non-ARO cost of removal (Note 5C)(b)
  (400)  (685)
 Deferred impact of ARO (Note 5C)(b)
  (45)  (47)
 Net nuclear decommissioning trust unrealized gains (Note 5C)(i)
  (146)  (154)
 Storm reserve (Note 8C)(j)
  (132)  (136)
 Other
  (60)  (62)
Total long-term regulatory liabilities  (1,071)  (1,084)
Net regulatory assets $729  $349 
 The recovery and amortization periods for these regulatory assets and (liabilities) at December 31, 2011, are as follows:
(a)Recorded and recovered or amortized as approved by the appropriate state utility commission over a period not exceeding five years.
(b)Asset retirement and removal liabilities are recorded over the related property lives, which may range up to 65 years, and will be settled and adjusted following completion of the related activities.
(c)Income taxes recoverable through future rates are recovered over the related property lives, which may range up to 65 years.
(d)Recovered over either the remaining life of the original issue or, if refinanced, over the life of the new issue, which may range up to 30 years.
(e)Recovered and amortized over the remaining service period of employees. In accordance with a 2009 FPSC order, PEF's 2009 deferred pension expense of $34 million will be amortized to the extent that annual pension expense is less than the $27 million allowance provided for in base rates (See Note 17).
(f)Related to derivative unrealized gains and losses that are recorded as a regulatory liability or asset, respectively, until the contracts are settled. After contract settlement and consumption of the related fuel, the realized gains or losses are passed through the fuel cost-recovery clause.
(g)Recorded and recovered or amortized as approved by the appropriate state utility commission over a period not exceeding 10 years.
(h)Recorded as a result of the 2012 settlement agreement to be refunded to customers through the fuel clause over four years beginning in 2013 (see Note 8C).
(i)Related to unrealized gains and losses on NDT funds that are recorded as a regulatory asset or liability, respectively, until the funds are used to decommission a nuclear plant.
(j)Utilized as storm restoration expenses are incurred.
152

B.PEC RETAIL RATE MATTERS
BASE RATES
PEC’s base rates are subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the NCUC and SCPSC. In PEC’s most recent base rate cases in 1988, the NCUC and the SCPSC each authorized a ROE of 12.75 percent.
COST RECOVERY FILINGS
On November 14, 2011, the NCUC approved PEC’s settlement agreement for an $85 million increase in the fuel rate charged to its North Carolina retail ratepayers, driven by rising fuel prices. The settlement agreement updated certain costs from PEC’s original filing and included the impact of a $24 million disallowance of replacement power costs resulting from prior-year performance of PEC’s nuclear plants. The increase was effective December 1, 2011, and increased residential electric bills by $2.75 per 1,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) for fuel cost recovery. Also on November 14, 2011, the NCUC approved PEC’s request for a $24 million increase in the demand-side management (DSM) and EE rate charged to its North Carolina ratepayers. The increase was effective December 1, 2011, and increased the residential electric bills by $1.08 per 1,000 kWh for DSM and EE cost recovery. On November 10, 2011, the NCUC approved PEC’s request for a $9 million increase for North Carolina Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard (NC REPS). The increase was effective December 1, 2011, and decreased the residential electric bills by $0.02 per 1,000 kWh. The residential NC REPS rate decreased while the total amount to be recovered increased due to the allocation of the NC REPS recovery between customer classes. The net impact of the settlement agreement and filings results in an average increase in residential electric bills of 3.7 percent. At December 31, 2011, PEC’s North Carolina deferred fuel and DSM/EE balances were $31 million and $78 million, respectively.
On June 29, 2011, the SCPSC approved a $22 million increase in the fuel rate charged to its South Carolina ratepayers, driven by rising fuel prices. The increase was effective July 1, 2011, and increased residential electric bills by $3.45 per 1,000 kWh. Also on June 29, 2011, the SCPSC approved a $4 million increase in the DSM and EE rate. The increase was effective July 1, 2011, and increased residential electric bills by $1.25 per 1,000 kWh. The net impact of the two filings resulted in an average increase in residential electric bills of 4.7 percent. At December 31, 2011, PEC’s South Carolina deferred fuel and DSM/EE balances were $(2) million and $14 million, respectively.
OTHER MATTERS
Construction of Generating Facilities
On June 1, 2011, a newly constructed 600-MW combined cycle natural gas-fueled unit at the Smith Energy Complex was placed in service.
On October 22, 2009, the NCUC issued its order granting PEC a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct an approximately 950-MW combined cycle natural gas-fueled electric generating facility at a site in Wayne County, N.C. PEC projects that the generating facility will be in service by January 2013.
On June 9, 2010, the NCUC issued its order granting PEC a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct an approximately 620-MW combined cycle natural gas-fueled electric generating facility at a site in New Hanover County, N.C., to replace the existing coal-fired generation at this site. PEC projects that the generating facility will be in service in December 2013.
Planned Retirements of Generating Facilities
PEC filed a plan with the NCUC and the SCPSC to retire all of its coal-fired generating facilities in North Carolina that do not have scrubbers. These facilities total approximately 1,500 MW at four sites. On October 1, 2011, PEC retired the Weatherspoon coal-fired generating units. PEC expects to retire the remaining coal-fired facilities by the end of 2013.
153

The net carrying value of the three remaining facilities at December 31, 2011, of $163 million is included in other utility plant, net on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Consistent with ratemaking treatment, PEC will continue to depreciate each plant using the current depreciation lives and rates on file with the NCUC and the SCPSC until the earlier of the plant’s retirement or PEC’s completion and filing of a new depreciation study on or before March 31, 2013. The net carrying value of the retired facility at December 31, 2011, of $15 million is included in regulatory assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. PEC expects to include the four facilities’ remaining net carrying value in rate base after retirement. The final recovery periods may change in connection with the regulators’ determination of the recovery of the remaining net carrying value.
C.PEF RETAIL RATE MATTERS
CR3 OUTAGE
In September 2009, CR3 began an outage for normal refueling and maintenance as well as an uprate project to increase its generating capability and to replace two steam generators. During preparations to replace the steam generators, workers discovered a delamination (or separation) within the concrete at the periphery of the containment building, which resulted in an extension of the outage. After analysis, PEF determined that the concrete delamination at CR3 was caused by redistribution of stresses in the containment wall that occurred when PEF created an opening to accommodate the replacement of the unit’s steam generators. In March 2011, the work to return the plant to service was suspended after monitoring equipment at the repair site identified a new delamination that occurred in a different section of the outer wall after the repair work was completed and during the late stages of retensioning the containment building. CR3 has remained out of service while PEF conducted an engineering analysis and review of the new delamination and evaluated repair options. Subsequent to March 2011, monitoring equipment has detected additional changes and further damage in the partially tensioned containment building and additional cracking or delaminations could occur during the repair process.
PEF analyzed multiple repair options as well as early decommissioning and believes, based on the information and analyses conducted to date, that repairing the unit is the best option. PEF engaged outside engineering consultants to perform the analysis of possible repair options for the containment building. The consultants analyzed 22 potential repair options and ultimately narrowed those to four. PEF, along with other independent consultants, reviewed the four options for technical issues, constructability, and licensing feasibility as well as cost.
Based on that initial analysis, PEF selected the best repair option, which would entail systematically removing and replacing concrete in substantial portions of the containment structure walls. The planned option does not include the area where concrete was replaced during the initial repair. The preliminary cost estimate for this repair as filed with the FPSC on June 27, 2011, is between $900 million and $1.3 billion. Engineering design of the repair is under way. PEF will update the current estimate as this work is completed.
PEF is moving forward systematically and will perform additional detailed engineering analyses and designs, which could affect any repair plan. This process will lead to more certainty for the cost and schedule of the repair. PEF will continue to refine and assess the plan, and the prudence of continuing to pursue it, based on new developments and analyses as the process moves forward. Under this repair plan, PEF estimates that CR3 will return to service in 2014. The decision related to repairing or decommissioning CR3 is complex and subject to a number of unknown factors, including but not limited to, the cost of repair and the likelihood of obtaining NRC approval to restart CR3 after repair. A number of factors could affect the repair plan, the return-to-service date and costs, including regulatory reviews, final engineering designs, contract negotiations, the ultimate work scope completion, testing, weather, the impact of new information discovered during additional testing and analysis and other developments.
PEF maintains insurance for property damage and incremental costs of replacement power resulting from prolonged accidental outages through NEIL as discussed in Note 5D. NEIL has confirmed that the CR3 initial delamination is a covered accident but has not yet made a determination as to coverage for the second delamination. Following a 12-week deductible period, the NEIL program provided reimbursement for replacement power costs for 52 weeks at $4.5 million per week, through April 9, 2011. An additional 71 weeks of coverage, which runs through August 2012, is provided at $3.6 million per week. Accordingly, the NEIL program provides replacement power coverage of up to $490 million per event. Actual replacement power costs have exceeded the insurance coverage through December 31, 2011. PEF anticipates that future replacement power costs will continue to exceed the insurance
154

coverage. PEF also maintains insurance coverage through NEIL’s accidental property damage program, which provides insurance coverage up to $2.25 billion with a $10 million deductible per claim.
PEF is continuing to work with NEIL for recovery of applicable repair costs and associated replacement power costs. PEF has not yet received a definitive determination from NEIL about the insurance coverage related to the second delamination. In addition, no replacement power reimbursements were received from NEIL in the second half of 2011. These considerations led us to conclude that at December 31, 2011, it was not probable that NEIL will voluntarily pay the full coverage amounts we believe they owe under the applicable insurance policies. Given the circumstances, accounting standards require full recovery to be probable to recognize an insurance receivable. Therefore, PEF has suspended recording any further insurance receivables from NEIL related to the second delamination and removed the associated $222 million NEIL receivable. PEF recorded a corresponding $154 million addition to its deferred fuel regulatory asset and a $68 million addition to construction work in progress. Negotiations continue with NEIL regarding coverage associated with the second delamination, and PEF continues to believe that all applicable costs associated with bringing CR3 back into service are covered under all insurance policies.
The following table summarizes the CR3 replacement power and repair costs and recovery through December 31, 2011:
 (in millions)
 
Replacement
power costs
  Repair costs 
 Spent to date
 $478  $258 
 NEIL proceeds received
  (162)  (136)
 Insurance receivable at December 31, 2011, net
  (55)  (3)
Balance for recovery(a)
 $261  $119 
(a)See "2012 Settlement Agreement" and "Fuel Cost Recovery" below for discussion of PEF's ability to recover prudently incurred fuel and purchase power costs and CR3 repair costs.
PEF believes the actions taken and costs incurred in response to the CR3 delamination have been prudent and, accordingly, considers replacement power and capital costs not recoverable through insurance to be recoverable through its fuel cost-recovery clause or base rates. Additional replacement power costs and repair and maintenance costs incurred until CR3 is returned to service could be material. Additionally, we cannot be assured that CR3 can be repaired and brought back to service until full engineering and other analyses are completed.
On October 25, 2010, the FPSC approved PEF’s motion to establish a separate spin-off docket to review the prudence and costs related to the outage and replacement fuel and power costs associated with the CR3 extended outage. The FPSC subsequently issued an order dividing the docket into three phases. The first phase will include a prudence review of the events and decisions of PEF leading up to the first delamination event. The second phase will be a consideration of the prudence of PEF’s decision to repair or decommission CR3. The third phase of this docket will include the decisions and events subsequent to the first delamination leading up to the March 14, 2011 delamination event and the subsequent repair of the containment building. See “2012 Settlement Agreement CR3” below for a discussion of the resolution of this docket.
2012 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

On February 22, 2012, the FPSC approved a comprehensive settlement agreement between PEF, the Florida Office of Public Counsel and other consumer advocates. The 2012 settlement agreement will continue through the last billing cycle of December 2016. The agreement addresses three principal matters: PEF’s proposed Levy Nuclear Power Plant (Levy) Nuclear Project cost recovery, the CR3 delamination prudence review pending before the FPSC, and certain base rate issues. When all of the settlement provisions are factored in, the total increase in 2013 for residential customer bills will be approximately $4.93 per 1,000 kWh, or 4 percent.
155

Levy
Under the terms of the 2012 settlement agreement, PEF will set the residential cost-recovery factor of PEF’s proposed two units at Levy (see “Nuclear Cost Recovery – Levy Nuclear”) at $3.45 per 1,000 kWh effective in the first billing cycle of January 2013 and continuing for a five-year period. This amount is intended to recover the estimated retail project costs to date plus costs necessary to obtain the combined license (COL) and any engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) cancellation costs, if PEF ultimately chooses to cancel that contract. PEF will not recover any additional Levy costs from customers through the term of the agreement, or file for any additional recovery before March 1, 2017, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties to the agreement. In addition, the consumer parties will not oppose PEF continuing to pursue a COL for Levy. After the five-year period, PEF will true up any actual costs not recovered under the Levy cost-recovery factor.
The 2012 settlement agreement also provides that PEF will treat 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. PEF will have the discretion to suspend such amortization in full or in part provided that PEF amortizes all of the regulatory asset by December 31, 2016.
CR3
Under the terms of the 2012 settlement agreement, PEF will be permitted to recover prudently incurred fuel and purchased power costs through the fuel clause without regard for the absence of CR3 for the period from the beginning of the CR3 outage through the earlier of the term of the agreement or the return of CR3 to commercial service. If PEF does not begin repairs of CR3 prior to the end of 2012, PEF will refund replacement power costs on a pro rata basis based on the in-service date of up to $40 million in 2015 and $60 million in 2016. The parties to the agreement waive their right to challenge PEF’s recovery of these costs. The parties to the agreement maintain the right to challenge the prudence and reasonableness of PEF’s fuel acquisition and power purchases, and other fuel prudence issues unrelated to the CR3 outage. All prudence issues from the steam generator project inception through the date of settlement approval by the FPSC are resolved.
To the extent that PEF pursues the repair of CR3, PEF will establish an estimated cost and repair schedule with ongoing consultation with the parties to the agreement. The established cost, to be approved by our board of directors, will be the basis for project measurement. If costs exceed the board-approved estimate, overruns will be split evenly between our shareholders and PEF customers up to $400 million. The parties to the agreement agree to meet to discuss the method of recovery of any overruns in excess of $400 million, with final decision by the FPSC if resolution cannot be reached. If the repairs begin prior to the end of 2012, the parties to the agreement waive their rights to challenge PEF’s decision to repair and the repair plan chosen by PEF. In addition, there will be limited rights to challenge recovery of the repair execution costs incurred prior to the final resolution on NEIL coverage. The parties to the agreement will discuss the treatment of any potential gap between NEIL repair coverage and the estimated cost, with final decision by the FPSC if resolution cannot be reached. If the repairs do not begin prior to the end of 2012, the parties to the agreement reserve the right to challenge the prudence of PEF’s repair decision, plan and implementation.
PEF also retains sole discretion and flexibility to retire the unit without challenge from the parties to the agreement. If PEF decides to retire CR3, PEF is allowed to recover all remaining CR3 investments and to earn a return on the CR3 investments set at its current authorized overall cost of capital, adjusted to reflect a ROE set at 70 percent of the current FPSC-authorized ROE, no earlier than the first billing cycle of January 2017. Additionally, any NEIL proceeds received after the settlement will be applied first to replacement power costs incurred after December 31, 2012, with the remainder used to write down the remaining CR3 investments.
Base Rates, Customer Refund and Other Terms
Under the terms of the 2012 settlement agreement, PEF will maintain base rates at the current levels through the last billing cycle of December 2016, except as described as follows. The agreement provides for a $150 million annual increase in revenue requirements effective with the first billing cycle of January 2013, while maintaining the current ROE range of 9.5 percent to 11.5 percent. PEF will suspend depreciation expense and reverse certain regulatory liabilities associated with CR3 effective on the implementation date of the agreement. Additionally, rate base
156

associated with CR3 investments will be removed from retail rate base effective with the first billing cycle of January 2013. PEF will accrue, for future rate-setting purposes a carrying charge at a rate of 7.4 percent on the CR3 investment until CR3 is returned to service and placed back into retail rate base. Upon return of CR3 to commercial service, PEF will be authorized to increase its base rates for the annual revenue requirements of all CR3 investments. The parties to the agreement reserve the right to participate in any hearings challenging the appropriateness of PEF’s CR3 revenue requirements. In the month following CR3’s return to commercial service, PEF’s ROE range will increase to 9.7 percent to 11.7 percent. If PEF’s retail base rate earnings fall below the ROE range, as reported on a FPSC-adjusted or pro-forma basis on a PEF monthly earnings surveillance report, PEF may petition the FPSC to amend its base rates during the term of the agreement.
Under the terms of the 2012 settlement agreement, PEF will refund $288 million as of December 31, 2011, to customers through the fuel clause. PEF will refund $129 million in each of 2013 and 2014, and an additional $10 million annually to residential and small commercial customers in 2014, 2015 and 2016. At December 31, 2011, a regulatory liability was established for the $288 million to be refunded in future periods. The corresponding charge was recorded as a reduction of 2011 revenues.
The cost of pollution control equipment that PEF installed and has in-service at CR4 and CR5 to comply with the Federal Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) is currently recovered under the Environmental Cost Recovery Clause (ECRC). The 2012 settlement agreement provides for PEF to remove those assets from recovery in the ECRC and transfer those assets to base rates effective with the first billing cycle of January 2014. The related base rate increase will be in addition to the $150 million base rate increase effective January 2013. O&M expenses associated with those assets will not be included in the base rates and will continue to be recovered through the ECRC.
The 2012 settlement agreement provides for PEF to continue to recover carrying costs and other nuclear cost recovery clause-recoverable items related to the CR3 uprate project, but PEF will not seek an in-service recovery until nine months following CR3’s return to commercial service. Carrying costs will be recovered through the nuclear cost recovery clause until base rates have been increased for these assets.
The 2012 settlement agreement also allows PEF to continue to reduce amortization expense (cost of removal component) beyond the expiration of the 2010 settlement agreement through the term of the 2012 settlement agreement. This reduction is limited by the eligible remaining balance of the cost of removal reserve ($246 million at December 31, 2011). Additionally, the 2012 settlement agreement extends PEF’s ability to expedite recovery of the cost of named storms and to maintain a storm reserve at its level as of the implementation date of the agreement, and removed the maximum allowed monthly surcharge established by the 2010 settlement agreement.
2010 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
On June 1, 2010, the FPSC approved a settlement agreement between PEF and the interveners, with the exception of the Florida Association for Fairness in Ratemaking, to the 2009 rate case. As part of the settlement, PEF withdrew its motion for reconsideration of the rate case order. Among other provisions, under the terms of the settlement agreement, PEF will maintain base rates at current levels through the last billing cycle of 2012. The settlement agreement also provides that PEF will have the discretion to reduce amortization expense (cost of removal component) by up to $150 million in 2010, up to $250 million in 2011, and up to any remaining balance in the cost of removal reserve in 2012 until the earlier of (a) PEF’s applicable cost of removal reserve reaches zero, or (b) the expiration of the settlement agreement at the end of 2012. In the event PEF reduces amortization expense by less than the annual amounts for 2010 or 2011, PEF may carry forward (i.e., increase the annual cap by) any unused cost of removal reserve amounts in subsequent years during the term of the agreement. The balance of the cost of removal reserve is impacted by accruals in accordance with PEF’s latest depreciation study, removal costs expended and reductions in amortization expense as permitted by the settlement agreement. For the year ended December 31, 2011, PEF recognized a $250 million reduction in amortization expense pursuant to the settlement agreement. PEF had eligible cost of removal reserves of $246 million remaining at December 31, 2011. The settlement agreement also provides PEF with the opportunity to earn a ROE of up to 11.5 percent and provides that if PEF’s actual retail base rate earnings fall below a 9.5 percent ROE on an adjusted or pro-forma basis, as reported on a historical 12-month basis during the term of the agreement, PEF may seek general, limited or interim base rate relief, or any combination thereof. Prior to requesting any such relief, PEF must have reflected on its referenced surveillance report associated amortization expense reductions of at least $150 million. The settlement agreement does not
157

preclude PEF from requesting the FPSC to approve the recovery of costs (a) that are of a type which traditionally and historically would be, have been or are presently recovered through cost-recovery clauses or surcharges; or (b) that are incremental costs not currently recovered in base rates, which the legislature or FPSC determines are clause recoverable; or (c) which are recoverable through base rates under the nuclear cost-recovery legislation or the FPSC’s nuclear cost-recovery rule. PEF also may, at its discretion, accelerate in whole or in part the amortization of certain regulatory assets over the term of the settlement agreement. Finally, PEF will be allowed to recover the costs of named storms on an expedited basis after depletion of the storm damage reserve. Specifically, 60 days following the filing of a cost-recovery petition with the FPSC and based on a 12-month recovery period, PEF can begin recovery, subject to refund, through a surcharge of up to $4.00 per 1,000 kWh on monthly residential customer bills for storm costs. In the event the storm costs exceed that level, any excess additional costs will be deferred and recovered in a subsequent year or years as determined by the FPSC. Additionally, the order approving the settlement agreement allows PEF to use the surcharge to replenish the storm damage reserve to $136 million, the level as of June 1, 2010, after storm costs are fully recovered. At December 31, 2011, PEF’s storm damage reserve was $132 million.
On September 14, 2010, the FPSC approved a reduction to PEF’s AFUDC rate, from 8.8 percent to 7.4 percent. This new rate is based on PEF’s updated authorized ROE and all adjustments approved on January 11, 2010, in PEF’s base rate case and will be used for all purposes except for nuclear recoveries with original need petitions submitted on or before December 31, 2010, as permitted by FPSC regulations.
FUEL COST RECOVERY
On November 22, 2011, the FPSC approved an increase of the total fuel-cost recovery by $162 million, increasing the residential rate by $3.32 per 1,000 kWh, or 2.78 percent, effective January 1, 2012. This increase is due to an increase of $3.99 per 1,000 kWh for the projected recovery of fuel costs offset by a decrease of $0.67 per 1,000 kWh for the projected recovery through the Capacity Cost-Recovery Clause (CCRC). The increase in the projected recovery of fuel costs is due to an under-recovery from the prior year. The decrease in the CCRC is primarily due to lower anticipated costs associated with Levy, and the deferral of 2011 and 2012 estimated costs associated with PEF’s CR3 uprate project until 2012 (see “Nuclear Cost Recovery”), partially offset by increased capacity costs and a reduction of the refund related to an over-recovery from the prior year. Within the fuel clause, PEF received approval to collect, subject to refund, replacement power costs related to the CR3 nuclear plant outage (See “CR3 Outage” and “2012 Settlement Agreement”).
At December 31, 2011, PEF’s deferred fuel regulatory liability was $44 million comprised of a $244 million current regulatory asset and a $288 million noncurrent regulatory liability (See “2012 Settlement Agreement”). The current regulatory asset of $244 million includes the $154 million of replacement power costs that were previously recorded as a receivable from NEIL (See “CR3 Outage”).
NUCLEAR COST RECOVERY
Levy Nuclear
In 2008, the FPSC granted PEF’s petition for an affirmative Determination of Need and related orders requesting cost recovery under Florida’s nuclear cost-recovery rule for Levy, together with the associated facilities, including transmission lines and substation facilities. Levy is needed to maintain electric system reliability and integrity, provide fuel and generating diversity, and allow PEF to continue to provide adequate electricity to its customers at a reasonable cost. The proposed Levy units will be advanced passive light water nuclear reactors, each with a generating capacity of approximately 1,100 MW. The petition included projections that Levy Unit No. 1 would be placed in service by June 2016 and Levy Unit No. 2 by June 2017. The filed, nonbinding project cost estimate for Levy Units No. 1 and No. 2 was approximately $14 billion for generating facilities and approximately $3 billion for associated transmission facilities.
In PEF’s 2010 nuclear cost-recovery filing (See “Cost Recovery”), PEF identified a schedule shift in the Levy project that resulted from the NRC’s 2009 determination that certain schedule-critical work that PEF had proposed to perform within the scope of its Limited Work Authorization request submitted with the COL application will not be authorized until the NRC issues the COL. Consequently, major construction activities on Levy have been
158

postponed until after the NRC issues the COL for the units, which is expected in 2013 if the current licensing schedule remains on track. Along with the FPSC’s annual prudence reviews, we will continue to evaluate the project on an ongoing basis based on certain criteria, including, but not limited to, cost; potential carbon regulation; fossil fuel prices; the benefits of fuel diversification; public, regulatory and political support; adequate financial cost-recovery mechanisms; appropriate levels of joint owner participation; customer rate impacts; project feasibility; DSM and EE programs; and availability and terms of capital financing. Taking into account these criteria, we consider Levy to be PEF’s preferred baseload generation option.
Crystal River Unit No. 3 Nuclear Plant Uprate
In 2007, the FPSC issued an order approving PEF’s Determination of Need petition related to a multi-stage uprate of CR3 that will increase CR3’s gross output by approximately 180 MW during its next refueling outage. PEF implemented the first-stage design modifications in 2008. The final stage of the uprate required a license amendment to be filed with the NRC, which was filed by PEF in June 2011 and accepted for review by the NRC on November 21, 2011.
Cost Recovery
In 2009, pursuant to the FPSC nuclear cost-recovery rule, PEF filed a petition to recover $446 million through the CCRC, which primarily consisted of preconstruction and carrying costs incurred or anticipated to be incurred during 2009 and the projected 2010 costs associated with the Levy and CR3 uprate projects. In an effort to help mitigate the initial price impact on its customers, as part of its filing, PEF proposed collecting certain costs over a five-year period, with associated carrying costs on the unrecovered balance. The FPSC approved the alternate proposal allowing PEF to recover revenue requirements associated with the nuclear cost-recovery clause through the CCRC beginning with the first billing cycle of January 2010. The remainder, with minor adjustments, will also be recovered through the CCRC. In adopting PEF’s proposed rate management plan for 2010, the FPSC permitted PEF to annually reconsider changes to the recovery of deferred amounts to afford greater flexibility to manage future rate impacts. The rate management plan included the 2009 reclassification to the nuclear cost-recovery clause regulatory asset of $198 million of capacity revenues and the accelerated amortization of $76 million of preconstruction costs. The cumulative amount of $274 million was recorded as a nuclear cost-recovery regulatory asset at December 31, 2009, and is projected to be recovered by the end of 2014. At December 31, 2011, PEF’s nuclear cost-recovery regulatory asset was $102 million, comprised of a $15 million current regulatory liability and a $117 million noncurrent regulatory asset. PEF will continue to recover nuclear costs as provided for by the 2012 settlement agreement.
On October 24, 2011, the FPSC approved a $78 million decrease in the amount charged to PEF’s ratepayers for nuclear cost recovery, which is a component of, and is included in, the fuel cost recovery (See “Fuel Cost Recovery”), including recovery of preconstruction and carrying costs and CCRC-recoverable O&M expense anticipated to be incurred during 2012, recovery of $60 million of prior years’ deferrals in 2012, as well as the estimated actual true-up of 2011 costs associated with the Levy and CR3 uprate projects. Also included is the stipulation of PEF’s filed motion with the FPSC to defer until 2012 the approval of the long-term feasibility analysis of completing the CR3 uprate, and the determination of reasonableness on, and recovery of, 2011 and 2012 estimated costs. This resulted in an estimated decrease in the nuclear cost-recovery charge of $2.67 per 1,000 kWh for residential customers, beginning with the first January 2012 billing cycle.
DEMAND-SIDE MANAGEMENT COST RECOVERY
On July 26, 2011, the FPSC voted to set PEF’s DSM compliance goals to remain at their current level until the next goal setting docket is initiated. An intervener filed a protest to the FPSC’s Proposed Agency Action order, asserting legal challenges to the order. The parties made legal arguments to the FPSC and the FPSC issued an order denying the protest on December 22, 2011. The intervener then filed a notice of appeal of this order to the Florida Supreme Court on January 17, 2012. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
On November 1, 2011, the FPSC approved PEF’s request to decrease the Energy Conservation Cost Recovery Clause (ECCR) residential rate by $0.11 per 1,000 kWh, or 0.1 percent of the total residential rate, effective January 1, 2012. The decrease in the ECCR is primarily due to an increased refund of a prior period over-recovery, partially
159

offset by an increase in conservation program costs. At December 31, 2011, PEF’s over-recovered deferred ECCR balance was $19 million.
OTHER MATTERS
On November 22, 2011, the FPSC approved PEF’s request to increase the ECRC by $24 million, increasing the residential rate by $0.54 per 1,000 kWh, or 0.5 percent, effective January 1, 2012. The increase in the ECRC is primarily due to the 2011 rates including a return of a prior period over-recovery, partially offset by a decrease in the related O&M expense. At December 31, 2011, PEF’s over-recovered deferred ECRC was $7 million.
On March 20, 2009, PEF filed a petition with the FPSC for expedited approval of the deferral of $53 million in 2009 pension expense. PEF requested that the deferral of pension expense continue until the recovery of these costs is provided for in FPSC-approved base rates. On June 16, 2009, the FPSC approved the deferral of the retail portion of actual 2009 pension expense. As a result of the order, PEF deferred pension expense of $34 million for the year ended December 31, 2009. PEF will not earn a carrying charge on the deferred pension regulatory asset. The deferral of pension expense did not result in a change in PEF’s 2009 retail rates or prices. In accordance with the order, subsequent to 2009 PEF will amortize the deferred pension regulatory asset to the extent that annual pension expense is less than the $27 million allowance provided for in the base rates established in the 2010 base rate proceeding. In the event such amortization is insufficient to fully amortize the regulatory asset, PEF can seek recovery of the remaining unamortized amount in a base rate proceeding no earlier than 2015. As of December 31, 2011, PEF has not recorded any amortization related to the deferred pension regulatory asset. The 2012 settlement agreement allows for accelerated amortization of all or part of this deferred pension regulatory asset.
D.NUCLEAR LICENSE RENEWALS
PEC’s nuclear units are currently operating under licenses that expire between 2030 and 2046. The NRC operating license held by PEF for CR3 currently expires in December 2016. PEF applied for a 20-year renewal of the license in 2008. The NRC’s remaining open items in the license renewal process are associated with the containment structure repair. Once the repair design has been completed and evaluated, the NRC may proceed with the renewal application review of the containment structure. Assuming the repair is successful, management believes CR3 will satisfy the requirements for the license renewal.

Goodwill is required to be tested for impairment at least annually and more frequently when indicators of impairment exist. All of our goodwill is allocated to our utility reporting units and our goodwill impairment tests are performed at the utility reporting unit level. At December 31, 2011 and 2010, our carrying amount of goodwill was $3.655 billion, with $1.922 billion assigned to PEC and $1.733 billion assigned to PEF. The amounts assigned to PEC and PEF are recorded in our Corporate and Other business segment. We perform our annual impairment test as of October 31 of each year. The results of our 2011 annual test of goodwill indicated that the carrying amounts of goodwill were not impaired.
10.EQUITY
A.COMMON STOCK
PROGRESS ENERGY
At December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010, we had 500 million shares of common stock authorized under our charter, of which 295 million and 293 million shares were outstanding, respectively. We periodically issue shares of common stock through the Progress Energy 401(k) Savings & Stock Ownership Plan (401(k)), the Progress Energy Investor Plus Plan (IPP) and other benefit plans.
160

There are various provisions limiting the use of retained earnings for the payment of dividends under certain circumstances. At December 31, 2011, there were no significant restrictions on the use of retained earnings (See Note 2 and Note 12B).
The following table presents information for our common stock issuances for the years ended December 31:
                   
  2011  2010  2009 
 (in millions)
 Shares  Net Proceeds  Shares  Net Proceeds  Shares  Net Proceeds 
 Total issuances
  2.0  $53   12.2  $434   17.5  $623 
 Issuances under an underwritten public offering(a)
  -   -   -   -   14.4   523 
 Issuances through 401(k) and/or IPP
  -   1   11.2   431   2.5   100 
(a)The shares issued under an underwritten public offering were issued on January 12, 2009, at a public offering price of $37.50.
PEC
At December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010, PEC was authorized to issue up to 200 million shares of common stock. All shares issued and outstanding are held by Progress Energy. There are various provisions limiting the use of retained earnings for the payment of dividends under certain circumstances. At December 31, 2011, there were no significant restrictions on the use of retained earnings. See Note 12B for additional dividend restrictions related to PEC.
PEF
At December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010, PEF was authorized to issue up to 60 million shares of common stock. All PEF common shares issued and outstanding are indirectly held by Progress Energy. There are various provisions limiting the use of retained earnings for the payment of dividends under certain circumstances. At December 31, 2011, there were no significant restrictions on the use of retained earnings. See Note 12B for additional dividend restrictions related to PEF.
B.STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION
EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN
We sponsor the 401(k) for which substantially all full-time nonbargaining unit employees and certain part-time nonbargaining unit employees within participating subsidiaries are eligible. The 401(k), which has a matching feature, encourages systematic savings by employees and provides a method of acquiring Progress Energy common stock and other diverse investments. The 401(k), as amended in 1989, is an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) that can enter into acquisition loans to acquire Progress Energy common stock to satisfy 401(k) common share needs. Qualification as an ESOP did not change the level of benefits received by employees under the 401(k). Common stock acquired with the proceeds of an ESOP loan was held by the 401(k) Trustee in a suspense account. The common stock was released from the suspense account and made available for allocation to participants as the ESOP loan was repaid. Such allocations were used to partially meet common stock needs related to matching and incentive contributions and/or reinvested dividends. All or a portion of the dividends paid on ESOP suspense shares and on ESOP shares allocated to participants may be used to repay ESOP acquisition loans. Dividends that are used to repay such loans, paid directly to participants or reinvested by participants, are deductible for income tax purposes. By December 31, 2010, no ESOP suspense shares were outstanding and the ESOP acquisition loan was repaid.
ESOP shares allocated to plan participants totaled 13.4 million at December 31, 2010. Our matching compensation cost under the 401(k) is determined based on matching percentages as defined in the plan. Through December 31, 2010, such compensation cost was allocated to participants’ accounts in the form of Progress Energy common stock. Beginning in 2011, such compensation cost was allocated to participants’ accounts in the same investments and
161

election percentages as the participants’ contributions. In 2010, we met common stock share needs with open market purchases and with shares released from the ESOP suspense account. Matching costs met with shares released from the suspense account totaled $12 million for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. In 2011, we met common stock share needs with open market purchases.
We also sponsor the Savings Plan for Employees of Florida Progress Corporation, which is an ESOP plan that covers bargaining unit employees of PEF.
Total matching cost for both plans was $44 million, $43 million and $41 million for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.
PEC
PEC’s matching costs met with shares released from the ESOP suspense account totaled $8 million for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. Total matching cost was $23 million, $23 million and $22 million for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.
PEF
PEF’s matching costs met with shares released from the ESOP suspense account totaled $3 million and $4 million for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. Total matching cost for both plans was $14 million, $14 million and $12 million for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.
OTHER STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION PLANS
We have additional compensation plans for our officers and key employees that are stock-based in whole or in part. Our long-term compensation program currently includes two types of equity-based incentives: performance shares under the Performance Share Sub-Plan (PSSP) and restricted stock programs. The compensation program was established pursuant to our 1997 Equity Incentive Plan (EIP) and was continued under our 2002 and 2007 EIPs, as amended and restated from time to time. As authorized by the EIPs, we may grant up to 20 million shares of Progress Energy common stock through our long-term compensation program.
Beginning in 2009, shares issued under the redesigned PSSP use total shareholder return and earnings growth as two equally weighted performance measures. The outcome of the performance measures can result in an increase or decrease from the target number of performance shares granted. We distribute common stock shares to participants equivalent to the number of performance shares that ultimately vest. We issue new shares of common stock to satisfy the requirements of the PSSP program. Also, the fair value of the stock-settled award is generally established at the grant date based on the fair value of common stock on that date, with subsequent adjustments made to reflect the status of the performance measure. Compensation expense for all awards is reduced by estimated forfeitures. At December 31, 2011, there were an immaterial number of stock-settled performance target shares outstanding. The final number of shares issued will be dependent upon the outcome of the performance measures discussed above.
Beginning in 2007, we began issuing restricted stock units (RSUs) rather than the previously issued restricted stock awards for our officers, vice presidents, managers and key employees. RSUs awarded to eligible employees are generally subject to either three- or five-year cliff vesting or three- or five-year graded vesting. We issue new shares of common stock to satisfy the requirements of the RSU program. Compensation expense, based on the fair value of common stock at the grant date, is recognized over the applicable vesting period, with corresponding increases in common stock equity. RSUs are included as shares outstanding in the basic earnings per share calculation and are converted to shares upon vesting. At December 31, 2011, there were an immaterial number of RSUs outstanding.
The total fair value of RSUs vested during the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, was $24 million, $24 million and $16 million, respectively. No cash was expended to purchase stock to satisfy RSU plan obligations in 2011, 2010 and 2009. The RSUs vested during 2011 had a weighted-average grant date fair value of $39.16.
Our Consolidated Statements of Income included total recognized expense for other stock-based compensation plans of $33 million for the year ended December 31, 2011, with a recognized tax benefit of $13 million. The total expense recognized on our Consolidated Statements of Income for other stock-based compensation plans was $27
162

million, with a recognized tax benefit of $11 million, and $37 million, with a recognized tax benefit of $14 million, for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. No compensation cost related to other stock-based compensation plans was capitalized.
At December 31, 2011, unrecognized compensation cost related to nonvested other stock-based compensation plan awards totaled $33 million, which is expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of 1.6 years.
PEC
PEC’s Consolidated Statements of Income included total recognized expense for other stock-based compensation plans of $20 million for the year ended December 31, 2011, with a recognized tax benefit of $8 million. The total expense recognized on PEC’s Consolidated Statements of Income for other stock-based compensation plans was $16 million, with a recognized tax benefit of $6 million, and $22 million, with a recognized tax benefit of $9 million, for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. No compensation cost related to other stock-based compensation plans was capitalized.
PEF
PEF’s Statements of Income included total recognized expense for other stock-based compensation plans of $13 million for the year ended December 31, 2011, with a recognized tax benefit of $5 million. The total expense recognized on PEF’s Statements of Income for other stock-based compensation plans was $11 million, with a recognized tax benefit of $4 million, and $14 million, with a recognized tax benefit of $5 million, for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. No compensation cost related to other stock-based compensation plans was capitalized.
C.EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
Basic earnings per common share are based on the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding, which includes the effects of unvested share-based payment awards that contain nonforfeitable rights to dividends or dividend equivalents. Diluted earnings per share include the effects of the nonvested portion of performance share awards and the effect of stock options outstanding.
A reconciliation of the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding for the years ended December 31 for basic and dilutive purposes follows:
(in millions) 2011  2010  2009 
Weighted-average common shares – basic  295.8   290.7   279.4 
Net effect of dilutive stock-based compensation plans  0.1   0.1   0.1 
Weighted-average shares – fully diluted  295.9   290.8   279.5 
             
There were no adjustments to net income or to income from continuing operations attributable to controlling interests between the calculations of basic and fully diluted earnings per common share. There were 0.8 million and 1.5 million stock options outstanding at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively, which were not included in the weighted-average number of shares for computing the fully diluted earnings per share because they were antidilutive. As of December 31, 2011, there were no antidilutive stock options outstanding.
D.ACCUMULATED OTHER COMPREHENSIVE LOSS
Components of accumulated other comprehensive loss, net of tax, at December 31 were as follows:
                
  Progress Energy  PEC  PEF 
(in millions) 2011  2010  2011  2010  2011  2010 
Cash flow hedges $(143) $(63) $(71) $(33) $(27) $(4)
Pension and other postretirement benefits  (22)  (62)  -   -   -   - 
Total accumulated other comprehensive loss $(165) $(125) $(71) $(33) $(27) $(4)


163

All of our preferred stock was issued by the Utilities. The preferred stock is considered temporary equity due to certain provisions that could require us to redeem the preferred stock for cash. In the event dividends payable on PEC or PEF preferred stock are in default for an amount equivalent to or exceeding four quarterly dividend payments, the holders of the preferred stock are entitled to elect a majority of PEC's or PEF’s respective board of directors until all accrued and unpaid dividends are paid. All classes of preferred stock are entitled to cumulative dividends with preference to the common stock dividends, are redeemable by vote of the Utilities’ respective board of directors at any time, and do not have any preemptive rights. All classes of preferred stock have a liquidation preference equal to $100 per share plus any accumulated unpaid dividends except for PEF’s 4.75%, $100 par value class, which does not have a liquidation preference. Each holder of PEC’s preferred stock is entitled to one vote. The holders of PEF’s preferred stock have no right to vote except for certain circumstances involving dividends payable on preferred stock that are in default or certain matters affecting the rights and preferences of the preferred stock.
At December 31, 2011 and 2010, preferred stock outstanding consisted of the following:
  Shares       
(dollars in millions, except share and per share data) Authorized  Outstanding  
Redemption
Price
  Total 
             
PEC            
Cumulative, no par value $5 Preferred Stock  300,000   236,997  $110.00  $24 
Cumulative, no par value Serial Preferred Stock  20,000,000             
$4.20 Serial Preferred      100,000   102.00   10 
$5.44 Serial Preferred      249,850   101.00   25 
Cumulative, no par value Preferred Stock A  5,000,000   -   -   - 
No par value Preference Stock  10,000,000   -   -   - 
Total PEC              59 
                 
PEF                
Cumulative, $100 par value Preferred Stock  4,000,000             
4.00% $100 par value Preferred      39,980   104.25   4 
4.40% $100 par value Preferred      75,000   102.00   8 
4.58% $100 par value Preferred      99,990   101.00   10 
4.60% $100 par value Preferred      39,997   103.25   4 
4.75% $100 par value Preferred      80,000   102.00   8 
Cumulative, no par value Preferred Stock  5,000,000   -   -   - 
$100 par value Preference Stock  1,000,000   -   -   - 
Total PEF              34 
Total preferred stock of subsidiaries             $93 
164

12.DEBT AND CREDIT FACILITIES
A.DEBT AND CREDIT FACILITIES
At December 31 our long-term debt consisted of the following (maturities and weighted-average interest rates at December 31, 2011):
(in millions)    2011  2010 
Parent         
Senior unsecured notes, maturing 2012-2039  6.28% $4,000  $4,200 
Unamortized premium and discount, net      (7)  (6)
Current portion of long-term debt      (450)  (205)
Long-term debt, net      3,543   3,989 
             
PEC            
First mortgage bonds, maturing 2013-2038  5.17%  3,025   2,525 
First mortgage bonds/pollution control obligations, maturing 2017-2024  0.57%  669   669 
Senior unsecured notes, maturing 2012  6.50%  500   500 
Miscellaneous notes  6.00%  5   5 
Unamortized premium and discount, net      (6)  (6)
Current portion of long-term debt      (500)  - 
Long-term debt, net      3,693   3,693 
             
PEF            
First mortgage bonds, maturing 2013-2040  5.56%  4,100   4,100 
First mortgage bonds/pollution control obligations, maturing 2018-2027  0.57%  241   241 
Medium-term notes, maturing 2028  6.75%  150   150 
Unamortized premium and discount, net      (9)  (9)
Current portion of long-term debt      -   (300)
Long-term debt, net      4,482   4,182 
Progress Energy consolidated long-term debt, net     $11,718  $11,864 
             
Florida Progress Funding Corporation (See Note 23)            
Debt to affiliated trust, maturing 2039  7.10% $309  $309 
Unamortized premium and discount, net      (36)  (36)
Long-term debt, affiliate     $273  $273 
             
On January 21, 2011, the Parent issued $500 million of 4.40% Senior Notes due January 15, 2021. The net proceeds of $495 million, along with available cash on hand, were used to retire the $700 million outstanding aggregate principal balance of our 7.10% Senior Notes due March 1, 2011. Accordingly, we classified $495 million of the Parent’s $700 million 7.10% Senior Notes due March 1, 2011 as long-term debt at December 31, 2010.
On July 15, 2011, PEF paid at maturity $300 million of its 6.65% First Mortgage Bonds with proceeds from short-term debt.
On August 18, 2011, PEF issued $300 million 3.10% First Mortgage Bonds due August 15, 2021. The net proceeds were used to repay a portion of outstanding short-term debt, of which $300 million was issued to repay PEF’s July 15, 2011 maturity.
On September 15, 2011, PEC issued $500 million 3.00% First Mortgage Bonds due September 15, 2021. A portion of the net proceeds was used to repay outstanding short-term debt and the remainder was used for general corporate purposes, including construction expenditures.
On January 15, 2010, the Parent paid at maturity $100 million of its Series A Floating Rate Notes with a portion of the proceeds from the $950 million of Senior Notes issued on November 19, 2009.
165

On March 25, 2010, PEF issued $250 million of 4.55% First Mortgage Bonds due April 1, 2020, and $350 million of 5.65% First Mortgage Bonds due April 1, 2040. Proceeds were used to repay the outstanding balance of PEF’s notes payable to affiliated companies, to repay the maturity of PEF’s $300 million 4.50% First Mortgage Bonds due June 1, 2010, and for general corporate purposes.
At December 31, 2011 and 2010, we had committed lines of credit used to support our commercial paper and other short-term borrowings. At December 31, 2011 and 2010, we had no outstanding borrowings under our revolving credit agreements (RCAs). We are required to pay fees to maintain our credit facilities.
The following tables summarize our RCAs and available capacity at December 31:
              
 (in millions)
  Total  Outstanding  
Reserved(a)
  Available 
 2011 
             
 Parent
Five-year (expiring 5/3/12)(b)
 $478  $-  $252  $226 
 PEC
Three-year (expiring 10/15/13)  750   -   184   566 
 PEF
Three-year (expiring 10/15/13)  750   -   233   517 
Total credit facilities $1,978  $-  $669  $1,309 
                  
 2010 
                 
 Parent
Five-year (expiring 5/3/12) $500  $-  $31  $469 
 PEC
Three-year (expiring 10/15/13)  750   -   -   750 
 PEF
Three-year (expiring 10/15/13)  750   -   -   750 
Total credit facilities $2,000  $-  $31  $1,969 
(a)To the extent amounts are reserved for commercial paper or letters of credit outstanding, they are not available for additional borrowings. At December 31, 2011 and 2010, the Parent had issued $2 million and $31 million, respectively, of letters of credit supported by the RCA. Additionally, on December 31, 2011, the Parent, PEC and PEF had $250 million, $184 million and $233 million, respectively, of outstanding commercial paper supported by the RCA.
(b)On February 15, 2012, the Parent’s RCA was amended to extend its expiration date to May 3, 2013.
The combined RCAs of the Parent, PEC and PEF total $1.978 billion and are supported by 23 financial institutions. The RCAs are used to provide liquidity support for issuances of commercial paper and other short-term obligations, and for general corporate purposes. Fees and interest rates under the RCAs are determined based upon the respective credit ratings of the Parent’s, PEC’s and PEF’s long-term unsecured senior noncredit-enhanced debt, as rated by Moody’s Investor Services, Inc. (Moody’s) and Standard & Poor’s Rating Services (S&P). The RCAs do not include material adverse change representations for borrowings or financial covenants for interest coverage.
The Parent entered into a five-year RCA on May 3, 2006. On May 2, 2008, the expiration date of the RCA was extended to May 3, 2012. The Parent ratably reduced the size of the RCA to $500 million on October 15, 2010, and the RCA was further reduced to $478 million on May 3, 2011, following the expiration of one financial institution’s credit commitment. On February 15, 2012, the Parent’s $478 million RCA was amended to extend the expiration date from May 3, 2012, to May 3, 2013, with its existing syndicate of 14 financial institutions.
PEC and PEF entered into $750 million, three-year RCAs with a syndication of 22 financial institutions on October 15, 2010. The RCAs, which expire October 15, 2013, replaced PEC’s and PEF’s previous RCAs, which were set to expire on June 28, 2011, and March 28, 2011, respectively.
See “Covenants and Default Provisions” for additional provisions related to the RCAs.

166


The following table summarizes short-term debt, comprised of outstanding commercial paper and other miscellaneous short-term debt, and related weighted-average interest rates at December 31:
(in millions)2011  2010 
Parent0.50 % $250  % $ 
PEC0.49    188      
PEF0.51    233      
Total0.50 % $671  % $ 
Long-term debt maturities during the next five years are as follows:
(in millions) Progress Energy Consolidated  PEC  PEF 
2012  $950  $500  $- 
2013   830   405   425 
2014   300   -   - 
2015   1,000   700   300 
2016   300   -   - 
B.COVENANTS AND DEFAULT PROVISIONS
FINANCIAL COVENANTS
The Parent’s, PEC’s and PEF’s credit lines contain various terms and conditions that could affect the ability to borrow under these facilities. All of the credit facilities include a defined maximum total debt to total capitalization ratio (leverage). At December 31, 2011, the maximum and calculated ratios for the Progress Registrants, pursuant to the terms of the agreements, were as follows:
 Company
 Maximum Ratio  
Actual Ratio(a)
 
 Parent
  68%  58%
 PEC
  65%  46%
 PEF
  65%  51%
(a)Indebtedness as defined by the credit agreement includes certain letters of credit, surety bonds and guarantees not recorded on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

CROSS-DEFAULT PROVISIONS
Each of these credit agreements contains cross-default provisions for defaults of indebtedness in excess of the following thresholds: $50 million for the Parent and $35 million each for PEC and PEF. Under these provisions, if the applicable borrower or certain subsidiaries of the borrower fail to pay various debt obligations in excess of their respective cross-default threshold, the lenders of that credit facility could accelerate payment of any outstanding borrowing and terminate their commitments to the credit facility. The Parent’s cross-default provision can be triggered by the Parent and its significant subsidiaries, as defined in the credit agreement. PEC’s and PEF’s cross-default provisions can be triggered only by defaults of indebtedness by PEC and its subsidiaries and PEF, respectively, not by each other or by other affiliates of PEC and PEF.
Additionally, certain of the Parent’s long-term debt indentures contain cross-default provisions for defaults of indebtedness in excess of amounts ranging from $25 million to $50 million; these provisions apply only to other obligations of the Parent, primarily commercial paper issued by the Parent, not its subsidiaries. In the event that these indenture cross-default provisions are triggered, the debt holders could accelerate payment of approximately $4.000 billion in long-term debt. Certain agreements underlying our indebtedness also limit our ability to incur additional liens or engage in certain types of sale and leaseback transactions.
167

OTHER RESTRICTIONS
Neither the Parent’s Articles of Incorporation nor any of its debt obligations contain any restrictions on the payment of dividends, so long as no shares of preferred stock are outstanding. At December 31, 2011, the Parent had no shares of preferred stock outstanding. See Note 2 for information regarding restrictions on dividends relative to the Progress Energy and Duke Energy Agreement and Plan of Merger.
Certain documents restrict the payment of dividends by the Parent’s subsidiaries as outlined below.
PEC
PEC’s mortgage indenture provides that as long as any first mortgage bonds are outstanding, cash dividends and distributions on its common stock and purchases of its common stock are restricted to aggregate net income available for PEC since December 31, 1948, plus $3 million, less the amount of all preferred stock dividends and distributions, and all common stock purchases, since December 31, 1948. At December 31, 2011, none of PEC’s cash dividends or distributions on common stock was restricted.
In addition, PEC’s Articles of Incorporation provide that so long as any shares of preferred stock are outstanding, the aggregate amount of cash dividends or distributions on common stock since December 31, 1945, including the amount then proposed to be expended, shall be limited to 75 percent of the aggregate net income available for common stock if common stock equity falls below 25 percent of total capitalization, as defined by PEC’s Articles of Incorporation, and to 50 percent if common stock equity falls below 20 percent. PEC’s Articles of Incorporation also provide that cash dividends on common stock shall be limited to 75 percent of the current year’s net income available for dividends if common stock equity falls below 25 percent of total capitalization, and to 50 percent if common stock equity falls below 20 percent. At December 31, 2011, PEC’s common stock equity was approximately 57.6 percent of total capitalization. At December 31, 2011, none of PEC’s cash dividends or distributions on common stock was restricted.
PEF
PEF’s mortgage indenture provides that as long as any first mortgage bonds are outstanding, it will not pay any cash dividends upon its common stock, or make any other distribution to the stockholders, except a payment or distribution out of net income of PEF subsequent to December 31, 1943. At December 31, 2011, none of PEF’s cash dividends or distributions on common stock was restricted.
In addition, PEF’s Articles of Incorporation provide that so long as any shares of preferred stock are outstanding, no cash dividends or distributions on common stock shall be paid, if the aggregate amount thereof since April 30, 1944, including the amount then proposed to be expended, plus all other charges to retained earnings since April 30, 1944, exceeds all credits to retained earnings since April 30, 1944, plus all amounts credited to capital surplus after April 30, 1944, arising from the donation to PEF of cash or securities or transfers of amounts from retained earnings to capital surplus. PEF’s Articles of Incorporation also provide that cash dividends on common stock shall be limited to 75 percent of the current year’s net income available for dividends if common stock equity falls below 25 percent of total capitalization, as defined by PEF’s Articles of Incorporation, and to 50 percent if common stock equity falls below 20 percent. On December 31, 2011, PEF’s common stock equity was approximately 50.9 percent of total capitalization. At December 31, 2011, none of PEF’s cash dividends or distributions on common stock was restricted.
C.COLLATERALIZED OBLIGATIONS
PEC’s and PEF’s first mortgage bonds, including pollution control obligations, are collateralized by their respective mortgage indentures. Each mortgage constitutes a first lien on substantially all of the fixed properties of the respective company, subject to certain permitted encumbrances and exceptions. Each mortgage also constitutes a lien on subsequently acquired property. At December 31, 2011, PEC and PEF had a total of $3.694 billion and $4.341 billion, respectively, of first mortgage bonds outstanding, including those related to pollution control obligations.
168

Each mortgage allows the issuance of additional first mortgage bonds based on property additions, retirements of first mortgage bonds and the deposit of cash if certain conditions are satisfied. Most first mortgage bond issuances by PEC and PEF require that adjusted net earnings be at least twice the annual interest requirement for bonds currently outstanding and to be outstanding. PEF’s ratio of net earnings to the annual interest requirement for bonds outstanding was below 2.0 times at December 31, 2011. PEF’s 2011 net earnings were impacted by a $288 million charge recorded in December 2011 for amounts to be refunded to customers (See Note 8C). Until this ratio, which is calculated based on results for 12 consecutive months, is above 2.0 times, PEF’s capacity to issue first mortgage bonds is limited to a portion of retired first mortgage bonds. In the event PEF’s long-term debt requirements exceed its first mortgage bond capacity, it could issue unsecured debt.
D.GUARANTEES OF SUBSIDIARY DEBT
See Note 19 on related party transactions for a discussion of obligations guaranteed or secured by affiliates.
E.HEDGING ACTIVITIES
We use interest rate derivatives to adjust the fixed and variable rate components of our debt portfolio and to hedge cash flow risk related to commercial paper and fixed-rate debt to be issued in the future. See Note 18 for a discussion of risk management activities and derivative transactions.
13.INVESTMENTS
A.INVESTMENTS
At December 31, 2011 and 2010, we had investments in various debt and equity securities, cost investments, company-owned life insurance and investments held in trust funds as follows:
                   
  Progress Energy  PEC  PEF 
 (in millions)
 2011  2010  2011  2010  2011  2010 
 Nuclear decommissioning trust (See Notes 5C and 14)
 $1,647  $1,571  $1,088  $1,017  $559  $554 
 Equity method investments(a)
  14   16   1   3   2   2 
 Cost investments(b)
  2   5   2   4   -   - 
 Company-owned life insurance(c)
  47   46   39   37   -   - 
 Benefit investment trusts(d)
  176   175   105   97   37   37 
Total $1,886  $1,813  $1,235  $1,158  $598  $593 
(a)Investments in unconsolidated companies are accounted for using the equity method of accounting (See Note 1) and are included in miscellaneous other property and investments on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. These investments are primarily in limited liability corporations and limited partnerships, and the earnings from these investments are recorded on a pre-tax basis.
(b)Investments stated principally at cost are included in miscellaneous other property and investments on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
(c)Investments in company-owned life insurance approximate fair value due to the nature of the investments and are included in miscellaneous other property and investments on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
(d)Benefit investment trusts are included in miscellaneous other property and investments on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. At December 31, 2011 and 2010, $173 million and $166 million, respectively, of investments in company-owned life insurance were held in Progress Energy’s trusts. Substantially all of PEC’s and PEF’s benefit investment trusts are invested in company-owned life insurance.
B.IMPAIRMENT OF INVESTMENTS
Declines in fair value of available-for-sale securities to below the cost basis that are judged to be other than temporary are included in long-term regulatory assets or liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets for securities

169

held in our nuclear decommissioning trust funds and in operation and maintenance expense and other, net on the Consolidated Statements of Income for securities in our benefit investment trusts, other available-for-sale securities and equity and cost method investments. See Note 14 for additional information. There were no material other-than-temporary impairments recognized in earnings in 2011, 2010 or 2009.
14.FAIR VALUE DISCLOSURES
A.DEBT AND INVESTMENTS
PROGRESS ENERGY
DEBT
The carrying amount of our long-term debt, including current maturities, was $12.941 billion and $12.642 billion at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. The estimated fair value of this debt, as obtained from quoted market prices for the same or similar issues, was $15.3 billion and $14.0 billion at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
INVESTMENTS
Certain investments in debt and equity securities that have readily determinable market values are accounted for as available-for-sale securities at fair value. Our available-for-sale securities include investments in stocks, bonds and cash equivalents held in trust funds, pursuant to NRC requirements, to fund certain costs of decommissioning the Utilities’ nuclear plants (See Note 5C). NDT funds are presented on the Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value. In addition to the NDT funds, we hold other debt investments classified as available-for-sale, which are included in miscellaneous other property and investments on the Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value.
The following table summarizes our available-for-sale securities at December 31:
          
(in millions) Fair Value  
Unrealized
Losses
  
Unrealized
Gains
 
2011          
Common stock equity $1,033  $29  $401 
Preferred stock and other equity  29   -   11 
Corporate debt  86   -   6 
U.S. state and municipal debt  128   2   7 
U.S. and foreign government debt  284   -   18 
Money market funds and other  70   -   1 
Total $1,630  $31  $444 
             
2010             
Common stock equity $1,021  $13  $408 
Preferred stock and other equity  28   -   11 
Corporate debt  90   -   6 
U.S. state and municipal debt  132   4   3 
U.S. and foreign government debt  264   2   10 
Money market funds and other  52   -   1 
Total $1,587  $19  $439 
             
The NDT funds and other available-for-sale debt investments held in certain benefit trusts are managed by third-party investment managers who have a right to sell securities without our authorization. Net unrealized gains and losses of the NDT funds that would be recorded in earnings or other comprehensive income by a nonregulated entity are recorded as regulatory assets and liabilities pursuant to ratemaking treatment. Therefore, the preceding tables
170

include the unrealized gains and losses for the NDT funds based on the original cost of the trust investments. All of the unrealized losses and unrealized gains for 2011 and 2010 relate to the NDT funds. There were no material unrealized losses and unrealized gains for the other available-for-sale debt securities held in benefit trusts at December 31, 2011 and 2010.
The aggregate fair value of investments that related to the December 31, 2011 and 2010 unrealized losses was $136 million and $195 million, respectively.
At December 31, 2011, the fair value of our available-for-sale debt securities by contractual maturity was:
    
(in millions)   
Due in one year or less $44 
Due after one through five years  231 
Due after five through 10 years  147 
Due after 10 years  90 
Total $512 
     
The following table presents selected information about our sales of available-for-sale securities for the years ended December 31. Realized gains and losses were determined on a specific identification basis.
       
(in millions) 2011  2010  2009 
Proceeds $4,640  $6,747  $2,207 
Realized gains  30   21   26 
Realized losses  33   27   87 
             
Proceeds were primarily related to NDT funds. Realized gains and losses for investments in the benefit investment trusts were not material. Other securities are evaluated on an individual basis to determine if a decline in fair value below the carrying value is other-than-temporary. At December 31, 2011 and 2010, our other securities had no investments in a continuous loss position for greater than 12 months.
PEC
DEBT
The carrying amount of PEC’s long-term debt, including current maturities, was $4.193 billion and $3.693 billion at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. The estimated fair value of this debt, as obtained from quoted market prices for the same or similar issues, was $4.7 billion and $4.0 billion at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
INVESTMENTS
Certain investments in debt and equity securities that have readily determinable market values are accounted for as available-for-sale securities at fair value. PEC’s available-for-sale securities include investments in stocks, bonds and cash equivalents held in trust funds, pursuant to NRC requirements, to fund certain costs of decommissioning PEC’s nuclear plants (See Note 5C). NDT funds are presented on the Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value.

171

The following table summarizes PEC’s available-for-sale securities at December 31:
          
(in millions) Fair Value  
Unrealized
Losses
  
Unrealized
Gains
 
2011          
Common stock equity $673  $20  $255 
Preferred stock and other equity  17   -   7 
Corporate debt  69   -   5 
U.S. state and municipal debt  56   -   3 
U.S. and foreign government debt  226   -   16 
Money market funds and other  60   -   1 
Total $1,101  $20  $287 
             
2010             
Common stock equity $652  $10  $256 
Preferred stock and other equity  14   -   6 
Corporate debt  72   -   5 
U.S. state and municipal debt  51   1   1 
U.S. and foreign government debt  199   1   9 
Money market funds and other  42   -   1 
Total $1,030  $12  $278 
             
The NDT funds are managed by third-party investment managers who have a right to sell securities without our authorization. Net unrealized gains and losses of the NDT funds that would be recorded in earnings or other comprehensive income by a nonregulated entity are recorded as regulatory assets and liabilities pursuant to ratemaking treatment. Therefore, the preceding tables include the unrealized gains and losses for the NDT funds based on the original cost of the trust investments. All of the unrealized losses and gains for 2011 and 2010 relate to the NDT funds.
The aggregate fair value of investments that related to the December 31, 2011 and 2010 unrealized losses was $98 million and $104 million, respectively.
At December 31, 2011, the fair value of PEC’s available-for-sale debt securities by contractual maturity was:
    
(in millions)   
Due in one year or less $16 
Due after one through five years  184 
Due after five through 10 years  100 
Due after 10 years  62 
Total $362 
     
The following table presents selected information about PEC’s sales of available-for-sale securities for the years ended December 31. Realized gains and losses were determined on a specific identification basis.
       
(in millions) 2011  2010  2009 
Proceeds $496  $419  $622 
Realized gains  13   10   9 
Realized losses  16   19   36 
             
PEC’s proceeds were primarily related to NDT funds. Other securities are evaluated on an individual basis to determine if a decline in fair value below the carrying value is other-than-temporary. At December 31, 2011 and 2010, PEC did not have any other securities.
172

PEF
DEBT
The carrying amount of PEF’s long-term debt, including current maturities, was $4.482 billion at December 31, 2011 and 2010. The estimated fair value of this debt, as obtained from quoted market prices for the same or similar issues, was $5.4 billion and $5.0 billion at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
INVESTMENTS
Certain investments in debt and equity securities that have readily determinable market values are accounted for as available-for-sale securities at fair value. PEF’s available-for-sale securities include investments in stocks, bonds and cash equivalents held in trust funds, pursuant to NRC requirements, to fund certain costs of decommissioning PEF’s nuclear plant (See Note 5C). The NDT funds are presented on the Balance Sheets at fair value.
The following table summarizes PEF’s available-for-sale securities at December 31:
          
(in millions) Fair Value  
Unrealized
Losses
  
Unrealized
Gains
 
2011          
Common stock equity $360  $9  $146 
Preferred stock and other equity  12   -   4 
Corporate debt  17   -   1 
U.S. state and municipal debt  72   2   4 
U.S. and foreign government debt  58   -   2 
Money market funds and other  10   -   - 
Total $529  $11  $157 
             
2010             
Common stock equity $369  $3  $152 
Preferred stock and other equity  14   -   5 
Corporate debt  14   -   1 
U.S. state and municipal debt  81   3   2 
U.S. and foreign government debt  62   1   1 
Money market funds and other  10   -   - 
Total $550  $7  $161 
             
The NDT funds are managed by third-party investment managers who have a right to sell securities without our authorization. Net unrealized gains and losses of the NDT funds that would be recorded in earnings or other comprehensive income by a nonregulated entity are recorded as regulatory assets and liabilities pursuant to ratemaking treatment. Therefore, the preceding tables include unrealized gains and losses for the NDT funds based on the original cost of the trust investments. All of the unrealized losses and gains for 2011 and 2010 relate to the NDT funds.
The aggregate fair value of investments that related to the December 31, 2011 and 2010 unrealized losses was $38 million and $87 million, respectively.
At December 31, 2011, the fair value of PEF’s available-for-sale debt securities by contractual maturity was:
    
(in millions)   
Due in one year or less $28 
Due after one through five years  47 
Due after five through 10 years  47 
Due after 10 years  28 
Total $150 
173

The following table presents selected information about PEF’s sales of available-for-sale securities for the years ended December 31. Realized gains and losses were determined on a specific identification basis.
          
(in millions) 2011  2010  2009 
Proceeds $4,130  $6,170  $1,471 
Realized gains  17   10   14 
Realized losses  17   8   50 

PEF’s proceeds were related to NDT funds. Other securities are evaluated on an individual basis to determine if a decline in fair value below the carrying value is other-than-temporary. At December 31, 2011 and 2010, PEF did not have any other securities.
B.FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS
GAAP defines fair value as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date (i.e., an exit price). Fair value measurements require the use of market data or assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability, including assumptions about risk and the risks inherent in the inputs to the valuation technique. These inputs can be readily observable, corroborated by market data or generally unobservable. Valuation techniques are required to maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs. A midmarket pricing convention (the midpoint price between bid and ask prices) is permitted for use as a practical expedient.
GAAP also establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs used to measure fair value, and requires fair value measurements to be categorized based on the observability of those inputs. The hierarchy gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1 inputs) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3 inputs). The three levels of the fair value hierarchy are as follows:
Level 1 – The pricing inputs are unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities as of the reporting date. Active markets are those in which transactions for the asset or liability occur in sufficient frequency and volume to provide pricing information on an ongoing basis. Level 1 primarily consists of financial instruments such as exchange-traded derivatives and listed equities.
Level 2 – The pricing inputs are inputs other than quoted prices included within Level 1 that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly. Level 2 includes financial instruments that are valued using models or other valuation methodologies. These models are primarily industry-standard models that consider various assumptions, including quoted forward prices for commodities, time value, volatility factors, and current market and contractual prices for the underlying instruments, as well as other relevant economic measures. Substantially all of these assumptions are observable in the marketplace throughout the full term of the instrument, can be derived from observable data or are supported by observable levels at which transactions are executed in the marketplace. Instruments in this category include non-exchange-traded derivatives, such as over-the-counter forwards, swaps and options; certain marketable debt securities; and financial instruments traded in less than active markets.
Level 3 – The pricing inputs include significant inputs generally less observable from objective sources. These inputs may be used with internally developed methodologies that result in management’s best estimate of fair value. Level 3 instruments may include longer-term instruments that extend into periods in which quoted prices or other observable inputs are not available.
Certain assets and liabilities, including long-lived assets, were measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis. There were no significant fair value measurement losses recognized for such assets and liabilities in the periods reported. These fair value measurements fall within Level 3 of the hierarchy discussed above.
The following tables set forth, by level within the fair value hierarchy, our and the Utilities’ financial assets and liabilities accounted for at fair value on a recurring basis as of December 31, 2011 and 2010. Financial assets and liabilities are classified in their entirety based on the lowest level of input significant to the fair value measurement.
174

Our assessment of the significance of a particular input to the fair value measurement requires judgment and may affect the valuation of fair value assets and liabilities and their placement within the fair value hierarchy levels.
PROGRESS ENERGY            
(in millions) Level 1  Level 2  Level 3  Total 
2011            
Assets            
Nuclear decommissioning trust funds            
Common stock equity $1,033  $-  $-  $1,033 
Preferred stock and other equity  28   1   -   29 
Corporate debt  -   86   -   86 
U.S. state and municipal debt  -   128   -   128 
U.S. and foreign government debt  87   197   -   284 
Money market funds and other  -   87   -   87 
Total nuclear decommissioning trust funds  1,148   499   -   1,647 
Derivatives                
Commodity forward contracts  -   5   -   5 
Other marketable securities                
Money market and other  20   -   -   20 
Total assets $1,168  $504  $-  $1,672 
                 
Liabilities                
Derivatives                
Commodity forward contracts $-  $668  $24  $692 
Interest rate contracts  -   93   -   93 
Contingent value obligations  -   14   -   14 
Total liabilities $-  $775  $24  $799 
175

                 
(in millions) Level 1  Level 2  Level 3  Total 
2010                
Assets                
Nuclear decommissioning trust funds                
Common stock equity $1,021  $-  $-  $1,021 
Preferred stock and other equity  22   6   -   28 
Corporate debt  -   86   -   86 
U.S. state and municipal debt  -   132   -   132 
U.S. and foreign government debt  79   182   -   261 
Money market funds and other  1   42   -   43 
Total nuclear decommissioning trust funds  1,123   448   -   1,571 
Derivatives                
Commodity forward contracts  -   15   -   15 
Interest rate contracts  -   4   -   4 
Other marketable securities                
Corporate debt  -   4   -   4 
U.S. and foreign government debt  -   3   -   3 
Money market and other  18   -   -   18 
Total assets $1,141  $474  $-  $1,615 
                 
Liabilities            
Derivatives            
Commodity forward contracts $-  $458  $36  $494 
Interest rate contracts  -   39   -   39 
Contingent value obligations  -   15   -   15 
Total liabilities $-  $512  $36  $548 
PEC            
(in millions) Level 1  Level 2  Level 3  Total 
2011            
Assets            
Nuclear decommissioning trust funds            
Common stock equity $673  $-  $-  $673 
Preferred stock and other equity  17   -   -   17 
Corporate debt  -   69   -   69 
U.S. state and municipal debt  -   56   -   56 
U.S. and foreign government debt  81   145   -   226 
Money market funds and other  -   47   -   47 
Total nuclear decommissioning trust funds  771   317   -   1,088 
Other marketable securities  6   -   -   6 
Total assets $777  $317  $-  $1,094 
                 
Liabilities                
Derivatives                
Commodity forward contracts $-  $177  $24  $201 
Interest rate contracts  -   47   -   47 
Total liabilities $-  $224  $24  $248 
176

             
(in millions) Level 1  Level 2  Level 3  Total 
2010            
Assets            
Nuclear decommissioning trust funds            
Common stock equity $652  $-  $-  $652 
Preferred stock and other equity  14   -   -   14 
Corporate debt  -   72   -   72 
U.S. state and municipal debt  -   51   -   51 
U.S. and foreign government debt  76   123   -   199 
Money market funds and other  1   28   -   29 
Total nuclear decommissioning trust funds  743   274   -   1,017 
Derivatives                
Commodity forward contracts  -   2   -   2 
Interest rate contracts  -   3   -   3 
Other marketable securities  4   -   -   4 
Total assets $747  $279  $-  $1,026 
                 
Liabilities                
Derivatives                
Commodity forward contracts $-  $87  $36  $123 
Interest rate contracts  -   11   -   11 
Total liabilities $-  $98  $36  $134 
PEF            
(in millions) Level 1  Level 2  Level 3  Total 
2011            
Assets            
Nuclear decommissioning trust funds            
Common stock equity $360  $-  $-  $360 
Preferred stock and other equity  11   1   -   12 
Corporate debt  -   17   -   17 
U.S. state and municipal debt  -   72   -   72 
U.S. and foreign government debt  6   52   -   58 
Money market funds and other  -   40   -   40 
Total nuclear decommissioning trust funds  377   182   -   559 
Derivatives                
Commodity forward contracts  -   5   -   5 
Other marketable securities  1   -   -   1 
Total assets $378  $187  $-  $565 
                 
Liabilities                
Derivatives                
Commodity forward contracts $-  $491  $-  $491 
Interest rate contracts  -   8   -   8 
Total liabilities $-  $499  $-  $499 
177

                 
(in millions) Level 1  Level 2  Level 3  Total 
2010                
Assets                
Nuclear decommissioning trust funds                
Common stock equity $369  $-  $-  $369 
Preferred stock and other equity  8   6   -   14 
Corporate debt  -   14   -   14 
U.S. state and municipal debt  -   81   -   81 
U.S. and foreign government debt  3   59   -   62 
Money market funds and other  -   14   -   14 
Total nuclear decommissioning trust funds  380   174   -   554 
Derivatives                
Commodity forward contracts  -   13   -   13 
Other marketable securities  1   -   -   1 
Total assets $381  $187  $-  $568 
                 
Liabilities                
Derivatives                
Commodity forward contracts $-  $371  $-  $371 
Interest rate contracts  -   7   -   7 
Total liabilities $-  $378  $-  $378 
                 
The determination of the fair values in the preceding tables incorporates various factors, including risks of nonperformance by us or our counterparties. Such risks consider not only the credit standing of the counterparties involved and the impact of credit enhancements (such as cash deposits or letters of credit), but also the impact of our and the Utilities’ credit risk on our liabilities.
Commodity forward contract derivatives and interest rate contract derivatives reflect positions held by us and the Utilities. Most over-the-counter commodity forward contract derivatives and interest rate contract derivatives are valued using financial models which utilize observable inputs for similar instruments and are classified within Level 2. Other derivatives are valued utilizing inputs that are not observable for substantially the full term of the contract, or for which the impact of the unobservable period is significant to the fair value of the derivative. Such derivatives are classified within Level 3. See Note 18 for discussion of risk management activities and derivative transactions.
NDT funds reflect the assets of the Utilities’ nuclear decommissioning trusts. The assets of the trusts are invested primarily in exchange-traded equity securities (classified within Level 1) and marketable debt securities, most of which are valued using Level 1 inputs for similar instruments and are classified within Level 2.
Other marketable securities primarily represent available-for-sale debt securities used to fund certain employee benefit costs.
Contingent Value Obligations (CVOs), which are derivatives, are discussed further in Note 16. At September 30, 2011, we determined the fair value of the CVOs based on the purchase price in a negotiated settlement agreement (a Level 3 input) and classified CVOs as Level 3 at that date. Prior to September 30, 2011, the CVOs were recorded at fair value based on observable prices from a less-than-active market and classified as Level 2. In November 2011, we commenced a public tender offer that expired on February 15, 2012. All CVOs not tendered as of December 31, 2011, were classified as Level 2 based on observable prices in the less-than-active market.
Transfers in (out) of Levels 1, 2 or 3 represent existing assets or liabilities previously categorized as a higher level for which the inputs to the estimate became less observable or assets and liabilities that were previously classified as Level 2 or 3 for which the lowest significant input became more observable during the period. There were no significant transfers in (out) of Levels 1, 2 and 3 during the period other than the CVO transfer previously discussed. Transfers into and out of each level are measured at the end of the period.
178

A reconciliation of changes in the fair value of our and the Utilities’ derivatives, net classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy for the years ended December 31 follows:
          
PROGRESS ENERGY    
(in millions) 2011  2010  2009 
Derivatives, net at beginning of period $36  $39  $41 
Total losses (gains), realized and unrealized – commodities
deferred as regulatory assets and liabilities, net
  21   44   13 
Repurchases of CVOs under settlement and tender offer  (60)  -   - 
Transfers into Level 3 – CVOs
  74   -   - 
Transfers out of Level 3 – CVOs  (14)  -   - 
Transfers in (out) of Level 3, net – commodities
  (33)  (47)  (15)
Derivatives, net at end of period $24  $36  $39 
             
PEC     
(in millions)  2011   2010   2009 
Derivatives, net at beginning of period $36  $27  $22 
Total losses (gains), realized and unrealized – commodities
deferred as regulatory assets and liabilities, net
  20   27   7 
Transfers in (out) of Level 3, net – commodities
  (32)  (18)  (2)
Derivatives, net at end of period $24  $36  $27 
             

PEF    
(in millions) 2011  2010  2009 
Derivatives, net at beginning of period $-  $12  $19 
Total losses (gains), realized and unrealized – commodities
deferred as regulatory assets and liabilities, net
  1   17   6 
Transfers in (out) of Level 3, net – commodities
  (1)  (29)  (13)
Derivatives, net at end of period $-  $-  $12 
             
Substantially all unrealized gains and losses on the Utilities’ derivatives are deferred as regulatory liabilities or assets consistent with ratemaking treatment. Realized and unrealized losses on the change in fair value of our CVOs are discussed in Note 18.
We provide deferred income taxes for temporary differences between book and tax carrying amounts of assets and liabilities. Investment tax credits related to regulated operations have been deferred and are being amortized over the estimated service life of the related properties. To the extent that the establishment of deferred income taxes is different from the recovery of taxes by the Utilities through the ratemaking process, the differences are deferred pursuant to GAAP for regulated operations. A regulatory asset or liability has been recognized for the impact of tax expenses or benefits that are recovered or refunded in different periods by the Utilities pursuant to rate orders. We accrue for uncertain tax positions when it is determined that it is more likely than not that the benefit will not be sustained on audit by the taxing authority based solely on the technical merits of the associated tax position. If the recognition threshold is met, the tax benefit recognized is measured at the largest amount that, in our judgment, is greater than 50 percent likely to be realized.
179

PROGRESS ENERGY
Accumulated deferred income tax assets (liabilities) at December 31 were:
(in millions) 2011  2010 
Deferred income tax assets      
Derivative instruments $309  $204 
Income taxes refundable through future rates  375   271 
Pension and other postretirement benefits  591   447 
Other  522   501 
Tax credit carry forwards  872   839 
Net operating loss carry forwards  291   105 
Valuation allowance  (71)  (60)
Total deferred income tax assets  2,889   2,307 
Deferred income tax liabilities        
Accumulated depreciation and property cost differences  (3,098)  (2,439)
Income taxes recoverable through future rates  (1,271)  (875)
Other  (303)  (386)
Total deferred income tax liabilities  (4,672)  (3,700)
Total net deferred income tax liabilities $(1,783) $(1,393)
The above amounts were classified on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as follows:

(in millions) 2011  2010 
Current deferred income tax assets, included in deferred tax assets $371  $156 
Noncurrent deferred income tax assets, included in other assets and deferred debits  27   34 
Noncurrent deferred income tax liabilities, included in noncurrent income tax liabilities  (2,181)  (1,583)
Total net deferred income tax liabilities $(1,783) $(1,393)
         
At December 31, 2011, we had the following tax credit and net operating loss carry forwards:
·  $868 million of federal alternative minimum tax credits that do not expire.
·  $4 million of federal general business credits that will expire during the period 2028 through 2031.
·  $623 million of gross federal net operating loss carry forwards that will expire during 2031. $14 million of the gross federal net operating loss carry forward is related to excess tax deductions resulting from stock-based compensation plans. The tax benefit from the utilization of this portion of the federal net operating loss carry forward will be recorded as a credit to common stock when realized.
·  $1.9 billion of gross state net operating loss carry forwards that will expire during the period 2012 through 2031.
Valuation allowances have been established due to the uncertainty of realizing certain future state tax benefits. We had a net increase of $11 million in our deferred income tax assets and valuation allowances during 2011 related to prior year state net operating loss carry forwards at Progress Fuels Corporation.
We believe it is more likely than not that the results of future operations will generate sufficient taxable income to allow for the utilization of the remaining deferred tax assets.
Certain substantial changes in ownership of Progress Energy, including the proposed merger between Progress Energy and Duke Energy (See Note 2), can impact the timing of the utilization of tax credit carry forwards and net operating loss carry forwards.
180

Reconciliations of our effective income tax rate to the statutory federal income tax rate for the years ended December 31 follow:
  2011  2010  2009 
Effective income tax rate  35.6%  38.3%  32.1%
State income taxes, net of federal benefit  (4.3)  (4.3)  (3.7)
Investment tax credit amortization  0.8   0.5   0.8 
Employee stock ownership plan dividends  1.4   0.9   1.0 
Domestic manufacturing deduction  -   -   0.8 
AFUDC equity  2.6   1.4   2.2 
Other differences, net  (1.1)  (1.8)  1.8 
Statutory federal income tax rate  35.0%  35.0%  35.0%
Income tax expense applicable to continuing operations for the years ended December 31 was comprised of:
(in millions) 2011  2010  2009 
Current         
Federal $(91) $(46) $227 
State  29   (13)  41 
Total current income tax expense (benefit)  (62)  (59)  268 
Deferred            
Federal  578   542   114 
State  27   100   25 
Total deferred income tax expense  605   642   139 
Investment tax credit  (7)  (7)  (10)
Net operating loss carry forward  (213)  (37)  - 
Total income tax expense $323  $539  $397 
Total income tax expense applicable to continuing operations excluded the following:
·  Taxes related to discontinued operations recorded net of tax for 2011, 2010 and 2009, which are presented separately in Note 4A.
·  Taxes related to other comprehensive income recorded net of tax for 2011, 2010 and 2009, which are presented separately on the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income.
·  An immaterial amount of current tax benefit, which was recorded in common stock during 2010, related to excess tax deductions resulting from vesting of restricted stock awards, vesting of RSUs, vesting of stock-settled PSSP awards and exercises of nonqualified stock options pursuant to the terms of our EIP. No net current tax benefit was recorded in common stock during 2011 and 2009.

181

At December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, our liability for unrecognized tax benefits was $173 million, $176 million and $160 million, respectively. The amount of unrecognized tax benefits that, if recognized, would affect the effective tax rate for income from continuing operations was $6 million, $8 million and $9 million at December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. The following table presents the changes to unrecognized tax benefits during the years ended December 31:
(in millions) 2011  2010  2009 
Unrecognized tax benefits at beginning of period $176  $160  $104 
Gross amounts of increases as a result of tax positions taken in a prior period  88   10   11 
Gross amounts of decreases as a result of tax positions taken in a prior period  (24)  (4)  (3)
Gross amounts of increases as a result of tax positions taken in the current period  9   14   52 
Gross amounts of decreases as a result of tax positions taken in the current period  (8)  (4)  (4)
Amounts of net decreases relating to settlements with taxing authorities  (68)  -   - 
Unrecognized tax benefits at end of period $173  $176  $160 
We and our subsidiaries file income tax returns in the U.S. federal jurisdiction and various state jurisdictions. Our federal tax years are open for examination from 2007 forward, and our open state tax years in our major jurisdictions generally are from 2003 forward. In 2011, the IRS completed its examination of the 2004 and 2005 tax years. It is reasonably possible that unrecognized tax benefits will decrease by approximately $25 million during the 12-month period ending December 31, 2012, due to IRS review of open tax years. Any potential decrease will not have a material impact on our results of operations.
We include interest expense related to unrecognized tax benefits in net interest charges and we include penalties in other, net on the Consolidated Statements of Income. During 2011, 2010 and 2009, the net interest (benefit) expense related to unrecognized tax benefits was $(24) million, $9 million and $9 million, respectively, of which a respective $(22) million, $5 million and $5 million (benefit) expense component was deferred as a regulatory asset by PEF, which is amortized as a charge to interest expense over a three-year period or less. During 2011, PEF charged the unamortized balance of the regulatory asset to interest expense. During 2011, 2010 and 2009, there were no penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits. At December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, we accrued $21 million, $45 million and $36 million, respectively, for interest and penalties, which were included in interest accrued and other liabilities and deferred credits on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

182


PEC
Accumulated deferred income tax assets (liabilities) at December 31 were:
(in millions) 2011  2010 
Deferred income tax assets      
ARO liability $101  $103 
Derivative instruments  96   49 
Income taxes refundable through future rates  142   142 
Pension and other postretirement benefits  244   180 
Other  168   158 
Tax credit carry forwards  3   - 
Net operating loss carry forwards  54   - 
Total deferred income tax assets  808   632 
Deferred income tax liabilities        
Accumulated depreciation and property cost differences  (1,908)  (1,552)
Income taxes recoverable through future rates  (541)  (421)
Investments  (103)  (104)
Other  (17)  (35)
Total deferred income tax liabilities  (2,569)  (2,112)
Total net deferred income tax liabilities $(1,761) $(1,480)
The above amounts were classified on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as follows:
(in millions) 2011  2010 
Current deferred income tax assets, included in deferred tax assets $142  $65 
Noncurrent deferred income tax liabilities, included in noncurrent income tax liabilities  (1,903)  (1,545)
Total net deferred income tax liabilities $(1,761) $(1,480)
At December 31, 2011, PEC had the following tax credit and net operating loss carry forwards:

·  $3 million of federal general business credits that will expire during the period 2028 through 2031.
·  $161 million of gross federal net operating loss carry forwards that will expire during 2031. $6 million of the gross federal net operating loss carry forward is related to excess tax deductions resulting from stock-based compensation plans. The tax benefit from the utilization of this portion of the federal net operating loss carry forward will be recorded as a credit to common stock when realized.
·  $1 million of gross state net operating loss carry forwards that will expire during the period 2012 through 2030.

Reconciliations of PEC’s effective income tax rate to the statutory federal income tax rate for the years ended December 31 follow:
  2011  2010  2009 
Effective income tax rate  33.2%  36.8%  35.0%
State income taxes, net of federal benefit  (2.3)  (3.2)  (2.8)
Investment tax credit amortization  0.7   0.6   0.7 
Domestic manufacturing deduction  -   0.4   0.9 
AFUDC equity  2.2   1.5   0.6 
Other differences, net  1.2   (1.1)  0.6 
Statutory federal income tax rate  35.0%  35.0%  35.0%
183


Income tax expense for the years ended December 31 was comprised of:
(in millions) 2011  2010  2009 
Current         
Federal $(27) $73  $192 
State  21   (8)  21 
Total current income tax expense (benefit)  (6)  65   213 
Deferred            
Federal  316   238   57 
State  6   53   13 
Total deferred income tax expense  322   291   70 
Investment tax credit  (6)  (6)  (6)
Net operating loss carry forward  (54)  -   - 
Total income tax expense $256  $350  $277 

Total income tax expense excluded taxes related to other comprehensive income recorded net of tax for 2011, 2010 and 2009, which are presented separately on the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income.
PEC and each of its wholly owned subsidiaries have entered into the Tax Agreement with the Parent (See Note 1D). PEC’s intercompany tax receivable was approximately $4 million and $78 million at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
At December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, PEC’s liability for unrecognized tax benefits was $73 million, $74 million and $59 million, respectively. The amount of unrecognized tax benefits that, if recognized, would affect the effective tax rate for income from continuing operations was $1 million, $4 million and $5 million at December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. The following table presents the changes to unrecognized tax benefits during the years ended December 31:
(in millions) 2011  2010  2009 
Unrecognized tax benefits at beginning of period $74  $59  $38 
Gross amounts of increases as a result of tax positions taken in a prior period  19   8   6 
Gross amounts of decreases as a result of tax positions taken in a prior period  (14)  (2)  (2)
Gross amounts of increases as a result of tax positions taken in the current period  8   10   17 
Gross amounts of decreases as a result of tax positions taken in the current period  (4)  (1)  - 
Amounts of net decreases relating to settlements with taxing authorities  (10)  -   - 
Unrecognized tax benefits at end of period $73  $74  $59 
We file consolidated federal and state income tax returns that include PEC. In addition, PEC files stand-alone tax returns in various state jurisdictions. PEC’s open federal tax years are from 2007 forward, and PEC’s open state tax years in our major jurisdictions generally are from 2003 forward. In 2011, the IRS completed its examination of the 2004 and 2005 tax years. PEC is not aware of any tax positions for which it is reasonably possible that the total amounts of unrecognized tax benefits will significantly increase or decrease during the 12-month period ending December 31, 2012.
PEC includes interest expense related to unrecognized tax benefits in net interest charges and we include penalties in other, net on the Consolidated Statements of Income. During 2011, 2010 and 2009, the interest (benefit) expense recorded related to unrecognized tax benefits was $(6) million, $4 million and $3 million, respectively. During 2011, 2010 and 2009, there were no penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits. At December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009,
184

 we accrued $8 million, $14 million and $10 million, respectively, for interest and penalties, which were included in interest accrued and other liabilities and deferred credits on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
PEF
Accumulated deferred income tax assets (liabilities) at December 31 were:
(in millions) 2011  2010 
Deferred income tax assets      
Derivative instruments $198  $145 
Income taxes refundable through future rates  198   93 
Pension and other postretirement benefits  224   170 
Reserve for storm damage  52   52 
Unbilled revenue  39   61 
Other  101   82 
Tax credit carry forwards  1   3 
Net operating loss carry forwards  41   9 
Total deferred income tax assets  854   615 
Deferred income tax liabilities        
Accumulated depreciation and property cost differences  (1,180)  (874)
Deferred fuel recovery  (40)  (65)
Deferred nuclear cost recovery  (68)  (94)
Income taxes recoverable through future rates  (685)  (454)
Investments  (56)  (60)
Other  (12)  (18)
Total deferred income tax liabilities  (2,041)  (1,565)
Total net deferred income tax liabilities $(1,187) $(950)
The above amounts were classified on the Balance Sheets as follows:
(in millions) 2011  2010 
Current deferred income tax assets, included in deferred tax assets $138  $77 
Noncurrent deferred income tax liabilities, included in noncurrent income tax liabilities  (1,325)  (1,027)
Total net deferred income tax liabilities $(1,187) $(950)
At December 31, 2011, PEF had the following tax credit and net operating loss carry forwards:
·  $1 million of federal general business credits that will expire during the period 2029 through 2031.
·  $120 million of gross federal net operating loss carry forwards that will expire during 2031. $3 million of the gross federal net operating loss carry forward is related to excess tax deductions resulting from stock-based compensation plans. The tax benefit from the utilization of this portion of the federal net operating loss carry forward will be recorded as a credit to common stock when realized.
185

Reconciliations of PEF’s effective income tax rate to the statutory federal income tax rate for the years ended December 31 follow:
  2011  2010  2009 
Effective income tax rate  36.3%  37.9%  31.1%
State income taxes, net of federal benefit  (3.5)  (3.2)  (3.0)
Investment tax credit amortization  0.3   0.2   0.7 
Domestic manufacturing deduction  -   -   0.8 
AFUDC equity  1.4   0.8   3.4 
Other differences, net  0.5   (0.7)  2.0 
Statutory federal income tax rate  35.0%  35.0%  35.0%
Income tax expense for the years ended December 31 was comprised of:
(in millions) 2011  2010  2009 
Current         
Federal $(60) $(44) $125 
State  5   (4)  20 
Total current income tax expense (benefit)  (55)  (48)  145 
Deferred            
Federal  255   293   57 
State  22   41   11 
Total deferred income tax expense  277   334   68 
Investment tax credit  (1)  (1)  (4)
Net operating loss carry forward  (41)  (9)  - 
Total income tax expense $180  $276  $209 
Total income tax expense excluded the following:
·  Taxes related to other comprehensive income recorded net of tax for 2011, 2010 and 2009, which are presented separately on the Statements of Comprehensive Income.
·  An immaterial amount of current tax benefit, which was recorded in common stock during 2010, related to excess tax deductions resulting from vesting of restricted stock awards, vesting of RSUs, vesting of stock-settled PSSP awards and exercises of nonqualified stock options pursuant to the terms of our EIP. No net current tax benefit was recorded in common stock during 2011 and 2009.

PEF has entered into the Tax Agreement with the Parent (See Note 1D). PEF’s intercompany tax receivable was approximately $23 million and $71 million at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

186


At December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, PEF’s liability for unrecognized tax benefits was $80 million, $99 million and $98 million, respectively. The amount of unrecognized tax benefits that, if recognized, would affect the effective tax rate for income from continuing operations was $1 million, $2 million and $3 million at December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. The following table presents the changes to unrecognized tax benefits during the years ended December 31:
(in millions) 2011  2010  2009 
Unrecognized tax benefits at beginning of period $99  $98  $62 
Gross amounts of increases as a result of tax positions taken in a prior period  66   2   5 
Gross amounts of decreases as a result of tax positions taken in a prior period  (21)  (1)  (1)
Gross amounts of increases as a result of tax positions taken in the current period  1   3   35 
Gross amounts of decreases as a result of tax positions taken in the current period  (4)  (3)  (3)
Amounts of net decreases relating to settlements with taxing authorities  (61)  -   - 
Unrecognized tax benefits at end of period $80  $99  $98 
We file consolidated federal and state income tax returns that include PEF. PEF’s open federal tax years are from 2007 forward, and PEF’s open state tax years generally are from 2003 forward. In 2011, the IRS completed its examination of the 2004 and 2005 tax years. It is reasonably possible that unrecognized tax benefits will decrease by approximately $20 million during the 12-month period ending December 31, 2012, due to IRS review of open tax years. Any potential decrease will not have a material impact on our results of operations.
Pursuant to a regulatory order, PEF records interest expense related to unrecognized tax benefits as a regulatory asset, which is amortized over a three-year period or less, with the amortization included in net interest charges on the Statements of Income. Penalties are included in other, net on the Statements of Income. During 2011, 2010 and 2009, interest (benefit) expense recorded as a regulatory asset was $(22) million, $5 million and $5 million, respectively, and there were no penalties recorded related to unrecognized tax benefits. During 2011, PEF charged the unamortized balance of the regulatory asset to interest expense. At December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, PEF accrued $7 million, $29 million and $24 million, respectively, for interest and penalties, which were included in prepayments and other current assets and other liabilities and deferred credits on the Balance Sheets.

In connection with the acquisition of Florida Progress during 2000, the Parent issued 98.6 million CVOs. Each CVO represents the right of the holder to receive contingent payments based on the performance of four coal-based solid synthetic fuels limited liability companies, three of which were wholly owned (Earthco), purchased by subsidiaries of Florida Progress in October 1999. All of our synthetic fuels businesses were abandoned and all operations ceased as of December 31, 2007 (See Note 4A). The payments are based on the net after-tax cash flows the facilities generated. We make deposits into a CVO trust for estimated contingent payments due to CVO holders based on the results of operations and the utilization of tax credits. The balance of the CVO trust at December 31, 2011 and 2010, was $11 million and is included in other assets and deferred debits on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Future payments from the trust to CVO holders will not be made until certain conditions are satisfied and will include principal and interest earned during the investment period net of expenses deducted. Interest earned on the payments held in trust for 2011 and 2010 was insignificant.
On June 10, 2011, Davidson Kempner Partners, M.H. Davidson & Co., Davidson Kempner Institutional Partners, L.P., and Davidson Kempner International, Ltd. (jointly, Davidson Kempner) filed a lawsuit against us (see Note 22D) related to their ownership of CVOs. On October 3, 2011, we entered a settlement agreement and release with Davidson Kempner under which the parties mutually released all claims related to the CVOs and we purchased all of Davidson Kempner’s CVOs at a negotiated purchase price of $0.75 per CVO. In November 2011, we also
187

commenced a tender offer for all remaining outstanding CVOs at the same purchase price. The tender offer expired on February 15, 2012, and as a result, 83.4 million CVOs were repurchased through the settlement agreement or through the tender offer. The CVOs are derivatives and are recorded at fair value. At September 30, 2011, the purchase price included in the settlement agreement and subsequent tender offer represented the fair value of the CVOs. Prior to September 30, 2011, and at December 31, 2011, the CVOs were recorded at fair value based on observable prices from a less-than-active market (see Note 14). A pre-tax loss of $59 million from the changes in fair value during 2011 is recorded in other, net on the Consolidated Statements of Income. At December 31, 2011, the CVO liability included in other current liabilities on our Consolidated Balance Sheets was $14 million based on the 18.5 million outstanding CVOs not held by the Parent. At December 31, 2010, the CVO liability included in other liabilities and deferred credits on our Consolidated Balance Sheets was $15 million based on the 98.6 million CVOs outstanding.

17.BENEFIT PLANS
A.POSTRETIREMENT BENEFITS
We have noncontributory defined benefit retirement plans that provide pension benefits for substantially all full-time employees. We also have supplementary defined benefit pension plans that provide benefits to higher-level employees. In addition to pension benefits, we provide contributory other postretirement benefits (OPEB), including certain health care and life insurance benefits, for retired employees who meet specified criteria. We use a measurement date of December 31 for our pension and OPEB plans.
COSTS OF BENEFIT PLANS
Prior service costs and benefits are amortized on a straight-line basis over the average remaining service period of active participants. Actuarial gains and losses in excess of 10 percent of the greater of the projected benefit obligation or the market-related value of assets are amortized over the average remaining service period of active participants.
To determine the market-related value of assets, we use a five-year averaging method for a portion of the pension assets and fair value for the remaining portion. We have historically used the five-year averaging method. When we acquired Florida Progress in 2000, we retained the Florida Progress historical use of fair value to determine market-related value for Florida Progress pension assets.
The tables below provide the components of the net periodic benefit cost for the years ended December 31. A portion of net periodic benefit cost is capitalized as part of construction work in progress.
 PROGRESS ENERGY
      
  Pension Benefits  OPEB 
 (in millions)
 2011  2010  2009  2011  2010  2009 
 Service cost
 $53  $48  $42  $11  $16  $7 
 Interest cost
  141   140   138   41   45   31 
 Expected return on plan assets
  (182)  (157)  (133)  (2)  (4)  (4)
 Amortization of actuarial loss(a)
  69   51   54   12   13   1 
 Other amortization, net (a)
  7   6   6   5   5   5 
Net periodic cost before deferral(b)
 $88  $88  $107  $67  $75  $40 
(a)Adjusted to reflect PEF’s rate treatment (See Note 17B).
(b)PEF received permission from the FPSC to defer the retail portion of certain 2009 pension expense. The FPSC order did not change the total net periodic pension cost, but deferred a portion of the costs to be recovered in future periods. During 2009, PEF deferred $34 million of net periodic pension costs as a regulatory asset. See Note 8C.

188


 PEC
      
  Pension Benefits  OPEB 
 (in millions)
 2011  2010  2009  2011  2010  2009 
 Service cost
 $21  $19  $18  $5  $5  $5 
 Interest cost
  63   64   64   20   20   16 
 Expected return on plan assets
  (91)  (77)  (67)  -   (2)  (2)
 Amortization of actuarial loss
  26   16   11   5   4   - 
 Other amortization, net
  5   6   6   1   1   1 
Net periodic cost $24  $28  $32  $31  $28  $20 
 PEF
      
  Pension Benefits  OPEB 
 (in millions)
  2011   2010   2009   2011   2010   2009 
 Service cost
 $25  $22  $19  $5  $10  $2 
 Interest cost
  59   59   56   18   22   13 
 Expected return on plan assets
  (78)  (68)  (56)  (2)  (2)  (1)
 Amortization of actuarial loss
  33   31   38   7   9   - 
 Other amortization, net
  -   -   -   4   4   3 
Net periodic cost before deferral(a)
 $39  $44  $57  $32  $43  $17 
(a)PEF received permission from the FPSC to defer the retail portion of certain 2009 pension expense. The FPSC order did not change the total net periodic pension cost, but deferred a portion of the costs to be recovered in future periods. During 2009, PEF deferred $34 million of net periodic pension costs as a regulatory asset. See Note 8C.
The following tables provide a summary of amounts recognized in other comprehensive income and other comprehensive income reclassification adjustments for amounts included in net income for 2011, 2010 and 2009. The tables also include comparable items that affected regulatory assets. Amounts that would otherwise be recorded in other comprehensive income are recorded as adjustments to regulatory assets consistent with the recovery of the related costs through the ratemaking process.
 PROGRESS ENERGY
      
  Pension Benefits  OPEB 
 (in millions)
 2011  2010  2009  2011  2010  2009 
 Other comprehensive income (loss)
                  
Recognized for the year                  
Net actuarial (loss) gain $(20) $(11) $(1) $(2) $(10) $4 
Regulatory asset adjustment  84   -   -   (4)  -   - 
Reclassification adjustments                        
Net actuarial loss  10   4   5   -   -   1 
Other, net  2   -   -   -   -   1 
 Regulatory asset (increase) decrease
                        
Recognized for the year                        
Net actuarial (loss) gain  (307)  (65)  10   (95)  (164)  64 
Reclassification adjustment  (84)  -   -   4   -   - 
Other, net  -   -   (3)  -   -   - 
Amortized to income(a)
                        
Net actuarial loss  59   47   49   12   13   - 
Other, net  5   6   6   5   5   4 
(a)These amounts were amortized as a component of net periodic cost, as reflected in the previous net periodic cost table. Refer to that table for information regarding the deferral of a portion of net periodic pension cost.

189


 PEC
      
  Pension Benefits  OPEB 
 (in millions)
 2011  2010  2009  2011  2010  2009 
 Regulatory asset (increase) decrease
                  
Recognized for the year                  
Net actuarial (loss) gain $(134) $(24) $(14) $(49) $(64) $38 
Other, net  -   -   (2)  -   -   - 
Amortized to income                        
Net actuarial loss  26   16   11   5   4   - 
Other, net  5   6   6   1   1   1 
 PEF
      
  Pension Benefits  OPEB 
 (in millions)
  2011   2010   2009   2011   2010   2009 
 Regulatory asset (increase) decrease
                        
Recognized for the year                        
Net actuarial (loss) gain $(147) $(41) $24  $(39) $(100) $26 
Other, net  -   -   (1)  -   -   - 
Amortized to income(a)
                        
Net actuarial loss  33   31   38   7   9   - 
Other, net  -   -   -   4   4   3 
(a)These amounts were amortized as a component of net periodic cost, as reflected in the previous net periodic cost table. Refer to that table for information regarding the deferral of a portion of net periodic pension cost.
The following weighted-average actuarial assumptions were used by Progress Energy in the calculation of its net periodic cost:
  Pension Benefits  OPEB 
  2011  2010  2009  2011  2010  2009 
Discount rate  5.60%  6.00%  6.30%  5.70%  6.05%  6.20%
Rate of increase in future compensation                        
Bargaining  4.50%  4.50%  4.25%  -   -   - 
Supplementary plans  5.25%  5.25%  5.25%  -   -   - 
Expected long-term rate of return on plan assets  8.50%  8.75%  8.75%  5.00%  6.60%  6.80%

The weighted-average actuarial assumptions used by PEC and PEF were not materially different from the assumptions above, as applicable, except that the expected long-term rate of return on OPEB plan assets was 5.00% for PEF for all years presented and for PEC was 8.75% for 2010 and 2009. PEC held no OPEB plan assets during 2011.
The expected long-term rates of return on plan assets were determined by considering long-term projected returns based on the plans’ target asset allocations. Specifically, return rates were developed for each major asset class and weighted based on the target asset allocations. The projected returns were benchmarked against historical returns for reasonableness. We decreased our expected long-term rate of return on pension assets by 0.25% in 2011, primarily due to a shift in our investment strategy. See the “Assets of Benefit Plans” section below for additional information regarding our investment policies and strategies.
BENEFIT OBLIGATIONS AND ACCRUED COSTS
GAAP requires us to recognize in our statement of financial condition the funded status of our pension and other postretirement benefit plans, measured as the difference between the fair value of the plan assets and the benefit obligation as of the end of the fiscal year.
190

Reconciliations of the changes in the Progress Registrants’ benefit obligations and the funded status as of December 31, 2011 and 2010 are presented in the tables below, with each table followed by related supplementary information.
PROGRESS ENERGY      
  Pension Benefits  OPEB 
(in millions) 2011  2010  2011  2010 
Projected benefit obligation at January 1 $2,609  $2,422  $733  $543 
Service cost  53   48   11   16 
Interest cost  141   140   41   45 
Settlements  (6)  -   -   - 
Benefit payments  (129)  (129)  (42)  (44)
Plan amendment  -   1   -   - 
Actuarial loss  238   127   98   173 
Obligation at December 31  2,906   2,609   841   733 
Fair value of plan assets at December 31  2,191   1,891   37   33 
Funded status $(715) $(718) $(804) $(700)

All defined benefit pension plans had accumulated benefit obligations in excess of plan assets, with projected benefit obligations totaling $2.906 billion and $2.609 billion at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. Those plans had accumulated benefit obligations totaling $2.854 billion and $2.563 billion at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively, and plan assets of $2.191 billion and $1.891 billion at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
The accrued benefit costs reflected in the Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31 were as follows:

  Pension Benefits  OPEB 
(in millions) 2011  2010  2011  2010 
Current liabilities $(10) $(10) $(22) $(22)
Noncurrent liabilities  (705)  (708)  (782)  (678)
Funded status $(715) $(718) $(804) $(700)

The following table provides a summary of amounts not yet recognized as a component of net periodic cost at December 31:

  Pension Benefits  OPEB 
 (in millions)
 2011  2010  2011  2010 
 Recognized in accumulated other comprehensive loss
            
Net actuarial loss $34  $90  $-  $5 
Other, net  2   9   -   1 
 Recognized in regulatory assets, net
                
Net actuarial loss  1,139   824   274   183 
Other, net  56   55   3   9 
Total not yet recognized as a component of net periodic cost(a)
 $1,231  $978  $277  $198 
(a)All components are adjusted to reflect PEF's rate treatment (See Note 17B).
The following table presents the amounts we expect to recognize as components of net periodic cost in 2012:
 (in millions)
 Pension Benefits  OPEB 
 Amortization of actuarial loss(a)
 $91  $23 
 Amortization of other, net(a)
  9   4 
(a)Adjusted to reflect PEF’s rate treatment (See Note 17B).
191

 PEC
      
  Pension Benefits  OPEB 
 (in millions)
 2011  2010  2011  2010 
 Projected benefit obligation at January 1
 $1,188  $1,120  $352  $282 
 Service cost
  21   19   5   5 
 Interest cost
  63   64   20   20 
 Benefit payments
  (56)  (56)  (19)  (19)
 Actuarial loss
  86   41   49   64 
Obligation at December 31  1,302   1,188   407   352 
 Fair value of plan assets at December 31
  1,091   884   -   - 
Funded status $(211) $(304) $(407) $(352)

All defined benefit pension plans had accumulated benefit obligations in excess of plan assets, with projected benefit obligations totaling $1.302 billion and $1.188 billion at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. Those plans had accumulated benefit obligations totaling $1.297 billion and $1.184 billion at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively, and plan assets of $1.091 billion and $884 million at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
The accrued benefit costs reflected on the Balance Sheets at December 31 were as follows:
  Pension Benefits  OPEB 
 (in millions)
 2011  2010  2011  2010 
 Current liabilities
 $(2) $(2) $(19) $(19)
 Noncurrent liabilities
  (209)  (302)  (388)  (333)
Funded status $(211) $(304) $(407) $(352)

The table below provides a summary of amounts not yet recognized as a component of net periodic cost at December 31:
             
  Pension Benefits  OPEB 
(in millions) 2011  2010  2011  2010 
Recognized in regulatory assets            
Net actuarial loss $527  $418  $121  $76 
Other, net  43   49   -   2 
Total not yet recognized as a component of net periodic cost $570  $467  $121  $78 

The following table presents the amounts PEC expects to recognize as components of net periodic cost in 2012:
(in millions)Pension Benefits OPEB 
Amortization of actuarial loss $ 37   $ 11  
Amortization of other, net   8     -  

192



PEF      
  Pension Benefits  OPEB 
(in millions) 2011  2010  2011  2010 
Projected benefit obligation at January 1 $1,087  $992  $326  $219 
Service cost  25   22   5   10 
Interest cost  59   59   18   22 
Plan amendment  -   1   -   - 
Benefit payments  (58)  (58)  (21)  (23)
Actuarial loss  110   71   40   98 
Obligation at December 31  1,223   1,087   368   326 
Fair value of plan assets at December 31  969   871   37   33 
Funded status $(254) $(216) $(331) $(293)

All defined benefit pension plans had accumulated benefit obligations in excess of plan assets, with projected benefit obligations totaling $1.223 billion and $1.087 billion at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. Those plans had accumulated benefit obligations totaling $1.184 billion and $1.049 billion at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively, and plan assets of $969 million and $871 million at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
The accrued benefit costs reflected in the Balance Sheets at December 31 were as follows:
  Pension Benefits  OPEB 
(in millions) 2011  2010  2011  2010 
Current liabilities $(3) $(3) $-  $- 
Noncurrent liabilities  (251)  (213)  (331)  (293)
Funded status $(254) $(216) $(331) $(293)

The following table provides a summary of amounts not yet recognized as a component of net periodic cost at December 31.
  Pension Benefits  OPEB 
(in millions) 2011  2010  2011  2010 
Recognized in regulatory assets, net            
Net actuarial loss $520  $406  $139  $107 
Other, net  6   6   3   7 
Total not yet recognized as a component of net periodic cost $526  $412  $142  $114 
The following table presents the amounts PEF expects to recognize as components of net periodic cost in 2012:
(in millions) Pension Benefits  OPEB 
Amortization of actuarial loss $45  $12 
Amortization of other, net  -   3 

193

The following weighted-average actuarial assumptions were used in the calculation of our year-end obligations:

  Pension Benefits  OPEB 
  2011  2010  2011  2010 
Discount rate  4.75%  5.65%  4.85%  5.75%
Rate of increase in future compensation                
Bargaining  4.00%  4.50%  -   - 
Supplementary plans  5.25%  5.25%  -   - 
Initial medical cost trend rate for pre-Medicare Act benefits  -   -   8.75%  8.50%
Initial medical cost trend rate for post-Medicare Act benefits  -   -   8.75%  8.50%
Ultimate medical cost trend rate  -   -   5.00%  5.00%
Year ultimate medical cost trend rate is achieved  -   -   2020   2017 
The weighted-average actuarial assumptions for PEC and PEF were the same or were not significantly different from those indicated above, as applicable. The rates of increase in future compensation include the effects of cost of living adjustments and promotions.
Our primary defined benefit retirement plan for nonbargaining employees is a “cash balance” pension plan. Therefore, we use the traditional unit credit method for purposes of measuring the benefit obligation of this plan. Under the traditional unit credit method, no assumptions are included about future changes in compensation, and the accumulated benefit obligation and projected benefit obligation are the same.
MEDICAL COST TREND RATE SENSITIVITY
The medical cost trend rates were assumed to decrease gradually from the initial rates to the ultimate rates. The effects of a 1 percent change in the medical cost trend rate are shown below.

  Progress Energy  PEC  PEF 
1 percent increase in medical cost trend rate         
Effect on total of service and interest cost $3  $1  $1 
Effect on postretirement benefit obligation  43   21   19 
1 percent decrease in medical cost trend rate            
Effect on total of service and interest cost  (2)  (1)  (1)
Effect on postretirement benefit obligation  (31)  (15)  (14)
ASSETS OF BENEFIT PLANS
In the plan asset reconciliation tables that follow, our, PEC’s and PEF’s employer contributions to qualified plans for 2011 include contributions directly to pension plan assets of $334 million, $217 million and $112 million, respectively, and for 2010 include contributions directly to pension plan assets of $129 million, $95 million and $34 million, respectively. Substantially all of the remaining employer contributions represent benefit payments made directly from the Progress Registrants’ assets. The OPEB benefit payments presented in the plan asset reconciliation tables that follow represent the cost after participant contributions. Participant contributions represent approximately 16 percent of gross benefit payments for Progress Energy, 21 percent for PEC and 12 percent for PEF. The OPEB benefit payments are also reduced by prescription drug-related federal subsidies received. In 2011, the subsidies totaled $5 million for us, $2 million for PEC and $2 million for PEF. In 2010, the subsidies totaled $3 million for us, $1 million for PEC and $2 million for PEF.

194


Reconciliations of the fair value of plan assets at December 31 follow:
PROGRESS ENERGY     
  Pension Benefits OPEB 
(in millions) 2011  2010  2011  2010 
Fair value of plan assets January 1 $1,891  $1,673  $33  $55 
Actual return on plan assets  91   208   3   2 
Benefit payments, including settlements  (135)  (129)  (42)  (44)
Employer contributions  344   139   43   20 
Fair value of plan assets at December 31 $2,191  $1,891  $37  $33 
PEC     
  Pension Benefits OPEB 
(in millions)  2011   2010   2011   2010 
Fair value of plan assets January 1 $884  $749  $-  $21 
Actual return on plan assets  44   94   -   2 
Benefit payments  (56)  (56)  (19)  (19)
Employer contributions (reimbursements)  219   97   19   (4)
Fair value of plan assets at December 31 $1,091  $884  $-  $- 
PEF     
  Pension Benefits OPEB 
(in millions)  2011   2010   2011   2010 
Fair value of plan assets January 1 $871  $794  $33  $32 
Actual return on plan assets  41   98   4   1 
Benefit payments  (58)  (58)  (21)  (23)
Employer contributions  115   37   21   23 
Fair value of plan assets at December 31 $969  $871  $37  $33 

The Progress Registrants’ primary objectives when setting investment policies and strategies are to manage the assets of the pension plan to ensure that sufficient funds are available at all times to finance promised benefits and to invest the funds such that contributions are minimized, within acceptable risk limits. We periodically perform studies to analyze various aspects of our pension plans including asset allocations, expected portfolio return, pension contributions and net funded status. One of our key investment objectives is to achieve a rate of return significantly in excess of the discount rate used to measure the plan liabilities over the long term. As of December 31, 2011, the target pension asset allocations are 29 percent domestic equity, 19 percent international equity, 35 percent domestic fixed income, 10 percent private equity and timber and 7 percent absolute return hedge funds. Tactical shifts (plus or minus 5 percent) in asset allocation from the target allocations are made based on the near-term view of the risk and return tradeoffs of the asset classes. Domestic equity includes investments across large, medium and small capitalized domestic stocks, using investment managers with value, growth and core-based investment strategies and includes both long only and long/short equity managers. International equity includes investments in foreign stocks in both developed and emerging market countries, using a mix of value and growth-based investment strategies and includes both long only and long/short equity managers. Domestic fixed income primarily includes domestic investment grade long duration fixed income investments. OPEB plan assets, representing all PEF’s OPEB plan assets, are invested in domestic governmental securities.

195


PROGRESS ENERGY
The following table sets forth by level within the fair value hierarchy our pension plan assets at December 31, 2011 and 2010. See Note 14 for detailed information regarding the fair value hierarchy.
  Pension Benefit Plan Assets 
(in millions)Level 1 Level 2 Level 3  Total 
2011             
Assets            
Cash and cash equivalents $82  $33  $-  $115 
International equity securities  47   -   -   47 
Domestic equity securities  266   -   -   266 
Private equity securities  -   -   153   153 
Corporate bonds  -   407   -   407 
U.S. state and municipal debt  -   42   -   42 
U.S. and foreign government debt  247   102   -   349 
Commingled funds  -   490   -   490 
Hedge funds  -   159   147   306 
Timber investments  -   -   11   11 
Other investments  -   5   -   5 
Fair value of plan assets $642  $1,238  $311  $2,191 
  Pension Benefit Plan Assets 
(in millions)Level 1 Level 2 Level 3  Total 
2010                 
Assets                
Cash and cash equivalents $-  $94  $-  $94 
International equity securities  40   -   -   40 
Domestic equity securities  286   -   -   286 
Private equity securities  -   -   147   147 
Corporate bonds  -   216   -   216 
U.S. state and municipal debt  -   19   -   19 
U.S. and foreign government debt  144   30   -   174 
Commingled funds  -   847   -   847 
Hedge funds  -   51   2   53 
Timber investments  -   -   11   11 
Other investments  -   4   -   4 
Fair value of plan assets $470  $1,261  $160  $1,891 
Our other postretirement benefit plan assets had a fair value of $37 million and $33 million, which consisted of U.S. state and municipal assets classified as Level 2 in the fair value hierarchy at December 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively.
196

A reconciliation of changes in the fair value of our pension plan assets classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy for the years ended December 31 follows:
 (in millions)
Private
Equity
Securities
 
Hedge
Funds
 
Timber
Investments
  Total 
 2011 
            
 Balance at January 1
 $147  $2  $11  $160 
 Net realized and unrealized gains (a)
  -   4   1   5 
 Transfers in
  -   52   -   52 
 Purchases, sales and distributions, net
  6   89   (1)  94 
 Balance at December 31
 $153  $147  $11  $311 
 (in millions)
Private
Equity
Securities
 
Hedge
Funds
 
Timber
Investments
  Total 
 2010 
                
 Balance at January 1
 $122  $2  $14  $138 
 Net realized and unrealized gains (losses)(a)
  7   -   (2)  5 
 Purchases, sales and distributions, net
  18   -   (1)  17 
 Balance at December 31
 $147  $2  $11  $160 
(a)Substantially all amounts relate to investments held at December 31.

PEC
The following table sets forth by level within the fair value hierarchy PEC’s pension plan assets at December 31, 2011 and 2010. See Note 14 for detailed information regarding the fair value hierarchy.
  Pension Benefit Plan Assets 
(in millions) Level 1  Level 2  Level 3  Total 
2011             
Assets            
Cash and cash equivalents $41  $16  $-  $57 
International equity securities  24   -   -   24 
Domestic equity securities  133   -   -   133 
Private equity securities  -   -   76   76 
Corporate bonds  -   203   -   203 
U.S. state and municipal debt  -   21   -   21 
U.S. and foreign government debt  123   51   -   174 
Commingled funds  -   244   -   244 
Hedge funds  -   79   73   152 
Timber investments  -   -   5   5 
Other investments  -   2   -   2 
Fair value of plan assets $321  $616  $154  $1,091 
197

  Pension Benefit Plan Assets 
(in millions) Level 1  Level 2  Level 3  Total 
2010             
Assets            
Cash and cash equivalents $-  $44  $-  $44 
International equity securities  19   -   -   19 
Domestic equity securities  134   -   -   134 
Private equity securities  -   -   69   69 
Corporate bonds  -   101   -   101 
U.S. state and municipal debt  -   9   -   9 
U.S. and foreign government debt  67   14   -   81 
Commingled funds  -   396   -   396 
Hedge funds  -   24   1   25 
Timber investments  -   -   5   5 
Other investments  -   1   -   1 
Fair value of plan assets $220  $589  $75  $884 
A reconciliation of changes in the fair value of PEC’s pension plan assets classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy for the years ended December 31 follows:
 (in millions)
Private
Equity
Securities
 
Hedge
Funds
 
Timber
Investments
 Total 
 2011 
            
 Balance at January 1
 $69  $1  $5  $75 
 Net realized and unrealized gains(a)
  -   2   -   2 
 Transfers in
  -   26   -   26 
 Purchases, sales and distributions, net
  7   44   -   51 
 Balance at December 31
 $76  $73  $5  $154 
 (in millions)
Private
Equity
Securities
 
Hedge
Funds
 
Timber
Investments
 Total 
 2010 
                
 Balance at January 1
 $55  $1  $6  $62 
 Net realized and unrealized gains (losses)(a)
  4   -   (1)  3 
 Purchases, sales and distributions, net
  10   -   -   10 
 Balance at December 31
 $69  $1  $5  $75 
(a)Substantially all amounts relate to investments held at December 31.
198


PEF
The following table sets forth by level within the fair value hierarchy PEF’s pension assets at December 31, 2011 and 2010. See Note 14 for detailed information regarding the fair value hierarchy.
  Pension Benefit Plan Assets 
(in millions) Level 1  Level 2  Level 3  Total 
2011             
Assets            
Cash and cash equivalents $36  $15  $-  $51 
International equity securities  21   -   -   21 
Domestic equity securities  117   -   -   117 
Private equity securities  -   -   68   68 
Corporate bonds  -   180   -   180 
U.S. state and municipal debt  -   19   -   19 
U.S. and foreign government debt  109   45   -   154 
Commingled funds  -   217   -   217 
Hedge funds  -   70   65   135 
Timber investments  -   -   5   5 
Other investments  -   2   -   2 
Fair value of plan assets $283  $548  $138  $969 

  Pension Benefit Plan Assets 
(in millions) Level 1  Level 2  Level 3  Total 
2010             
Assets            
Cash and cash equivalents $-  $43  $-  $43 
International equity securities  18   -   -   18 
Domestic equity securities  132   -   -   132 
Private equity securities  -   -   68   68 
Corporate bonds  -   99   -   99 
U.S. state and municipal debt  -   9   -   9 
U.S. and foreign government debt  66   14   -   80 
Commingled funds  -   391   -   391 
Hedge funds  -   23   1   24 
Timber investments  -   -   5   5 
Other investments  -   2   -   2 
Fair value of plan assets $216  $581  $74  $871 

PEF’s other postretirement benefit plan assets had a fair value of $37 million and $33 million, which consisted of U.S. state and municipal assets classified as Level 2 in the fair value hierarchy at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
A reconciliation of changes in the fair value of PEF’s pension plan assets classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy for the years ended December 31 follows:
 (in millions)
Private
Equity
Securities
 
Hedge
Funds
 
Timber
Investments
 Total 
 2011 
            
 Balance at January 1
 $68  $1  $5  $74 
 Net realized and unrealized gains(a)
  -   2   -   2 
 Transfers in
  -   23   -   23 
 Purchases, sales and distributions, net
  -   39   -   39 
 Balance at December 31
 $68  $65  $5  $138 
199

         
(in millions)
Private
Equity
Securities
 
Hedge
Funds
 
Timber
Investments
 Total 
 2010 
                
 Balance at January 1
 $58  $1  $7  $66 
 Net realized and unrealized gains (losses)(a)
  3   -   (1)  2 
 Purchases, sales and distributions, net
  7   -   (1)  6 
 Balance at December 31
 $68  $1  $5  $74 
(a)Substantially all amounts relate to investments held at December 31.

For Progress Energy, PEC and PEF, the determination of the fair values of pension and postretirement plan assets incorporates various factors required under GAAP. The assets of the plan include exchange traded securities (classified within Level 1) and other marketable debt and equity securities, most of which are valued using Level 1 inputs for similar instruments, and are classified within Level 2 investments.
Most over-the-counter investments are valued using observable inputs for similar instruments or prices from similar transactions and are classified as Level 2. Over-the-counter investments where significant unobservable inputs are used, such as financial pricing models, are classified as Level 3 investments.
Investments in private equity are valued using observable inputs, when available, and also include comparable market transactions, income and cost basis valuation techniques. The market approach includes using comparable market transactions or values. The income approach generally consists of the net present value of estimated future cash flows, adjusted as appropriate for liquidity, credit, market and/or other risk factors. Private equity investments are classified as Level 3 investments.
Investments in commingled funds are not publically traded, but the underlying assets held in these funds are traded in active markets and the prices for these assets are readily observable. Holdings in commingled funds are classified as Level 2 investments.
Hedge funds are based primarily on the net asset values and other financial information provided by management of the private investment funds. Hedge funds are classified as Level 2 if the plan is able to redeem the investment with the investee at net asset value as of the measurement date, or at a later date within a reasonable period of time. Hedge funds are classified as Level 3 if the investment cannot be redeemed at net asset value or it cannot be determined when the fund will be redeemed.
Investments in timber are valued primarily on valuations prepared by independent property appraisers. These appraisals are based on cash flow analysis, current market capitalization rates, recent comparable sales transactions, actual sales negotiations and bona fide purchase offers. Inputs include the species, age, volume and condition of timber stands growing on the land; the location, productivity, capacity and accessibility of the timber tracts; current and expected log prices; and current local prices for comparable investments. Timber investments are classified as Level 3 investments.
CONTRIBUTION AND BENEFIT PAYMENT EXPECTATIONS
In 2012, we expect to make contributions of $125 million-$225 million directly to pension plan assets and $1 million of discretionary contributions directly to the OPEB plan assets. The expected benefit payments for the pension benefit plan for 2012 through 2016 and in total for 2017 through 2021, in millions, are approximately $182, $185, $193, $198, $200 and $1,046, respectively. The expected benefit payments for the OPEB plan for 2012 through 2016 and in total for 2017 through 2021, in millions, are approximately $47, $50, $53, $56, $58 and $318, respectively. The expected benefit payments include benefit payments directly from plan assets and benefit payments directly from our assets. The benefit payment amounts reflect our net cost after any participant contributions and do not reflect reductions for expected prescription drug-related federal subsidies. The expected federal subsidies for 2012 through 2016 and in total for 2017 through 2021, in millions, are approximately $4, $5, $5, $6, $7 and $44, respectively.
200

In 2012, PEC expects to make contributions of $60 million-$110 million directly to pension plan assets. The expected benefit payments for the pension benefit plan for 2012 through 2016 and in total for 2017 through 2021, in millions, are approximately $94, $94, $99, $99, $97 and $479, respectively. The expected benefit payments for the OPEB plan for 2012 through 2016 and in total for 2017 through 2021, in millions, are approximately $21, $23, $25, $26, $28 and $158, respectively. The expected benefit payments include benefit payments directly from plan assets and benefit payments directly from PEC assets. The benefit payment amounts reflect the net cost to PEC after any participant contributions and do not reflect reductions for expected prescription drug-related federal subsidies. The expected federal subsidies for 2012 through 2016 and in total for 2017 through 2021, in millions, are approximately $2, $2, $3, $3, $3 and $23, respectively.
In 2012, PEF expects to make contributions of $65 million-$115 million directly to pension plan assets and expects to make $1 million of discretionary contributions to OPEB plan assets. The expected benefit payments for the pension benefit plan for 2012 through 2016 and in total for 2017 through 2021, in millions, are approximately $64, $67, $70, $73, $76 and $430, respectively. The expected benefit payments for the OPEB plan for 2012 through 2016 and in total for 2017 through 2021, in millions, are approximately $23, $24, $25, $25, $26 and $137, respectively. The expected benefit payments include benefit payments directly from plan assets and benefit payments directly from PEF’s assets. The benefit payment amounts reflect the net cost to PEF after any participant contributions and do not reflect reductions for expected prescription drug-related federal subsidies. The expected federal subsidies for 2012 through 2016 and in total for 2017 through 2021, in millions, are approximately $2, $2, $2, $3, $3 and $17, respectively.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) and the related Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, which made various amendments to the PPACA, were enacted in March 2010. The PPACA contains a provision that changes the tax treatment related to a federal subsidy available to sponsors of retiree health benefit plans that provide a prescription drug benefit that is at least actuarially equivalent to the benefits under Medicare Part D. The subsidy is known as the Retiree Drug Subsidy. Employers are not currently taxed on the Retiree Drug Subsidy payments they receive. However, as a result of the PPACA as amended, Retiree Drug Subsidy payments will effectively become taxable in tax years beginning after December 31, 2012, by requiring the amount of the subsidy received to be offset against the employer's deduction for health care expenses. Under GAAP, changes in tax law are accounted for in the period of enactment. Accordingly, an additional tax expense of $22 million for us, including $12 million for PEC and $10 million for PEF, was recognized during the year ended December 31, 2010.
B.FLORIDA PROGRESS ACQUISITION
During 2000, we completed our acquisition of Florida Progress. Florida Progress’ pension and OPEB liabilities, assets and net periodic costs are reflected in the above information as appropriate. Certain of Florida Progress’ nonbargaining unit benefit plans were merged with our benefit plans effective January 1, 2002.
PEF continues to recover qualified plan pension costs and OPEB costs in rates as if the acquisition had not occurred. The information presented in Note 17A is adjusted as appropriate to reflect PEF’s rate treatment.
We are exposed to various risks related to changes in market conditions. We have a risk management committee that includes senior executives from various business groups. The risk management committee is responsible for administering risk management policies and monitoring compliance with those policies by all subsidiaries. Under our risk policy, we may use a variety of instruments, including swaps, options and forward contracts, to manage exposure to fluctuations in commodity prices and interest rates. Such instruments contain credit risk if the counterparty fails to perform under the contract. We minimize such risk by performing credit and financial reviews using a combination of financial analysis and publicly available credit ratings of such counterparties. Potential nonperformance by counterparties is not expected to have a material effect on our financial position or results of operations.
See Note 14B for information about the fair value of derivatives.
201

A.COMMODITY DERIVATIVES
GENERAL
Most of our physical commodity contracts are not derivatives or qualify as normal purchases or sales. Therefore, such contracts are not recorded at fair value.
ECONOMIC DERIVATIVES
Derivative products, primarily natural gas and oil contracts, may be entered into from time to time for economic hedging purposes. While management believes the economic hedges mitigate exposures to fluctuations in commodity prices, these instruments are not designated as hedges for accounting purposes and are monitored consistent with trading positions.
The Utilities have financial derivative instruments with settlement dates through 2015 related to their exposure to price fluctuations on fuel oil and natural gas purchases. The majority of our financial hedge agreements will settle in 2012 and 2013. Substantially all of these instruments receive regulatory accounting treatment. Related unrealized gains and losses are recorded in regulatory liabilities and regulatory assets, respectively, on the Balance Sheets until the contracts are settled (See Note 8A). After settlement of the derivatives and the fuel is consumed, any realized gains or losses are passed through the fuel cost-recovery clause.
Certain hedge agreements may result in the receipt of, or posting of, derivative collateral with our counterparties, depending on the daily derivative position. Fluctuations in commodity prices that lead to our return of collateral received and/or our posting of collateral with our counterparties negatively impact our liquidity. We manage open positions with strict policies that limit our exposure to market risk and require daily reporting to management of potential financial exposures.
Certain counterparties have posted or held cash collateral in support of these instruments. Progress Energy had a cash collateral asset included in derivative collateral posted of $147 million and $164 million on the Progress Energy Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. At December 31, 2011, Progress Energy had 380.0 million MMBtu notional of natural gas and 10.3 million gallons notional of oil related to outstanding commodity derivative swaps and options that were entered into to hedge forecasted natural gas and oil purchases.
PEC had a cash collateral asset included in prepayments and other current assets of $24 million on the PEC Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31, 2011 and 2010. At December 31, 2011, PEC had 111.4 million MMBtu notional of natural gas related to outstanding commodity derivative swaps that were entered into to hedge forecasted natural gas purchases.
PEF’s cash collateral asset included in derivative collateral posted was $123 million and $140 million on the PEF Balance Sheets at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. At December 31, 2011, PEF had 268.6 million MMBtu notional of natural gas and 10.3 million gallons notional of oil related to outstanding commodity derivative swaps and options that were entered into to hedge forecasted natural gas and oil purchases.
B.INTEREST RATE DERIVATIVES – FAIR VALUE OR CASH FLOW HEDGES
We use cash flow hedging strategies to reduce exposure to changes in cash flow due to fluctuating interest rates. We use fair value hedging strategies to reduce exposure to changes in fair value due to interest rate changes. Our cash flow hedging strategies are primarily accomplished through the use of forward starting swaps, and our fair value hedging strategies are primarily accomplished through the use of fixed-to-floating swaps. The notional amounts of interest rate derivatives are not exchanged and do not represent exposure to credit loss. In the event of default by the counterparty, the exposure in these transactions is the cost of replacing the agreements at current market rates.
CASH FLOW HEDGES
At December 31, 2011, all open interest rate hedges will reach their mandatory termination dates within two years. At December 31, 2011, including amounts related to terminated hedges, we had $141 million of after-tax losses,
202

including $71 million and $25 million of after-tax losses at PEC and PEF, respectively, recorded in accumulated other comprehensive loss related to forward starting swaps. It is expected that in the next 12 months losses of $12 million, net of tax, primarily related to terminated hedges, will be reclassified to interest expense at Progress Energy, including $6 million and $2 million at PEC and PEF, respectively. The actual amounts that will be reclassified to earnings may vary from the expected amounts as a result of changes in interest rates, changes in the timing of debt issuances at the Parent and the Utilities and changes in market value of currently open forward starting swaps.
At December 31, 2010, including amounts related to terminated hedges, we had $63 million of after-tax losses, including $33 million and $4 million of after-tax losses at PEC and PEF, respectively, recorded in accumulated other comprehensive income related to forward starting swaps.
At December 31, 2009, including amounts related to terminated hedges, we had $35 million of after-tax losses, including $27 million of after-tax losses at PEC and $3 million of after-tax gains at PEF, recorded in accumulated other comprehensive income related to forward starting swaps.
At December 31, 2011, Progress Energy had $500 million notional of open forward starting swaps, including $250 million at PEC and $50 million at PEF.
At December 31, 2010, Progress Energy had $1.050 billion notional of open forward starting swaps, including $350 million at PEC and $200 million at PEF.
FAIR VALUE HEDGES
For interest rate fair value hedges, the change in the fair value of the hedging derivative is recorded in net interest charges and is offset by the change in the fair value of the hedged item. At December 31, 2011 and 2010, neither we nor the Utilities had any outstanding positions in such contracts.
C.CONTINGENT FEATURES
Certain of our commodity derivative instruments contain provisions defining fair value thresholds requiring the posting of collateral for hedges in a liability position greater than such threshold amounts. The thresholds are tiered and based on the individual company’s credit rating with Moody’s, S&P and/or Fitch Ratings (Fitch). Higher credit ratings have a higher threshold requiring a lower amount of the outstanding liability position to be covered by posted collateral. Conversely, lower credit ratings require a higher amount of the outstanding liability position to be covered by posted collateral. If our credit ratings were to be downgraded, we may have to post additional collateral on certain hedges in liability positions.
In addition, certain of our commodity derivative instruments contain provisions that require our debt to maintain an investment grade credit rating from Moody’s, S&P and/or Fitch. If our debt were to fall below investment grade, we would be in violation of these provisions, and the counterparties to the commodity derivative instruments could request immediate payment or demand immediate and ongoing full overnight collateralization on commodity derivative instruments in net liability positions.
The aggregate fair value of all commodity derivative instruments at Progress Energy with credit risk-related contingent features that are in a net liability position was $489 million at December 31, 2011, for which Progress Energy has posted collateral of $147 million in the normal course of business. If the credit risk-related contingent features underlying these agreements had been triggered at December 31, 2011, Progress Energy would have been required to post an additional $342 million of collateral with its counterparties.
The aggregate fair value of all commodity derivative instruments at PEC with credit risk-related contingent features that are in a liability position was $152 million at December 31, 2011, for which PEC has posted collateral of $24 million in the normal course of business. If the credit risk-related contingent features underlying these agreements had been triggered at December 31, 2011, PEC would have been required to post an additional $128 million of collateral with its counterparties.
The aggregate fair value of all commodity derivative instruments at PEF with credit risk-related contingent features that are in a net liability position was $337 million at December 31, 2011, for which PEF has posted collateral of

203

$123 million in the normal course of business. If the credit risk-related contingent features underlying these agreements had been triggered on December 31, 2011, PEF would have been required to post an additional $214 million of collateral with its counterparties.
D.DERIVATIVE INSTRUMENT AND HEDGING ACTIVITY INFORMATION
PROGRESS ENERGY
The following table presents the fair value of derivative instruments at December 31:
 Instrument / Balance sheet location
 2011  2010 
 (in millions)
 Asset Liability  Asset Liability 
Derivatives designated as hedging instruments 
 Commodity cash flow derivatives
            
Derivative liabilities, current    $2     $- 
Derivative liabilities, long-term     1      - 
 Interest rate derivatives
              
Prepayments and other current assets $-      $1     
Other assets and deferred debits  -       3     
Derivative liabilities, current      76       32 
Derivative liabilities, long-term      17       7 
Total derivatives designated as hedging instruments  -   96   4   39 
                 
Derivatives not designated as hedging instruments 
 Commodity derivatives(a)
                
Prepayments and other current assets  5       11     
Other assets and deferred debits  -       4     
Derivative liabilities, current      357       226 
Derivative liabilities, long-term      332       268 
 CVOs(b)
                
Other current liabilities      14       - 
Other liabilities and deferred credits      -       15 
Fair value of derivatives not designated as hedging instruments  5   703   15   509 
 Fair value loss transition adjustment(c)
                
Derivative liabilities, current      1       1 
Derivative liabilities, long-term      2       3 
Total derivatives not designated as hedging instruments  5   706   15   513 
Total derivatives $5  $802  $19  $552 
(a)Substantially all of these contracts receive regulatory treatment.
(b)The Parent issued 98.6 million CVOs in connection with the acquisition of Florida Progress during 2000. In 2011, we purchased 80.1 million CVOs in a negotiated settlement agreement and subsequent tender offer. (See Note 16)
(c)In 2003, PEC recorded a $38 million pre-tax ($23 million after-tax) fair value loss transition adjustment pursuant to the adoption of new accounting guidance for derivatives. The related liability is being amortized to earnings over the term of the related contracts.
204


The following tables present the effect of derivative instruments on the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income and the Consolidated Statements of Income for the years ended December 31:
Derivatives Designated as Hedging Instruments 
 Instrument
 
Amount of Gain or (Loss)
Recognized in OCI, Net of
Tax on Derivatives(a)
  
Amount of Gain or (Loss),
Net of Tax Reclassified
from Accumulated OCI
into Income(a)
  
Amount of Pre-tax Gain or
(Loss) Recognized in
Income on Derivatives(b)
 
 (in millions)
 2011  2010  2009  2011  2010  2009  2011  2010  2009 
 Commodity cash flow
  derivatives(c)
 $(2) $-  $1  $-  $-  $-  $-  $-  $- 
 Interest rate
  derivatives(d) (e)
  (85)  (34)  15   (8)  (6)  (6)  (3)  3   (3)
Total $(87) $(34) $16  $(8) $(6) $(6) $(3) $3  $(3)
(a)Effective portion.
(b)Related to ineffective portion and amount excluded from effectiveness testing.
(c)Amounts recorded on the Consolidated Statements of Income are classified in fuel used in electric generation.
(d)Amounts in accumulated OCI related to terminated hedges are reclassified to earnings as the interest expense is recorded. The effective portion of the hedges will be amortized to interest expense over the term of the related debt.
(e)Amounts recorded on the Consolidated Statements of Income are classified in interest charges.

Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments    
 Instrument
Realized Gain or (Loss)(a)
 
Unrealized Gain or (Loss)(b)
 
 (in millions)
 2011  2010  2009  2011  2010  2009 
 Commodity derivatives(a)
 $(297) $(324) $(659) $(502) $(398) $(387)
(a)After settlement of the derivatives and the fuel is consumed, gains or losses are passed through the fuel cost-recovery clause.
(b)Amounts are recorded in regulatory liabilities and assets, respectively, on the Consolidated Balance Sheets until derivatives are settled.

 Instrument
 
Amount of Gain or (Loss) Recognized in
Income on Derivatives
 
 (in millions)
 2011  2010  2009 
 Commodity derivatives(a)
 $-  $-  $1 
 Fair value loss transition adjustment(a)
  1   1   2 
 CVOs(a)
  (59)  -   19 
Total $(58) $1  $22 
(a)Amounts recorded on the Consolidated Statements of Income are classified in other, net.
205


PEC
The following table presents the fair value of derivative instruments at December 31:
 Instrument / Balance sheet location
 2011  2010 
 (in millions)
 Asset Liability  Asset Liability 
Derivatives designated as hedging instruments 
 Interest rate derivatives
            
Other assets and deferred debits $-     $3    
Derivative liabilities, current     $38      $7 
Other liabilities and deferred credits      9       4 
Total derivatives designated as hedging instruments  -   47   3   11 
                 
Derivatives not designated as hedging instruments 
 Commodity derivatives(a)
                
Prepayments and other current assets  -       1     
Other assets and deferred debits  -       1     
Derivative liabilities, current      91       45 
Other liabilities and deferred credits      110       78 
Fair value of derivatives not designated as hedging instruments  -   201   2   123 
 Fair value loss transition adjustment(b)
                
Derivative liabilities, current      1       1 
Other liabilities and deferred credits      2       3 
Total derivatives not designated as hedging instruments  -   204   2   127 
Total derivatives $-  $251  $5  $138 
(a)Substantially all of these contracts receive regulatory treatment.
(b)In 2003, PEC recorded a $38 million pre-tax ($23 million after-tax) fair value loss transition adjustment pursuant to the adoption of new accounting guidance for derivatives. The related liability is being amortized to earnings over the term of the related contracts.

The following tables present the effect of derivative instruments on the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income and the Consolidated Statements of Income for the years ended December 31:
Derivatives Designated as Hedging Instruments    
 Instrument
 
Amount of Gain or (Loss)
Recognized in OCI, Net of
Tax on Derivatives(a)
  
Amount of Gain or (Loss),
Net of Tax Reclassified
from Accumulated OCI
into Income(a)
  
Amount of Pre-tax Gain or
(Loss) Recognized in
Income on Derivatives(b)
 
 (in millions)
 2011  2010  2009  2011  2010  2009  2011  2010  2009 
 Interest rate
  derivatives(c) (d)
 $(43) $(10) $5  $(5) $(4) $(3) $(1) $-  $(2)
(a)Effective portion.
(b)Related to ineffective portion and amount excluded from effectiveness testing.
(c)Amounts in accumulated OCI related to terminated hedges are reclassified to earnings as the interest expense is recorded. The effective portion of the hedges will be amortized to interest expense over the term of the related debt.
(d)Amounts recorded on the Consolidated Statements of Income are classified in interest charges.
206

Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments    
 Instrument
Realized Gain or (Loss)(a)
 
Unrealized Gain or (Loss)(b)
 
 (in millions)
 2011  2010  2009  2011  2010  2009 
 Commodity derivatives
 $(60) $(46) $(76) $(140) $(77) $(68)
(a)After settlement of the derivatives and the fuel is consumed, gains or losses are passed through the fuel cost-recovery clause.
(b)Amounts are recorded in regulatory liabilities and assets, respectively, on the Consolidated Balance Sheets until derivatives are settled.
 Instrument
 
Amount of Gain or (Loss)
Recognized in Income on
Derivatives
 
 (in millions)
 2011  2010  2009 
 Commodity derivatives(a)
 $-  $-  $1 
 Fair value loss transition adjustment(a)
  1   1   2 
Total $1  $1  $3 
(a)Amounts recorded on the Consolidated Statements of Income are classified in other, net.

PEF
The following table presents the fair value of derivative instruments at December 31:
 Instrument / Balance sheet location
 2011  2010 
 (in millions)
 Asset Liability  Asset Liability 
Derivatives designated as hedging instruments 
 Commodity cash flow derivatives
            
Derivative liabilities, current    $2     $- 
Derivative liabilities, long-term     1      - 
 Interest rate derivatives
              
Derivative liabilities, current     -      7 
Derivative liabilities, long-term     8      - 
Total derivatives designated as hedging instruments      11       7 
                 
Derivatives not designated as hedging instruments 
 Commodity derivatives(a)
                
Prepayments and other current assets $5      $10     
Other assets and deferred debits  -       3     
Derivative liabilities, current      266       181 
Derivative liabilities, long-term      222       190 
Total derivatives not designated as hedging instruments  5   488   13   371 
Total derivatives $5  $499  $13  $378 
(a)Substantially all of these contracts receive regulatory treatment.
207


The following tables present the effect of derivative instruments on the Statements of Comprehensive Income and the Statements of Income for the years ended December 31:
Derivatives Designated as Hedging Instruments    
 Instrument
 
Amount of Gain or (Loss)
Recognized in OCI, Net of
Tax on Derivatives(a)
  
Amount of Gain or (Loss),
Net of Tax Reclassified
from Accumulated OCI
into Income(a)
  
Amount of Pre-tax Gain or
(Loss) Recognized in
Income on Derivatives(b)
 
 (in millions)
 2011  2010  2009  2011  2010  2009  2011  2010  2009 
 Commodity cash flow
  derivatives(c)
 $(2) $-  $1  $-  $-  $-  $-  $-  $- 
 Interest rate
  derivatives(d) (e)
  (21)  (7)  3   -   -   -   -   -   - 
Total $(23) $(7) $4  $-  $-  $-  $-  $-  $- 
(a)Effective portion.
(b)Related to ineffective portion and amount excluded from effectiveness testing.
(c)Amounts recorded on the Statements of Income are classified in fuel used in electric generation.
(d)Amounts in accumulated OCI related to terminated hedges are reclassified to earnings as the interest expense is recorded. The effective portion of the hedges will be amortized to interest expense over the term of the related debt.
(e)Amounts recorded on the Statements of Income are classified in interest charges.

Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments 
 Instrument
 
Realized Gain or (Loss)(a)
  
Unrealized Gain or (Loss)(b)
 
 (in millions)
 2011  2010  2009  2011  2010  2009 
 Commodity derivatives
 $(237) $(278) $(583) $(362) $(321) $(319)
(a)After settlement of the derivatives and the fuel is consumed, gains or losses are passed through the fuel cost-recovery clause.
(b)Amounts are recorded in regulatory liabilities and assets, respectively, on the Balance Sheets until derivatives are settled.
There were no material related party transactions in which we or any of our subsidiaries were or will be a participant and in which any of our directors, executive officers or any of their immediate family members had a direct or indirect material interest. Transactions between affiliated companies are further discussed below.
As a part of normal business, we enter into various agreements providing financial or performance assurances to third parties. These agreements are entered into primarily to support or enhance the creditworthiness otherwise attributed to a subsidiary on a stand-alone basis, thereby facilitating the extension of sufficient credit to accomplish the subsidiaries’ intended commercial purposes. Our guarantees may include performance obligations under power supply agreements, transmission agreements, gas agreements, fuel procurement agreements, trading operations and cash management. Our guarantees also include standby letters of credit and surety bonds. At December 31, 2011, the Parent had issued $453 million of guarantees for future financial or performance assurance on behalf of its subsidiaries. This includes $300 million of guarantees of certain payments of two wholly owned indirect subsidiaries (See Note 23). We do not believe conditions are likely for significant performance under the guarantees of performance issued by or on behalf of affiliates. To the extent liabilities are incurred as a result of the activities covered by the guarantees, such liabilities are included on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
Our subsidiaries provide and receive services, at cost, to and from the Parent and its subsidiaries, in accordance with agreements approved by the SEC pursuant to Section 13(b) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935. The repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 effective February 8, 2006, and subsequent regulation by
208

the FERC did not change our current intercompany services. Services include purchasing, human resources, accounting, legal, transmission and delivery support, engineering materials, contract support, loaned employees payroll costs, construction management and other centralized administrative, management and support services. The costs of the services are billed on a direct-charge basis, whenever possible, and on allocation factors for general costs that cannot be directly attributed. Billings from affiliates are capitalized or expensed depending on the nature of the services rendered. Amounts receivable from and/or payable to affiliated companies for these services are included in receivables from affiliated companies and payables to affiliated companies on the Balance Sheets.
PESC provides the majority of the affiliated goods and services under the approved agreements. Goods and services provided by PESC during 2011, 2010 and 2009 to PEC amounted to $203 million, $176 million and $170 million, respectively, and services provided to PEF were $160 million, $156 million and $147 million, respectively. During 2010, PESC transferred a $24 million combustion turbine to PEC at cost.
PEC and PEF also provide and receive goods and services at cost. Goods and services provided by PEC to PEF during 2011, 2010 and 2009 amounted to $57 million, $43 million and $36 million, respectively. Goods and services provided by PEF to PEC during 2011, 2010 and 2009 amounted to $12 million, $18 million and $12 million, respectively.
PEC and PEF participate in an internal money pool, administered by PESC, to more effectively utilize cash resources and to reduce outside short-term borrowings. The money pool is also used to settle intercompany balances. The weighted-average interest rate for the money pool was 0.32%, 0.30% and 0.74% for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. Amounts payable to the money pool are included in notes payable to affiliated companies on the Balance Sheets. PEC and PEF recorded minimal interest expense related to the money pool for all the years presented.
PEC and each of its wholly owned subsidiaries and PEF have entered into the Tax Agreement with the Parent (See Note 15).
Our reportable segments are PEC and PEF, both of which are primarily engaged in the generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electricity in portions of North Carolina and South Carolina and in portions of Florida, respectively. These electric operations also distribute and sell electricity to other utilities, primarily on the east coast of the United States.
In addition to the reportable operating segments, the Corporate and Other segment includes the operations of the Parent and PESC and other miscellaneous nonregulated businesses that do not separately meet the quantitative thresholds for disclosure as separate reportable business segments.
Products and services are sold between the various reportable segments. All intersegment transactions are at cost.

209


In the following tables, capital and investment expenditures include property additions, acquisitions of nuclear fuel and other capital investments.
 (in millions)
 PEC  PEF  
Corporate
and Other
  Eliminations  Total 
At and for the year ended December 31, 2011          
 Revenues
               
Unaffiliated $4,528  $4,367  $12  $-  $8,907 
Intersegment  -   2   272   (274)  - 
Total revenues  4,528   4,369   284   (274)  8,907 
 Depreciation, amortization and accretion
  514   169   18   -   701 
 Interest income
  1   1   22   (22)  2 
 Total interest charges, net
  184   239   324   (22)  725 
 Income tax expense (benefit)(a)
  268   311   (99)  -   480 
 Ongoing Earnings
  541   530   (200)  -   871 
 Total assets
  16,102   14,484   20,926   (16,453)  35,059 
 Capital and investment expenditures
  1,423   710   17   -   2,150 
                     
At and for the year ended December 31, 2010                
 Revenues
                    
Unaffiliated $4,922  $5,252  $16  $-  $10,190 
Intersegment  -   2   248   (250)  - 
Total revenues  4,922   5,254   264   (250)  10,190 
 Depreciation, amortization and accretion
  479   426   15   -   920 
 Interest income
  3   1   31   (28)  7 
 Total interest charges, net
  186   258   331   (28)  747 
 Income tax expense (benefit)(a)
  342   267   (87)  -   522 
 Ongoing Earnings
  618   462   (191)  -   889 
 Total assets
  14,899   14,056   21,110   (17,011)  33,054 
 Capital and investment expenditures
  1,382   991   33   (24)  2,382 
                     
At and for the year ended December 31, 2009             
 Revenues
                    
Unaffiliated $4,627  $5,249  $9  $-  $9,885 
Intersegment  -   2   234   (236)  - 
Total revenues  4,627   5,251   243   (236)  9,885 
 Depreciation, amortization and accretion
  470   502   14   -   986 
 Interest income
  5   4   38   (33)  14 
 Total interest charges, net
  195   231   286   (33)  679 
 Income tax expense (benefit)(a)
  295   209   (88)  -   416 
 Ongoing Earnings
  540   460   (154)  -   846 
 Total assets
  13,502   13,100   20,538   (15,904)  31,236 
 Capital and investment expenditures
  962   1,532   21   (12)  2,503 
(a)Income tax expense (benefit) excludes the tax impact of Ongoing Earnings adjustments.
Management uses the non-GAAP financial measure “Ongoing Earnings” as a performance measure to evaluate the results of our segments and operations. Ongoing Earnings as presented here may not be comparable to similarly
210

titled measures used by other companies. Ongoing Earnings is computed as GAAP net income attributable to controlling interests less discontinued operations and the effects of certain identified gains and charges, which are considered Ongoing Earnings adjustments. Some of the excluded gains and charges have occurred in more than one reporting period but are not considered representative of fundamental core earnings. Management has identified the following Ongoing Earnings adjustments: CVO mark-to-market adjustments because we are unable to predict changes in their fair value; CR3 indemnification charge (and subsequent adjustments, if any) for estimated future years’ joint owner replacement power costs (through the expiration of the indemnification provisions of the joint owner agreement) because GAAP requires that the charge be accounted for in the period in which it becomes probable and estimable rather than the periods to which it relates; and the impact from changes in the tax treatment of the Medicare Part D subsidy because GAAP requires that the impact of the tax law change be accounted for in the period of enactment rather than the affected tax year. Additionally, management does not consider impairments, charges (and subsequent adjustments, if any) recognized for the retirement of generating units prior to the end of their estimated useful lives, merger and integration costs, cumulative prior period adjustments, operating results of discontinued operations and the amount to be refunded to customers through the fuel clause included in the terms of the 2012 settlement agreement to be representative of our ongoing operations and excluded these items in computing Ongoing Earnings.
Reconciliations of consolidated Ongoing Earnings to net income attributable to controlling interests for the years ended December 31 follow:
(in millions) 2011  2010  2009 
Ongoing Earnings $871  $889  $846 
CVO mark-to-market, net of tax benefit of $14 and $- (Note 16)  (45)  -   19 
Impairment, net of tax benefit of $1, $4 and $1  (2)  (6)  (2)
Merger and integration costs, net of tax benefit of $17 (Note 2)  (46)  -   - 
CR3 indemnification charge, net of tax benefit of $13 (Note 22C)  (20)  -   - 
Plant retirement charge, net of tax benefit of $1, $1 and $11  (1)  (1)  (17)
Amount to be refunded to customers, net of tax benefit of $111 (Note 8C)  (177)  -   - 
Change in tax treatment of the Medicare Part D subsidy (Note 17)  -   (22)  - 
Cumulative prior period adjustment related to certain employee life
  insurance benefits, net of tax benefit of $7
  -   -   (10)
Continuing income attributable to noncontrolling interests, net of tax  7   7   4 
Income from continuing operations  587   867   840 
Discontinued operations, net of tax  (5)  (4)  (79)
Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests, net of tax  (7)  (7)  (4)
Net income attributable to controlling interests $575  $856  $757 
We are subject to regulation by various federal, state and local authorities in the areas of air quality, water quality, control of toxic substances and hazardous and solid wastes, and other environmental matters. We believe that we are in substantial compliance with those environmental regulations currently applicable to our business and operations and believe we have all necessary permits to conduct such operations. Environmental laws and regulations frequently change and the ultimate costs of compliance cannot always be precisely estimated.
A.HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and a number of states are considering additional regulatory measures that may affect management, treatment, marketing and disposal of coal combustion residuals, primarily ash, from each of the Utilities’ coal-fired plants. Revised or new laws or regulations under consideration may impose changes in solid waste classifications or groundwater protection environmental controls. In June 2010, the EPA proposed two options for new rules to regulate coal combustion residuals. The first option would create a comprehensive program of federally enforceable requirements for coal combustion residuals management and disposal under federal hazardous waste rules. The other option would have the EPA set design and performance
211

standards for coal combustion residuals management facilities and regulate disposal of coal combustion residuals as nonhazardous waste with enforcement by the courts or state laws. The EPA did not identify a preferred option. Under both options, the EPA may leave in place a regulatory exemption for approved beneficial uses of coal combustion residuals that are recycled. A final rule is expected in late 2012. Compliance plans and estimated costs to meet the requirements of new regulations will be determined when any new regulations are finalized. We are also evaluating the effect on groundwater quality from past and current operations, which may result in operational changes and additional measures under existing regulations. These issues are also under evaluation by state agencies. Certain regulated chemicals have been measured in wells near our ash ponds at levels above groundwater quality standards. Additional monitoring and investigation will be conducted. Detailed plans and cost estimates will be determined if these evaluations reveal that corrective actions are necessary. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
The provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA), authorize the EPA to require the cleanup of hazardous waste sites. This statute imposes retroactive joint and several liabilities. Some states, including North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida, have similar types of statutes. We are periodically notified by regulators, including the EPA and various state agencies, of our involvement or potential involvement in sites that may require investigation and/or remediation. There are presently several sites with respect to which we have been notified of our potential liability by the EPA, the state of North Carolina, the state of Florida, or potentially responsible party (PRP) groups as described below in greater detail. Various organic materials associated with the production of manufactured gas, generally referred to as coal tar, are regulated under federal and state laws. PEC and PEF are each PRPs at several manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites. We are also currently in the process of assessing potential costs and exposures at other sites. These costs are eligible for regulatory recovery through either base rates or cost-recovery clauses. Both PEC and PEF evaluate potential claims against other PRPs and insurance carriers and plan to submit claims for cost recovery where appropriate. The outcome of potential and pending claims cannot be predicted.
We measure our liability for environmental sites based on available evidence, including our experience in investigating and remediating environmentally impaired sites. The process often involves assessing and developing cost-sharing arrangements with other PRPs. For all sites, as assessments are developed and analyzed, we will accrue costs for the sites in O&M expense on the Income Statements to the extent our liability is probable and the costs can be reasonably estimated. Because the extent of environmental impact, allocation among PRPs for all sites, remediation alternatives (which could involve either minimal or significant efforts), and concurrence of the regulatory authorities have not yet reached the stage where a reasonable estimate of the remediation costs can be made, we cannot determine the total costs that may be incurred in connection with the remediation of all sites at this time. It is probable that current estimates will change and additional losses, which could be material, may be incurred in the future.
212


The following tables contain information about accruals for probable and estimable costs related to various environmental sites, which are included in other current liabilities and other liabilities and deferred credits on the Balance Sheets:
 PROGRESS ENERGY
         
 (in millions)
 
MGP and
Other Sites
  
Remediation of Distribution and Substation
Transformers
  Total 
 Balance, December 31, 2008
 $31  $22  $53 
 Amount accrued for environmental loss contingencies
  3   13   16 
 Expenditures for environmental loss contingencies
  (12)  (15)  (27)
 Balance, December 31, 2009(a)
  22   20   42 
 Amount accrued for environmental loss contingencies
  8   13   21 
 Expenditures for environmental loss contingencies
  (10)  (18)  (28)
 Balance, December 31, 2010(a)
  20   15   35 
 Amount accrued for environmental loss contingencies
  2   8   10 
 Expenditures for environmental loss contingencies
  (5)  (17)  (22)
 Balance, December 31, 2011(a)
 $17  $6  $23 
(a)Expected to be paid out over one to 15 years.
 PEC
   
 (in millions)
 
MGP and
Other Sites
 
 Balance, December 31, 2008
 $16 
 Amount accrued for environmental loss contingencies
  3 
 Expenditures for environmental loss contingencies
  (6)
 Balance, December 31, 2009(a)
  13 
 Amount accrued for environmental loss contingencies
  3 
 Expenditures for environmental loss contingencies
  (4)
 Balance, December 31, 2010(a)
  12 
 Amount accrued for environmental loss contingencies
  1 
 Expenditures for environmental loss contingencies
  (2)
 Balance, December 31, 2011(a)
 $11 
(a)Expected to be paid out over one to five years.
213

 PEF
         
 (in millions)
 
MGP and
Other Sites
  
Remediation of Distribution and Substation
Transformers
  Total 
 Balance, December 31, 2008
 $15  $22  $37 
 Amount accrued for environmental loss contingencies
  -   13   13 
 Expenditures for environmental loss contingencies
  (6)  (15)  (21)
 Balance, December 31, 2009(a)
  9   20   29 
 Amount accrued for environmental loss contingencies
  5   13   18 
 Expenditures for environmental loss contingencies
  (6)  (18)  (24)
 Balance, December 31, 2010(a)
  8   15   23 
 Amount accrued for environmental loss contingencies
  1   8   9 
 Expenditures for environmental loss contingencies
  (3)  (17)  (20)
 Balance, December 31, 2011(a)
 $6  $6  $12 
(a)Expected to be paid out over one to 15 years.
PROGRESS ENERGY
In addition to the Utilities’ sites discussed under “PEC” and “PEF” below, we incurred indemnity obligations related to certain pre-closing liabilities of divested subsidiaries, including certain environmental matters (See discussion under Guarantees in Note 22C).
PEC
PEC has recorded a minimum estimated total remediation cost for all of its remaining MGP sites based upon its historical experience with remediation of several of its MGP sites. The maximum amount of the range for all the sites cannot be determined at this time. Actual experience may differ from current estimates, and it is probable that estimates will continue to change in the future.
In 2004, the EPA advised PEC that it had been identified as a PRP at the Ward Transformer site located in Raleigh, N.C. (Ward) site. The EPA offered PEC and a number of other PRPs the opportunity to negotiate the removal action for the Ward site and reimbursement to the EPA for the EPA’s past expenditures in addressing conditions at the Ward site. Subsequently, PEC and other PRPs signed a settlement agreement, which requires the participating PRPs to remediate the Ward site. At December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010, PEC’s recorded liability for the site was approximately $5 million. In 2008 and 2009, PEC filed civil actions against PRPs seeking contribution for and recovery of costs incurred in remediating the Ward site, as well as a declaratory judgment that defendants are jointly and severally liable for response costs at the site. PEC has settled with a number of the PRPs and is in active settlement negotiations with others. On March 24, 2010, the federal district court in which this matter is pending denied motions to dismiss filed by a number of defendants, but granted several other motions filed by state agencies and successor entities. The court established a “test case” program providing for a determination of liability on the part of a set of representative defendants. Summary judgment motions and responsive pleadings are being filed by and against these defendants and discovery and briefing will be completed by May 2012. Meanwhile, proceedings with respect to the other defendants have been stayed. The outcome of these matters cannot be predicted.
In 2008, the EPA issued a Record of Decision for the operable unit for stream segments downstream from the Ward site (Ward OU1) and advised 61 parties, including PEC, of their identification as PRPs for Ward OU1 and for further investigation at the Ward facility and certain adjacent areas (Ward OU2). The EPA’s estimate for the selected remedy for Ward OU1 is approximately $6 million. The EPA offered PEC and the other PRPs the opportunity to negotiate implementation of a response action for Ward OU1 and a remedial investigation and feasibility study for Ward OU2, as well as reimbursement to the EPA of approximately $1 million for the EPA’s past expenditures in addressing conditions at the site. On September 29, 2011, the EPA issued unilateral administrative orders to certain parties, which did not include PEC, directing the performance of remedial activities
214

with regard to Ward OU1. It is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the total amount of PEC’s obligation, if any, for Ward OU1 and Ward OU2.
PEF
The accruals for PEF’s MGP and other sites relate to two former MGP sites and other sites associated with PEF that have required, or are anticipated to require, investigation and/or remediation. The maximum amount of the range for all the sites cannot be determined at this time. Actual experience may differ from current estimates, and it is probable that estimates will continue to change in the future.
PEF has received approval from the FPSC for recovery through the ECRC of the majority of costs associated with the remediation of distribution and substation transformers. Under agreements with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), PEF has reviewed all distribution transformer sites and all substation sites for mineral oil-impacted soil caused by equipment integrity issues. Should additional distribution transformer sites be identified outside of this population, the distribution O&M costs will not be recoverable through the ECRC.
B.AIR AND WATER QUALITY
We are, or may ultimately be, subject to various current and proposed federal, state and local environmental compliance laws and regulations impacting air and water quality, which likely would result in increased capital expenditures and O&M expense. Control equipment installed for compliance with then-existing or proposed laws and regulations may address some of the issues outlined. PEC and PEF have been developing an integrated compliance strategy to meet these evolving requirements. PEC has installed environmental compliance controls that meet the emission reduction requirements under the first phase of the North Carolina Clean Smokestacks Act (Clean Smokestacks Act). The air quality controls installed to comply with nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) requirements under certain sections of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Smokestacks Act, as well as PEC’s plan to replace a portion of its coal-fired generation with natural gas-fueled generation, largely address the CAIR requirements for NOx and SO2 for our North Carolina units at PEC. PEF has installed environmental compliance controls that meet the emission reduction requirements under the first phase of the CAIR.
In 2008, the D.C. Court of Appeals vacated the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR). As a result, the EPA subsequently announced that it would develop maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order requiring the EPA to issue a final MACT standard for power plants. On February 16, 2012, the EPA published the final MACT standards for coal-fired and oil-fired electric steam generating units (EGU MACT). The rule will become effective on April 16, 2012. Compliance is due in three years with provisions for a one-year extension from state agencies on a case-by-case basis. The EGU MACT contains stringent emission limits for mercury, non-mercury metals and acid gases from coal-fired units and hazardous air pollutant metals, acid gases and hydrogen fluoride from oil-fired units. The North Carolina mercury rule contains a requirement that all coal-fired units in the state install mercury controls by December 31, 2017, and requires compliance plan applications to be submitted in 2013. Due to significant investments in NOx and SO2 emissions controls and fleet modernization projects completed or under way, we believe PEC is relatively well positioned to comply with the EGU MACT. However, PEF will be required to complete additional emissions controls and/or fleet modernization projects in order to meet the compliance timeframe for the EGU MACT. We are continuing to evaluate the impacts of the EGU MACT on the Utilities. We anticipate that compliance with the EGU MACT will satisfy the North Carolina mercury rule requirements for PEC. The outcome of these matters cannot be predicted.
The CAIR, issued by the EPA, required the District of Columbia and 28 states, including North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida, to reduce NOx and SO2 emissions. The CAIR set emission limits to be met in two phases beginning in 2009 and 2015, respectively, for NOx and beginning in 2010 and 2015, respectively, for SO2. States were required to adopt rules implementing the CAIR, and the EPA approved the North Carolina CAIR, the South Carolina CAIR and the Florida CAIR. A 2008 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C. Court of Appeals) remanded the CAIR without vacating it for the EPA to conduct further proceedings.
On July 7, 2011, the EPA issued the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to replace the CAIR. The CSAPR, slated to take effect on January 1, 2012, contains new emissions trading programs for NOx and SO2 emissions as
215

well as more stringent overall emissions targets in 27 states, including North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida. A number of parties including groups which PEC and PEF are members of, filed petitions for reconsideration and stay of, as well as legal challenges to, the CSAPR. On December 30, 2011, the D.C. Court of Appeals issued an order staying the implementation of the CSAPR, pending a decision by the court resolving the challenges to the rule. Oral argument for the CSAPR litigation has been scheduled for April 13, 2012. As a result of the stay of CSAPR, the CAIR will remain in effect. The EPA issued the CSAPR as four separate programs, including the NOx annual trading program, the NOx ozone season trading program, the SO2 Group 1 trading program and the SO2 Group 2 trading program. If the CSAPR is upheld, North Carolina and South Carolina are included in the NOx and SO2 annual trading programs, as well as the NOx ozone season program. North Carolina remains classified as a Group 1 state, which will require additional NOx and SO2 emission reductions beginning in January 2014. South Carolina remains classified as a Group 2 state with no additional reductions required. Under the CSAPR, Florida is subject only to the NOx ozone season program. Due to significant investments in NOx and SO2 emissions controls and fleet modernization projects completed or under way, we believe PEC and PEF are positioned to comply with the CSAPR without the need for significant capital expenditures. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
To date, expenditures at PEF for CAIR regulation primarily relate to environmental compliance projects at Crystal River Units No. 4 and No. 5 (CR4 and CR5), which have both been completed and placed in service. Under an agreement with the FDEP, PEF will retire Crystal River Units No. 1 and No. 2 (CR1 and CR2) as coal-fired units and operate emission control equipment at CR4 and CR5. CR1 and CR2 will be retired after the second proposed nuclear unit at Levy completes its first fuel cycle, which was originally anticipated to be around 2020. As discussed in Note 8B, major construction activities for Levy are being postponed until after the NRC issues the Levy COL. As required, PEF has advised the FDEP of these developments that will delay the retirement of CR1 and CR2 beyond the originally anticipated date. We are currently evaluating the impacts of the Levy schedule on PEF’s compliance with environmental regulations. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
We account for emission allowances as inventory using the average cost method. Emission allowances are included on the Balance Sheets in inventory and in other assets and deferred debits. We value inventory of the Utilities at historical cost consistent with ratemaking treatment. As previously discussed, the CSAPR establishes new NOx annual and seasonal ozone programs and a new SO2 trading program. NOx and SO2 emission allowances applicable to the current CAIR cannot be used to satisfy the new CSAPR programs. SO2 emission allowances will be utilized by the Utilities to comply with existing Clean Air Act requirements. NOx allowances cannot be utilized to comply with other requirements. As a result of the previously discussed D.C. Court of Appeals order staying the implementation of the CSAPR, the CAIR emission allowance program remains in effect. At December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010, PEC had an immaterial amount of NOx emission allowances. At December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010, PEF had approximately $22 million and $28 million, respectively, in NOx emission allowances.
216

22.COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
A. PURCHASE OBLIGATIONS
In most cases, our purchase obligation contracts contain provisions for price adjustments, minimum purchase levels and other financial commitments. The commitment amounts presented below are estimates and therefore will likely differ from actual purchase amounts. At December 31, 2011, the following tables reflect contractual cash obligations and other commercial commitments in the respective periods in which they are due:
 Progress Energy
                     
 (in millions)
 2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  Thereafter  Total 
 Fuel(a)
 $2,324  $2,053  $1,644  $1,460  $1,182  $6,437  $15,100 
 Purchased power
  459   440   381   391   373   3,104   5,148 
 Construction obligations(a)
  331   216   35   23   4   10   619 
 Other purchase obligations
  153   100   69   61   71   603   1,057 
Total $3,267  $2,809  $2,129  $1,935  $1,630  $10,154  $21,924 
 PEC
                            
 (in millions)
  2012   2013   2014   2015   2016  Thereafter  Total 
 Fuel
 $1,173  $970  $760  $718  $626  $1,864  $6,111 
 Purchased power
  79   70   64   70   68   376   727 
 Construction obligations
  277   114   25   19   -   -   435 
 Other purchase obligations
  77   44   47   30   38   242   478 
Total $1,606  $1,198  $896  $837  $732  $2,482  $7,751 
 PEF
                     
 (in millions)
 2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  Thereafter  Total 
 Fuel(a)
 $1,151  $1,083  $884  $742  $556  $4,573  $8,989 
 Purchased power
  380   370   317   321   305   2,728   4,421 
 Construction obligations(a)
  54   102   10   4   4   10   184 
 Other purchase obligations
  64   48   22   31   33   361   559 
Total $1,649  $1,603  $1,233  $1,098  $898  $7,672  $14,153 
(a)PEF signed an EPC agreement on December 31, 2008, with Westinghouse Electric Company LLC and Stone & Webster, Inc. for two approximately 1,100-MW Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear units planned for construction at Levy. Due to uncertainty regarding the ultimate magnitude and timing of obligations under the EPC agreement and the Levy nuclear fabrication contract, the table includes only the obligations related to the selected components of long lead time equipment as discussed under “Fuel and Purchased Power” and "Construction Obligations.”
FUEL AND PURCHASED POWER
Through our subsidiaries, we have entered into various long-term contracts for coal, oil, gas and nuclear fuel as well as transportation agreements for the related fuel. Our purchases under these commitments were $2.697 billion, $2.890 billion and $2.921 billion for 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. PEC’s purchases were $1.398 billion, $1.489 billion and $1.527 billion in 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. PEF’s purchases were $1.299 billion, $1.401 billion and $1.394 billion in 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. Essentially all fuel and certain purchased power costs incurred by PEC and PEF are eligible for recovery through their respective cost-recovery clauses.
In December 2008, PEF entered into a nuclear fuel fabrication contract that contained exit provisions with termination fees for the planned Levy nuclear units. Due to revisions in the construction schedule and startup dates the nuclear fuel fabrication contract was terminated during 2011. (See discussion following under “Construction Obligations.”)
217

Both PEC and PEF have ongoing purchased power contracts, including renewable energy contracts, with other utilities, certain co-generators and qualified facilities (QFs), with expiration dates ranging from 2012 to 2032. These purchased power contracts generally provide for capacity and energy payments or bundled capacity and energy payments. In addition, both PEC and PEF have various contracts to secure transmission rights. Our purchases under purchased power contracts, including transmission costs, were $925 million, $907 million and $756 million for 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. PEC’s purchases, including transmission costs, were $253 million, $239 million and $171 million in 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. PEF’s purchases, including transmission costs, were $672 million, $668 million and $585 million in 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.
PEC has executed certain firm contracts for approximately 985 MW of purchased power with other utilities, including tolling contracts, with expiration dates ranging from 2019 to 2022 and representing between 33 percent and 100 percent of plant net output. Minimum purchases under these contracts included in the previous table, representing capital-related capacity costs, are approximately $51 million, $52 million, $53 million, $60 million and $60 million for 2012 through 2016, respectively, and $271 million payable thereafter.
PEC has various pay-for-performance contracts with QFs, including renewable energy, for approximately 81 MW of firm capacity expiring at various times through 2032. In most cases, these contracts account for 100 percent of the net generating capacity of each of the facilities. Payments for both capacity and energy are contingent upon the QFs’ ability to generate and, therefore, are not included in the previous table.
PEC has entered into conditional agreements for firm pipeline transportation capacity to support PEC’s gas supply needs. Certain agreements are for the period from July 2012 through May 2033. The estimated total cost to PEC associated with these agreements is approximately $1.510 billion, approximately $380 million of which will be classified as a capital lease. Due to the conditions of the capital lease agreement, the capital lease will not be recorded on PEC’s balance sheet until mid-2012. The transactions are subject to several conditions precedent, including various state regulatory approvals, the completion and commencement of operation of necessary related interstate and intrastate natural gas pipeline system expansions and other contractual provisions. Due to the conditions of these agreements, the estimated costs associated with these agreements are not currently included in PEC’s fuel commitments or in PEC’s capital lease assets or obligations.
PEF has executed certain firm contracts for approximately 499 MW of purchased power with other utilities with expiration dates ranging from 2012 to 2016 and representing between 12 percent and 25 percent of plant net output. Minimum purchases under these contracts, representing capital-related capacity costs, are approximately $53 million, $46 million, $65 million, $65 million and $27 million for 2012 through 2016, respectively.
PEF has ongoing purchased power contracts with certain QFs for 682 MW of firm capacity with expiration dates ranging from 2012 to 2025. Energy payments are based on the actual power taken under these contracts. Capacity payments are subject to the QFs meeting certain contract performance obligations. In most cases, these contracts account for 100 percent of the net generating capacity of each of the facilities. All ongoing commitments have been approved by the FPSC. Minimum expected future capacity payments under these contracts are $313 million, $309 million, $238 million, $244 million and $273 million for 2012 through 2016, respectively, and $2.728 billion payable thereafter. The FPSC allows the capacity payments to be recovered through a capacity cost-recovery clause, which is similar to, and works in conjunction with, energy payments recovered through the fuel cost-recovery clause.
CONSTRUCTION OBLIGATIONS
We have purchase obligations related to various capital construction projects. Our total payments under these contracts were $507 million, $703 million and $818 million for 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.
PEC has purchase obligations related to various capital projects including new generation and transmission obligations. Total payments under PEC’s construction-related contracts were $460 million, $555 million and $199 million for 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. Payments for 2011 primarily relate to construction of generating facilities at our sites in Wayne County, N.C., and New Hanover County, N.C., as discussed in Note 8B.
218

PEF has purchase obligations related to capital projects including Levy and various new generation, transmission and environmental compliance projects. Total payments under PEF’s construction-related contracts were $47 million, $147 million and $619 million for 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively, including $6 million, $63 million and $243 million for 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively, toward long lead equipment and engineering related to the Levy EPC.
The future construction obligations presented in the previous tables for Progress Energy and PEF exclude PEF’s Levy EPC agreement. The EPC agreement includes provisions for termination. For termination without cause, the EPC agreement contains exit provisions with termination fees, which may be significant, that vary based on the termination circumstances. As discussed in Note 8C, in 2010 PEF identified a schedule shift in the Levy project, and major construction activities on Levy have been postponed until after the NRC issues the COL for the plants, which is expected in 2013 if the current licensing schedule remains on track. We executed an amendment to the EPC agreement in 2010 due to the schedule shifts. Additionally, in light of the schedule shifts in the Levy nuclear project, PEF completed vendor negotiations in July 2011 to continue or suspend purchase orders for long lead time equipment without material fees or charges. Prior to the EPC amendment, estimated payments and associated escalations were $8.608 billion for the multi-year contract and did not assume any joint ownership. Because we have executed an amendment to the EPC agreement and anticipate negotiating additional amendments upon receipt of the COL, we cannot currently predict when those obligations will be satisfied or the magnitude of any change. PEF has continued with selected components of long lead time equipment. Work was suspended on the remaining long lead time equipment items, which have total remaining estimated payments and associated escalations of approximately $1.250 billion included in the previously discussed $8.608 billion. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
OTHER PURCHASE OBLIGATIONS
We have various other contractual obligations primarily related to PESC service contracts for operational services, PEC service agreements related to its Smith Energy Complex, Wayne County, N.C., and New Hanover County, N.C., generating facilities, and PEF service agreements related to the Hines Energy Complex and the Bartow Plant. Our payments under these agreements were $151 million, $124 million and $56 million for 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.
PEC has various other purchase obligations, including obligations for long-term service agreements, parts and equipment, limestone supply and fleet vehicles. Total purchases under these contracts were $73 million, $55 million and $14 million for 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.
PEF has various other purchase obligations, including long-term service agreements for the Hines Energy Complex and the Bartow Plant. Total payments under these contracts were $54 million, $35 million and $22 million for 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. Future obligations are primarily comprised of the long-term service agreements.
B.LEASES
We and the Utilities lease office buildings, computer equipment, vehicles, railcars and other property and equipment with various terms and expiration dates. Additionally, the Utilities have entered into certain purchased power agreements, which are classified as leases. Some rental payments for transportation equipment include minimum rentals plus contingent rentals based on mileage. These contingent rentals are not significant.
Our rent expense under operating leases other than for purchased power totaled $42 million, $39 million and $37 million for 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. Our purchased power expense under agreements classified as operating leases was approximately $62 million, $61 million and $11 million in 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.
In 2003, we entered into an operating lease for a building for which minimum annual rental payments are approximately $7 million. The lease term expires July 2035 and provides for no rental payments during the last 15 years of the lease, during which period $53 million of rental expense will be recorded on the Consolidated Statements of Income. See Note 2 regarding our exit plan to vacate and sublease this building.
PEC’s rent expense under operating leases other than for purchased power totaled $26 million, $25 million and $26 million during 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. These amounts include rent expense allocated from PESC to PEC of $5 million in 2011, 2010 and 2009.
219

PEC has entered into purchased power agreements that are classified as operating leases. These agreements, which have total minimum payments of approximately $512 million and expire through 2032, primarily relate to two tolling agreements for purchased power of approximately 576 MW (100 percent of net output). Purchased power expense under agreements classified as operating leases was approximately $62 million, $38 million and $11 million in 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.
PEF’s rent expense under operating leases other than for purchased power totaled $15 million, $14 million and $11 million during 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. These amounts include rent expense allocated from PESC to PEF of $4 million in 2011 and $3 million in 2010 and 2009.
PEF has entered into a purchased power tolling agreement that is classified as an operating lease. This agreement for approximately 640 MW (100 percent of net output) has minimum annual payments beginning in June 2012 and expires in 2027 with total minimum payments of approximately $421 million. Purchased power expense under agreements classified as operating leases was approximately $23 million in 2010. PEF had no purchased power expense under operating lease agreements in 2011 and 2009.
PEF has a capital lease for a building and one tolling agreement for purchased power, which is classified as a capital lease of the related plant. PEF entered into the agreement for the building in 2005 and the lease term expires in 2047. The agreement for the building provides for minimum annual payments from 2007 through 2026 and no payments from 2027 through 2047. The minimum annual payments are approximately $5 million, for a total of approximately $103 million. During the last 20 years of the building lease, approximately $51 million of rental expense will be recorded on the Statements of Income. The 517-MW (100 percent of net output) tolling agreement for purchased power has minimum annual payments of approximately $21 million from 2007 through 2024, for a total of approximately $348 million.
Assets recorded under capital leases, including plant related to purchased power agreements, at December 31, consisted of:
  Progress Energy  PEC  PEF 
(in millions) 2011  2010  2011  2010  2011  2010 
Buildings $267  $267  $30  $30  $237  $237 
Less: Accumulated amortization  (56)  (46)  (18)  (17)  (38)  (29)
Total $211  $221  $12  $13  $199  $208 
Consistent with the ratemaking treatment for capital leases, capital lease expenses are charged to the same accounts that would be used if the leases were operating leases. Thus, our and the Utilities’ capital lease expense is generally included in O&M or purchased power expense. Our capital lease expense totaled $25 million, $25 million and $26 million for 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively, which was primarily comprised of PEF’s capital lease expense of $23 million, $23 million and $24 million for 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.
At December 31, 2011, minimum annual payments, excluding executory costs such as property taxes, insurance and maintenance, under long-term noncancelable operating and capital leases were:
  Progress Energy  PEC  PEF 
(in millions) Capital  Operating  Capital  Operating  Capital  Operating 
2012  $28  $61  $2  $28  $26  $27 
2013   36   85   10   43   26   36 
2014   26   82   -   42   26   35 
2015   26   79   -   43   26   34 
2016   25   79   -   43   25   34 
Thereafter  201   791   6   472   195   318 
Minimum annual payments  342   1,177   18   671   324   484 
Less amount representing imputed interest  (131)      (6)      (125)    
Total $211  $1,177  $12  $671  $199  $484 
220

The Utilities are lessors of electric poles, streetlights and other facilities. PEC’s rents received are primarily contingent upon usage and totaled $35 million, $33 million, and $34 million for 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. PEC’s minimum rentals receivable under noncancelable leases are $12 million for 2012 and none thereafter. PEF’s rents received are based on a fixed minimum rental where price varies by type of equipment or contingent usage and totaled $86 million, $85 million and $84 million for 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. PEF’s minimum rentals receivable under noncancelable leases are not material for 2012 and thereafter.
C.GUARANTEES
As a part of normal business, we enter into various agreements providing future financial or performance assurances to third parties. Such agreements include guarantees, standby letters of credit and surety bonds. At December 31, 2011, we do not believe conditions are likely for significant performance under these guarantees. To the extent liabilities are incurred as a result of the activities covered by the guarantees, such liabilities are included on the accompanying Balance Sheets.
At December 31, 2011, we have issued guarantees and indemnifications of and for certain asset performance, legal, tax and environmental matters to third parties, including indemnifications made in connection with sales of businesses. At December 31, 2011, our estimated maximum exposure for guarantees and indemnifications for which a maximum exposure is determinable was $337 million, including $61 million at PEF. Related to the sales of businesses, the latest specified notice period extends until 2013 for the majority of legal, tax and environmental matters provided for in the indemnification provisions. Indemnifications for the performance of assets extend to 2016. For certain matters for which we receive timely notice, our indemnity obligations may extend beyond the notice period. Certain indemnifications related to discontinued operations have no limitations as to time or maximum potential future payments. As part of settlement agreements entered into in 2002, PEF is responsible for providing the joint owners of CR3 a specified amount of generating capacity through the expiration of the indemnification provisions of the joint owner agreement in 2013. Due to the CR3 outage (See Note 8C), PEF has been unable to meet the required generating capacity and has provided replacement power from other generation sources or purchased power. During the year ended December 31, 2011, we and PEF recorded indemnification charges totaling $48 million for estimated joint owner replacement power costs for 2011 and future years, and provided replacement power totaling $21 million. At December 31, 2011 and 2010, we had recorded liabilities related to guarantees and indemnifications to third parties of $63 million and $31 million, respectively. These amounts included $37 million and $6 million for PEF at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. As current estimates change, additional losses related to guarantees and indemnifications to third parties, which could be material, may be recorded in the future.
In addition, the Parent has issued $300 million in guarantees for certain payments of two wholly owned indirect subsidiaries (See Note 23).
D.OTHER COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
MERGER
During January and February 2011, Progress Energy and its directors were named as defendants in 11 purported class action lawsuits with 10 lawsuits brought in the Superior Court, Wake County, N.C., and one lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, each in connection with the Merger (we refer to these lawsuits as the “actions”). The complaints in the actions alleged, among other things, that the Merger Agreement was the product of breaches of fiduciary duty by the individual defendants, in that it allegedly did not provide for full and fair value for Progress Energy’s shareholders; that the Merger Agreement contained coercive deal protection measures; and that the Merger Agreement and the Merger were approved as a result, allegedly, of improper self-dealing by certain defendants who would receive certain alleged employment compensation benefits and continued employment pursuant to the Merger Agreement. The complaints in the actions also alleged that Progress Energy aided and abetted the individual defendants’ alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. As relief, the plaintiffs in the actions sought, among other things, to enjoin completion of the Merger.
221

Additionally, the complaint in the federal action was amended in early April 2011 to include allegations that the defendants violated federal securities laws in connection with statements contained in the registration statement filed on Form S-4 by Duke Energy related to the Merger (the Registration Statement).
On March 31, 2011, counsel for the federal action plaintiff sent a derivative demand letter to Mr. William D. Johnson, Chairman, President and CEO of Progress Energy, demanding that the Progress Energy board of directors desist from moving forward with the Merger, make certain disclosures and engage in an auction of the company. Also on March 31, 2011, the same counsel sent Mr. Johnson a substantially identical derivative demand letter on behalf of two other purported Progress Energy shareholders.
On April 13, 2011, counsel for the federal action plaintiff sent another derivative demand letter to Mr. Johnson further demanding that the Progress Energy board of directors desist from moving forward with the Merger unless certain changes are made to the Merger Agreement and additional disclosures are made. Also on April 13, 2011, the same counsel sent Mr. Johnson a substantially identical derivative demand letter on behalf of two other purported Progress Energy shareholders.
On April 25, 2011, the Progress Energy board of directors established a special committee of disinterested directors to conduct a review and evaluation of the allegations and legal claims set forth in the derivative demand letters. The special committee investigated the allegations and legal claims and determined there was no basis to pursue the claims.
By order dated June 17, 2011, the court consolidated the state court cases. On June 21, 2011, the plaintiffs in the state court actions filed a verified consolidated amended complaint in the consolidated state court actions alleging breach of fiduciary duty by the individual defendants, and that Progress Energy aided and abetted the individual defendants’ alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The verified consolidated amended complaint further alleged that the Registration Statement and amendments filed on April 8, April 25, and May 13, 2011, failed to disclose material facts, giving rise to plaintiffs’ claims.
On July 11, 2011, solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation and to allow its shareholders to vote on the proposals required in connection with the Merger at its special meeting of its shareholders, Progress Energy entered into a memorandum of understanding with plaintiffs in the consolidated state court actions and other named defendants to settle the consolidated action and all related claims that were or could have been asserted in other actions, subject to court approval. The details of the settlement were set forth in a notice sent to Progress Energy’s shareholders of record that were members of the class as of July 5, 2011.
On November 29, 2011, the court entered a final order and judgment approving the settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate and awarded legal fees and expenses to plaintiffs’ counsel of $550,000. The court dismissed the action with prejudice and released and fully discharged all claims, including federal claims, which had been or could be in the future asserted in the action or in any court, tribunal or proceeding. On December 8, 2011, the federal action was voluntarily dismissed.
ENVIRONMENTAL
We are subject to federal, state and local regulations regarding environmental matters (See Note 21).

Hurricane Katrina
In May 2011, PEC and PEF were named in a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. Plaintiffs claim that PEC and PEF, along with numerous other utility, oil, coal and chemical companies, are liable for damages relating to losses suffered by victims of Hurricane Katrina. Plaintiffs claim that defendants’ greenhouse gas emissions contributed to the frequency and intensity of storms such as Hurricane Katrina. We believe the plaintiffs’ claim is without merit; however, we cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Water Discharge Permit
On October 5, 2011, Earthjustice, on behalf of the Sierra Club and Florida Wildlife Federation, filed a petition seeking review of the water discharge permit issued to CR1, CR2 and CR3 raising a number of technical and legal
222

issues with respect to the permit. A settlement has been tentatively reached providing for the withdrawal of the petition and issuance of a revised water discharge permit identical in form to the one under appeal but with an 18 month term. The current permit has a five year term. The settlement, if finalized, will fully resolve the current dispute. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL MATTERS
Pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the Utilities entered into contracts with the DOE under which the DOE agreed to begin taking spent nuclear fuel by no later than January 31, 1998. All similarly situated utilities were required to sign the same standard contract.
The DOE failed to begin taking spent nuclear fuel by January 31, 1998. In January 2004, the Utilities filed a complaint in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims against the DOE, claiming that the DOE breached the Standard Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel by failing to accept spent nuclear fuel from our various facilities on or before January 31, 1998. The Utilities have asserted over $90 million in damages incurred between January 31, 1998, and December 31, 2005, the time period set by the court for damages in this case.
On June 14, 2011, the judge in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a ruling to award the Utilities substantially all their asserted damages. In September 2011, after the government dismissed its notice of appeal, the judgment became final. As a result, in September 2011, PEC recorded the $92 million award as an offset for past spent fuel storage costs incurred, of which $27 million was O&M expense. PEC received the cash award in January 2012.
On December 12, 2011, the Utilities filed another complaint in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims against the DOE, claiming damages incurred from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2010. The damages stem from the same breach of contract asserted in the previous litigation. The Utilities may file subsequent damage claims as they incur additional costs. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
SYNTHETIC FUELS MATTERS
On October 21, 2009, a jury delivered a verdict in a lawsuit against Progress Energy and a number of our subsidiaries and affiliates arising out of an Asset Purchase Agreement dated as of October 19, 1999, and amended as of August 23, 2000 (the Asset Purchase Agreement), by and among U.S. Global, LLC (Global); Earthco; certain affiliates of Earthco; EFC Synfuel LLC (which was owned indirectly by Progress Energy, Inc.) and certain of its affiliates, including Solid Energy LLC; Solid Fuel LLC; Ceredo Synfuel LLC; Gulf Coast Synfuel LLC (renamed Sandy River Synfuel LLC) (collectively, the Progress Affiliates), as amended by an amendment to the Asset Purchase Agreement. In a case filed in the Circuit Court for Broward County, Fla., in March 2003 (the Florida Global Case), Global requested an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, as well as declaratory relief. Global asserted (1) that pursuant to the Asset Purchase Agreement, it was entitled to an interest in two synthetic fuels facilities previously owned by the Progress Affiliates and an option to purchase additional interests in the two synthetic fuels facilities and (2) that it was entitled to damages because the Progress Affiliates prohibited it from procuring purchasers for the synthetic fuels facilities. As a result of the expiration of the Section 29 tax credit program on December 31, 2007, all of our synthetic fuels businesses were abandoned and we reclassified our synthetic fuels businesses as discontinued operations.
The jury awarded Global $78 million. On October 23, 2009, Global filed a motion to assess prejudgment interest on the award. On November 20, 2009, the court granted the motion and assessed $55 million in prejudgment interest and entered judgment in favor of Global in a total amount of $133 million. During the year ended December 31, 2009, we recorded an after-tax charge of $74 million to discontinued operations. On December 18, 2009, we appealed the Broward County judgment to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeals. Also in December 2009, we made a $154 million payment, which represents payment of the total judgment and a required premium equivalent to two years of interest, to the Broward County Clerk of Court bond account. The appellate briefing process has been completed. Oral argument was held on September 27, 2011. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
In a second suit filed in the Superior Court for Wake County, N.C., Progress Synfuel Holdings, Inc. et al. v. U.S. Global, LLC (the North Carolina Global Case), the Progress Affiliates seek declaratory relief consistent with our
223

interpretation of the Asset Purchase Agreement. Global was served with the North Carolina Global Case on April 17, 2003.
On May 15, 2003, Global moved to dismiss the North Carolina Global Case for lack of personal jurisdiction over Global. In the alternative, Global requested that the court decline to exercise its discretion to hear the Progress Affiliates’ declaratory judgment action. On August 7, 2003, the Wake County Superior Court denied Global’s motion to dismiss, but stayed the North Carolina Global Case, pending the outcome of the Florida Global Case. The Progress Affiliates appealed the superior court’s order staying the case. By order dated September 7, 2004, the North Carolina Court of Appeals dismissed the Progress Affiliates’ appeal. Based upon the verdict in the Florida Global Case, we anticipate dismissal of the North Carolina Global Case.
CLAIM OF HOLDER OF CONTINGENT VALUE OBLIGATIONS
On June 10, 2011, Davidson Kempner Partners, M.H. Davidson & Co., Davidson Kempner Institutional Partners, L.P., and Davidson Kempner International, Ltd. (jointly, Davidson Kempner) filed a lawsuit against us in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. Davidson Kempner is a holder of CVOs (See Note 16) and alleged that we improperly deducted escrow deposits in 2005 in determining net after-tax cash flow under the agreement governing the CVOs and that by taking this position, we breached our obligation under the agreement to exercise good faith and fair dealing. The plaintiffs alleged that this breach caused injury to the holders of CVOs in the approximate amount of $42 million. The plaintiffs requested declaratory judgment to require that we deduct the escrowed payments in 2006.
On August 2, 2011, the parties filed a Stipulation of Discontinuance without Prejudice to dismiss the state lawsuit so that certain of the plaintiffs could file a federal lawsuit against us. On August 9, 2011, M.H. Davidson & Co. and Davidson Kempner International, Ltd. filed a lawsuit against us in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York with the same allegations and seeking the same relief as the prior state lawsuit. On October 3, 2011, we entered a settlement agreement and release with Davidson Kempner under which the parties mutually released all claims related to the CVOs and we purchased all of Davidson Kempner’s CVOs at a negotiated purchase price of $0.75 per CVO. The parties to the federal lawsuit filed a Stipulation of Discontinuance with Prejudice dismissing the lawsuit on October 12, 2011.
OTHER LITIGATION MATTERS
We and our subsidiaries are involved in various litigation matters in the ordinary course of business, some of which involve substantial amounts. Where appropriate, we have made accruals and disclosures to provide for such matters. In the opinion of management, the final disposition of pending litigation would not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations or financial position.
Presented below are the Condensed Consolidating Statements of Income, Balance Sheets and Cash Flows as required by Rule 3-10 of Regulation S-X. In September 2005, we issued our guarantee of certain payments of two wholly owned indirect subsidiaries, FPC Capital I (the Trust) and Florida Progress Funding Corporation (Funding Corp.). Our guarantees are in addition to the previously issued guarantees of our wholly owned subsidiary, Florida Progress.
The Trust, a finance subsidiary, was established in 1999 for the sole purpose of issuing $300 million of 7.10% Cumulative Quarterly Income Preferred Securities due 2039, Series A (Preferred Securities), and using the proceeds thereof to purchase from Funding Corp. $300 million of 7.10% Junior Subordinated Deferrable Interest Notes due 2039 (Subordinated Notes). The Trust has no other operations and its sole assets are the Subordinated Notes and Notes Guarantee (as discussed below). Funding Corp. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Florida Progress and was formed for the sole purpose of providing financing to Florida Progress and its subsidiaries. Funding Corp. does not engage in business activities other than such financing and has no independent operations. Since 1999, Florida Progress has fully and unconditionally guaranteed the obligations of Funding Corp. under the Subordinated Notes. In addition, Florida Progress guaranteed the payment of all distributions related to the Preferred Securities required
224

to be made by the Trust, but only to the extent that the Trust has funds available for such distributions (the Preferred Securities Guarantee). The two guarantees considered together constitute a full and unconditional guarantee by Florida Progress of the Trust’s obligations under the Preferred Securities. The Preferred Securities and the Preferred Securities Guarantee are listed on the New York Stock Exchange.
The Subordinated Notes may be redeemed at the option of Funding Corp. at par value plus accrued interest through the redemption date. The proceeds of any redemption of the Subordinated Notes will be used by the Trust to redeem proportional amounts of the Preferred Securities and common securities in accordance with their terms. Upon liquidation or dissolution of Funding Corp., holders of the Preferred Securities would be entitled to the liquidation preference of $25 per share plus all accrued and unpaid dividends thereon to the date of payment. The annual interest expense related to the Subordinated Notes is reflected in the Consolidated Statements of Income.
We have guaranteed the payment of all distributions related to the Trust's Preferred Securities. At December 31, 2011, the Trust had outstanding 12 million shares of the Preferred Securities with a liquidation value of $300 million. Our guarantees are joint and several, full and unconditional, and are in addition to the joint and several, full and unconditional guarantees previously issued to the Trust and Funding Corp. by Florida Progress. Our subsidiaries have provisions restricting the payment of dividends to the Parent in certain limited circumstances, and as disclosed in Note 12B, there were no restrictions on PEC’s or PEF’s retained earnings.
The Trust is a variable-interest entity of which we are not the primary beneficiary. Separate financial statements and other disclosures concerning the Trust have not been presented because we believe that such information is not material to investors.
In these condensed consolidating statements, the Parent column includes the financial results of the parent holding company only. The Subsidiary Guarantor column includes the consolidated financial results of Florida Progress only, which is primarily comprised of its wholly owned subsidiary PEF. The Non-Guarantor Subsidiaries column includes the consolidated financial results of all non-guarantor subsidiaries, which is primarily comprised of our wholly owned subsidiary PEC. The Other column includes elimination entries for all intercompany transactions and other consolidation adjustments. Financial statements for PEC and PEF are separately presented elsewhere in this Form 10-K. All applicable corporate expenses have been allocated appropriately among the guarantor and non-guarantor subsidiaries. The financial information may not necessarily be indicative of results of operations or financial position had the subsidiary guarantor or other non-guarantor subsidiaries operated as independent entities.

225


Condensed Consolidating Statement of Income 
Year ended December 31, 2011 
(in millions) Parent  
Subsidiary
Guarantor
  
Non-
Guarantor
Subsidiaries
  Other  
Progress
Energy,
Inc.
 
Operating revenues               
Operating revenues $-  $4,379  $4,528  $-  $8,907 
Affiliate revenues  -   -   272   (272)  - 
Total operating revenues  -   4,379   4,800   (272)  8,907 
Operating expenses                    
Fuel used in electric generation  -   1,506   1,387   -   2,893 
Purchased power  -   778   315   -   1,093 
Operation and maintenance  10   881   1,407   (262)  2,036 
Depreciation, amortization and accretion  -   169   532   -   701 
Taxes other than on income  -   350   218   (6)  562 
Other  -   (1)  35   -   34 
Total operating expenses  10   3,683   3,894   (268)  7,319 
Operating (loss) income  (10)  696   906   (4)  1,588 
Other income (expense)                    
Interest income  -   1   2   (1)  2 
Allowance for equity funds used during construction  -   32   71   -   103 
Other, net  (61)  5   (4)  2   (58)
Total other (expense) income, net  (61)  38   69   1   47 
Interest charges                    
Interest charges  279   276   205   -   760 
Allowance for borrowed funds used during construction  -   (14)  (21)  -   (35)
Total interest charges, net  279   262   184   -   725 
(Loss) income from continuing operations before
  income tax and equity in earnings of consolidated
  subsidiaries
  (350)  472   791   (3)  910 
Income tax (benefit) expense  (127)  170   275   5   323 
Equity in earnings of consolidated subsidiaries  798   -   -   (798)  - 
Income from continuing operations  575   302   516   (806)  587 
Discontinued operations, net of tax  -   (3)  (2)  -   (5)
Net income  575   299   514   (806)  582 
Net income attributable to noncontrolling
  interests, net of tax
  -   (4)  -   (3)  (7)
Net income attributable to controlling interests $575  $295  $514  $(809) $575 

226


Condensed Consolidating Statement of Income 
Year ended December 31, 2010 
(in millions) Parent  
Subsidiary
Guarantor
  
Non-
Guarantor
Subsidiaries
  Other  
Progress
Energy,
Inc.
 
Operating revenues               
Operating revenues $-  $5,268  $4,922  $-  $10,190 
Affiliate revenues  -   -   248   (248)  - 
Total operating revenues  -   5,268   5,170   (248)  10,190 
Operating expenses                    
Fuel used in electric generation  -   1,614   1,686   -   3,300 
Purchased power  -   977   302   -   1,279 
Operation and maintenance  7   912   1,345   (237)  2,027 
Depreciation, amortization and accretion  -   426   494   -   920 
Taxes other than on income  -   362   225   (7)  580 
Other  -   17   13   -   30 
Total operating expenses  7   4,308   4,065   (244)  8,136 
Operating (loss) income  (7)  960   1,105   (4)  2,054 
Other income (expense)                    
Interest income  7   2   5   (7)  7 
Allowance for equity funds used during construction  -   28   64   -   92 
Other, net  (1)  1   (3)  3   - 
Total other income, net  6   31   66   (4)  99 
Interest charges                    
Interest charges  282   293   211   (7)  779 
Allowance for borrowed funds used during construction  -   (13)  (19)  -   (32)
Total interest charges, net  282   280   192   (7)  747 
(Loss) income from continuing operations before
  income tax and equity in earnings of consolidated
  subsidiaries
  (283)  711   979   (1)  1,406 
Income tax (benefit) expense  (111)  267   378   5   539 
Equity in earnings of consolidated subsidiaries  1,027   -   -   (1,027)  - 
Income from continuing operations  855   444   601   (1,033)  867 
Discontinued operations, net of tax  1   (1)  (4)  -   (4)
Net income  856   443   597   (1,033)  863 
Net (income) loss attributable to noncontrolling
  interests, net of tax
  -   (4)  1   (4)  (7)
Net income attributable to controlling interests $856  $439  $598  $(1,037) $856 

227


Condensed Consolidating Statement of Income 
Year ended December 31, 2009 
(in millions) Parent  
Subsidiary
Guarantor
  
Non-
Guarantor
Subsidiaries
  Other  
Progress
Energy,
Inc.
 
Operating revenues               
Operating revenues $-  $5,259  $4,626  $-  $9,885 
Affiliate revenues  -   -   235   (235)  - 
Total operating revenues  -   5,259   4,861   (235)  9,885 
Operating expenses                    
Fuel used in electric generation  -   2,072   1,680   -   3,752 
Purchased power  -   682   229   -   911 
Operation and maintenance  8   839   1,269   (222)  1,894 
Depreciation, amortization and accretion  -   502   484   -   986 
Taxes other than on income  -   347   216   (6)  557 
Other  -   13   -   -   13 
Total operating expenses  8   4,455   3,878   (228)  8,113 
Operating (loss) income  (8)  804   983   (7)  1,772 
Other income (expense)                    
Interest income  10   5   9   (10)  14 
Allowance for equity funds used during construction  -   91   33   -   124 
Other, net  18   6   (22)  4   6 
Total other income, net  28   102   20   (6)  144 
Interest charges                    
Interest charges  233   280   215   (10)  718 
Allowance for borrowed funds used during construction  -   (27)  (12)  -   (39)
Total interest charges, net  233   253   203   (10)  679 
(Loss) income from continuing operations before
  income tax and equity in earnings of consolidated
  subsidiaries
  (213)  653   800   (3)  1,237 
Income tax (benefit) expense  (93)  200   286   4   397 
Equity in earnings of consolidated subsidiaries  875   -   -   (875)  - 
Income from continuing operations  755   453   514   (882)  840 
Discontinued operations, net of tax  2   (43)  (38)  -   (79)
Net income  757   410   476   (882)  761 
Net (income) loss attributable to noncontrolling
  interests, net of tax
  -   (3)  2   (3)  (4)
Net income attributable to controlling interests $757  $407  $478  $(885) $757 

228


Condensed Consolidating Balance Sheet 
December 31, 2011 
(in millions) Parent  
Subsidiary
Guarantor
  
Non-
Guarantor
Subsidiaries
  Other  
Progress
Energy,
Inc.
 
ASSETS               
Utility plant, net $-  $10,523  $11,887  $87  $22,497 
Current assets                    
Cash and cash equivalents  117   92   21   -   230 
Receivables, net  -   372   517   -   889 
Notes receivable from affiliated companies  53   -   219   (272)  - 
Regulatory assets  -   244   31   -   275 
Derivative collateral posted  -   123   24   -   147 
Prepayments and other current assets  128   852   1,049   (87)  1,942 
Total current assets  298   1,683   1,861   (359)  3,483 
Deferred debits and other assets                    
Investment in consolidated subsidiaries  14,043   -   -   (14,043)  - 
Regulatory assets  -   1,602   1,423   -   3,025 
Goodwill  -   -   -   3,655   3,655 
Nuclear decommissioning trust funds  -   559   1,088   -   1,647 
Other assets and deferred debits  140   242   856   (486)  752 
Total deferred debits and other assets  14,183   2,403   3,367   (10,874)  9,079 
Total assets $14,481  $14,609  $17,115  $(11,146) $35,059 
CAPITALIZATION AND LIABILITIES                    
Equity                    
Common stock equity $10,021  $4,728  $5,646  $(10,374) $10,021 
Noncontrolling interests  -   4   -   -   4 
Total equity  10,021   4,732   5,646   (10,374)  10,025 
Preferred stock of subsidiaries  -   34   59   -   93 
Long-term debt, affiliate  -   309   -   (36)  273 
Long-term debt, net  3,543   4,482   3,693   -   11,718 
Total capitalization  13,564   9,557   9,398   (10,410)  22,109 
Current liabilities                    
Current portion of long-term debt  450   -   500   -   950 
Short-term debt  250   233   188   -   671 
Notes payable to affiliated companies  -   238   34   (272)  - 
Derivative liabilities  38   268   130   -   436 
Other current liabilities  161   839   1,112   (84)  2,028 
Total current liabilities  899   1,578   1,964   (356)  4,085 
Deferred credits and other liabilities                    
Noncurrent income tax liabilities  -   837   1,976   (458)  2,355 
Regulatory liabilities  -   1,071   1,543   86   2,700 
Other liabilities and deferred credits  18   1,566   2,234   (8)  3,810 
Total deferred credits and other liabilities  18   3,474   5,753   (380)  8,865 
Total capitalization and liabilities $14,481  $14,609  $17,115  $(11,146) $35,059 

229


Condensed Consolidating Balance Sheet 
December 31, 2010 
(in millions) Parent  
Subsidiary
Guarantor
  
Non-
Guarantor
Subsidiaries
  Other  
Progress
Energy,
Inc.
 
ASSETS               
Utility plant, net $-  $10,189  $10,961  $90  $21,240 
Current assets                    
Cash and cash equivalents  110   270   231   -   611 
Receivables, net  -   497   536   -   1,033 
Notes receivable from affiliated companies  14   48   115   (177)  - 
Regulatory assets  -   105   71   -   176 
Derivative collateral posted  -   140   24   -   164 
Prepayments and other current assets  30   751   984   (273)  1,492 
Total current assets  154   1,811   1,961   (450)  3,476 
Deferred debits and other assets                    
Investment in consolidated subsidiaries  14,316   -   -   (14,316)  - 
Regulatory assets  -   1,387   987   -   2,374 
Goodwill  -   -   -   3,655   3,655 
Nuclear decommissioning trust funds  -   554   1,017   -   1,571 
Other assets and deferred debits  75   238   894   (469)  738 
Total deferred debits and other assets  14,391   2,179   2,898   (11,130)  8,338 
Total assets $14,545  $14,179  $15,820  $(11,490) $33,054 
CAPITALIZATION AND LIABILITIES                    
Equity                    
Common stock equity $10,023  $4,957  $5,686  $(10,643) $10,023 
Noncontrolling interests  -   4   -   -   4 
Total equity  10,023   4,961   5,686   (10,643)  10,027 
Preferred stock of subsidiaries  -   34   59   -   93 
Long-term debt, affiliate  -   309   -   (36)  273 
Long-term debt, net  3,989   4,182   3,693   -   11,864 
Total capitalization  14,012   9,486   9,438   (10,679)  22,257 
Current liabilities                    
Current portion of long-term debt  205   300   -   -   505 
Notes payable to affiliated companies  -   175   3   (178)  - 
Derivative liabilities  18   188   53   -   259 
Other current liabilities  278   1,002   1,184   (273)  2,191 
Total current liabilities  501   1,665   1,240   (451)  2,955 
Deferred credits and other liabilities                    
Noncurrent income tax liabilities  3   528   1,608   (443)  1,696 
Regulatory liabilities  -   1,084   1,461   90   2,635 
Other liabilities and deferred credits  29   1,416   2,073   (7)  3,511 
Total deferred credits and other liabilities  32   3,028   5,142   (360)  7,842 
Total capitalization and liabilities $14,545  $14,179  $15,820  $(11,490) $33,054 

230


Condensed Consolidating Statement of Cash Flows 
Year ended December 31, 2011 
(in millions) Parent  
Subsidiary
Guarantor
  
Non-
Guarantor
Subsidiaries
  Other  
Progress
Energy,
Inc.
 
Net cash provided by operating activities $756  $706  $1,251  $(1,098) $1,615 
Investing activities                    
Gross property additions  -   (818)  (1,248)  -   (2,066)
Nuclear fuel additions  -   (15)  (211)  -   (226)
Purchases of available-for-sale securities and other investments  -   (4,438)  (579)  -   (5,017)
Proceeds from available-for-sale securities and other investments  -   4,441   529   -   4,970 
Changes in advances to affiliated companies  (38)  48   (104)  94   - 
Contributions to consolidated subsidiaries  (11)  -   -   11   - 
Other investing activities  (24)  121   29   1   127 
Net cash used by investing activities  (73)  (661)  (1,584)  106   (2,212)
Financing activities                    
Issuance of common stock, net  53   -   -   -   53 
Dividends paid on common stock  (734)  -   -   -   (734)
Dividends paid to parent  -   (513)  (585)  1,098   - 
Net decrease in short-term debt  250   233   185   (1)  667 
Proceeds from issuance of long-term debt, net  495   296   495   -   1,286 
Retirement of long-term debt  (700)  (300)  -   -   (1,000)
Changes in advances from affiliated companies  -   63   31   (94)  - 
Contributions from parent  -   10   1   (11)  - 
Other financing activities  (40)  (12)  (4)  -   (56)
Net cash (used) provided by financing activities  (676)  (223)  123   992   216 
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents  7   (178)  (210)  -   (381)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year  110   270   231   -   611 
Cash and cash equivalents at end of year $117  $92  $21  $-  $230 

231

Condensed Consolidating Statement of Cash Flows 
Year ended December 31, 2010 
(in millions) Parent  
Subsidiary
Guarantor
  
Non-
Guarantor
Subsidiaries
  Other  
Progress
Energy,
Inc.
 
Net cash provided by operating activities $16  $1,181  $1,562  $(222) $2,537 
Investing activities                    
Gross property additions  -   (1,014)  (1,231)  24   (2,221)
Nuclear fuel additions  -   (38)  (183)  -   (221)
Purchases of available-for-sale securities and other investments  -   (6,391)  (618)  -   (7,009)
Proceeds from available-for-sale securities and other investments  -   6,395   595   -   6,990 
Changes in advances to affiliated companies  15   (2)  188   (201)  - 
Return of investment in consolidated subsidiaries  54   -   -   (54)  - 
Contributions to consolidated subsidiaries  (171)  -   -   171   - 
Other investing activities  113   60   3   (115)  61 
Net cash provided (used) by investing activities  11   (990)  (1,246)  (175)  (2,400)
Financing activities                    
Issuance of common stock, net  434   -   -   -   434 
Dividends paid on common stock  (717)  -   -   -   (717)
Dividends paid to parent  -   (102)  (100)  202   - 
Dividends paid to parent in excess of retained earnings  -   -   (54)  54   - 
Net decrease in short-term debt  (140)  -   -   -   (140)
Proceeds from issuance of long-term debt, net  -   591   -   -   591 
Retirement of long-term debt  (100)  (300)  -   -   (400)
Changes in advances from affiliated companies  -   (201)  -   201   - 
Contributions from parent  -   33   152   (185)  - 
Other financing activities  -   (14)  (130)  125   (19)
Net cash (used) provided by financing activities  (523)  7   (132)  397   (251)
Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents  (496)  198   184   -   (114)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year  606   72   47   -   725 
Cash and cash equivalents at end of year $110  $270  $231  $-  $611 

232


Condensed Consolidating Statement of Cash Flows 
Year ended December 31, 2009 
(in millions) Parent  
Subsidiary
Guarantor
  
Non-
Guarantor
Subsidiaries
  Other  
Progress
Energy,
Inc.
 
Net cash provided by operating activities $108  $1,079  $1,282  $(198) $2,271 
Investing activities                    
Gross property additions  -   (1,449)  (858)  12   (2,295)
Nuclear fuel additions  -   (78)  (122)  -   (200)
Proceeds from sales of assets to affiliated companies  -   -   11   (11)  - 
Purchases of available-for-sale securities and other investments  -   (1,548)  (802)  -   (2,350)
Proceeds from available-for-sale securities and other investments  -   1,558   756   -   2,314 
Changes in advances to affiliated companies  4   (2)  (172)  170   - 
Return of investment in consolidated subsidiaries  12   -   -   (12)  - 
Contributions to consolidated subsidiaries  (688)  -   -   688   - 
Other investing activities  -   -   (1)  -   (1)
Net cash used by investing activities  (672)  (1,519)  (1,188)  847   (2,532)
Financing activities                    
Issuance of common stock, net  623   -   -   -   623 
Dividends paid on common stock  (693)  -   -   -   (693)
Dividends paid to parent  -   (1)  (200)  201   - 
Dividends paid to parent in excess of retained earnings  -   -   (12)  12   - 
Payments of short-term debt with original maturities
  greater than 90 days
  (629)  -   -   -   (629)
Net increase (decrease) in short-term debt  100   (371)  (110)  -   (381)
Proceeds from issuance of long-term debt, net  1,683   -   595   -   2,278 
Retirement of long-term debt  -   -   (400)  -   (400)
Changes in advances from affiliated companies  -   170   -   (170)  - 
Contributions from parent  -   653   49   (702)  - 
Other financing activities  (2)  (12)  12   10   8 
Net cash provided (used) by financing activities  1,082   439   (66)  (649)  806 
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents  518   (1)  28   -   545 
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year  88   73   19   -   180 
Cash and cash equivalents at end of year $606  $72  $47  $-  $725 

233

Summarized quarterly financial data was as follows:
Progress Energy            
(in millions except per share data) First  Second  Third  Fourth 
2011             
Operating revenues $2,167  $2,256  $2,747  $1,737 
Operating income  451   428   690   19 
Income (loss) from continuing operations  187   180   293   (73)
Net income (loss)  185   178   293   (74)
Net income (loss) attributable to controlling interests  184   176   291   (76)
Common stock data                
Basic and diluted earnings per common share                
Income (loss) from continuing operations attributable to
  controlling interests, net of tax
  0.63   0.60   0.98   (0.25)
Net income (loss) attributable to controlling interests  0.62   0.60   0.98   (0.25)
Dividends declared per common share  0.620   0.620   0.620   0.259 
Market price per share                
High  46.83   49.03   52.42   56.33 
Low  42.55   45.20   42.05   49.37 
2010                 
Operating revenues $2,535  $2,372  $2,962  $2,321 
Operating income  494   440   753   367 
Income from continuing operations  191   181   365   130 
Net income  190   180   365   128 
Net income attributable to controlling interests  190   180   361   125 
Common stock data                
Basic and diluted earnings per common share                
Income from continuing operations attributable to
  controlling interests, net of tax
  0.67   0.62   1.23   0.43 
Net income attributable to controlling interests  0.67   0.62   1.23   0.42 
Dividends declared per common share  0.620   0.620   0.620   0.620 
Market price per share                
High  41.35   40.69   44.82   45.61 
Low  37.04   37.13   38.96   43.08 

In the opinion of management, all adjustments necessary to fairly present amounts shown for interim periods have been made. Results of operations for an interim period may not give a true indication of results for the year. Typically, weather conditions in our service territories directly influence the demand for electricity and affect the price of energy commodities necessary to provide electricity to our customers. As a result, our overall operating results may fluctuate substantially on a seasonal basis.
In the third quarter of 2011, we determined the fair value of the CVOs based on the purchase price in a negotiated settlement agreement. As a result, we recognized $50 million of expense, net of tax, related to the change in the CVOs’ fair market value. See Note 16 for additional information.
During the fourth quarter of 2011, we recorded $288 million to be refunded to customers through the fuel clause in accordance with the 2012 settlement agreement. This was recognized as a reduction in operating revenues. See Note 8C for additional information.
234


PEC
Summarized quarterly financial data was as follows:
             
(in millions) First  Second  Third  Fourth 
2011             
Operating revenues $1,133  $1,060  $1,332  $1,003 
Operating income  228   192   329   136 
Net income  131   107   199   79 
Net income attributable to controlling interests  131   107   199   79 
2010                 
Operating revenues $1,263  $1,117  $1,414  $1,128 
Operating income  266   196   402   207 
Net income  136   111   236   119 
Net income attributable to controlling interests  138   112   234   119 

In the opinion of management, all adjustments necessary to fairly present amounts shown for interim periods have been made. Results of operations for an interim period may not give a true indication of results for the year. Typically, weather conditions in PEC’s service territories directly influence the demand for electricity and affect the price of energy commodities necessary to provide electricity to its customers. As a result, its overall operating results may fluctuate substantially on a seasonal basis.
PEF
Summarized quarterly financial data was as follows:
             
(in millions) First  Second  Third  Fourth 
2011             
Operating revenues $1,032  $1,193  $1,414  $730 
Operating income (loss)  216   234   361   (113)
Net income (loss)  102   113   203   (104)
2010                 
Operating revenues $1,270  $1,252  $1,543  $1,189 
Operating income  222   244   344   149 
Net income  102   119   180   52 

In the opinion of management, all adjustments necessary to fairly present amounts shown for interim periods have been made. Results of operations for an interim period may not give a true indication of results for the year. Typically, weather conditions in PEF’s service territories directly influence the demand for electricity and affect the price of energy commodities necessary to provide electricity to its customers. As a result, its overall operating results may fluctuate substantially on a seasonal basis.
During the fourth quarter of 2011, PEF recorded $288 million to be refunded to customers through the fuel clause in accordance with the 2012 settlement agreement. This was recognized as a reduction in operating revenues. See Note 8C for additional information.
235


CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
None

ITEM 9A.CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
PROGRESS ENERGY
DISCLOSURE CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
Pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, we carried out an evaluation, with the participation of management, including our Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, of the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) as of the end of the period covered by this report. Based upon that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures are effective to ensure that information we are required to disclose in the reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act, is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC's rules and forms, and that such information is accumulated and communicated to management, including the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.
MANAGEMENT’S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING
It is the responsibility of Progress Energy’s management to establish and maintain adequate internal control over financial reporting, as such term is defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Progress Energy’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Internal control over financial reporting includes policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of Progress Energy; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; (3) provide reasonable assurance that receipts and expenditures of Progress Energy are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of Progress Energy; and (4) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of Progress Energy’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
Management assessed the effectiveness of Progress Energy’s internal control over financial reporting at December 31, 2011. Management based this assessment on criteria for effective internal control over financial reporting described in Internal Control – Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Management’s assessment included an evaluation of the design of Progress Energy’s internal control over financial reporting and testing of the operational effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting. Management reviewed the results of its assessment with the Audit and Corporate Performance Committee (Audit Committee) of the board of directors.
Based on our assessment, management determined that, at December 31, 2011, Progress Energy maintained effective internal control over financial reporting.
Deloitte & Touche LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has audited the internal control over financial reporting of Progress Energy as of December 31, 2011, as stated in their report, which is included below.
236

CHANGES IN INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING
There has been no change in Progress Energy's internal control over financial reporting during the quarter ended December 31, 2011, that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, its internal control over financial reporting.
237

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND SHAREHOLDERS OF PROGRESS ENERGY, INC.:
We have audited the internal control over financial reporting of Progress Energy, Inc. and Subsidiaries (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2011, based on criteria established in Internal Control – Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. The Company’s management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, and testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk, andrisk. Our audits also included performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit providesaudits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.opinions.
A company’scompany's internal control over financial reporting is a process designed by, or under the supervision of, the company’scompany's principal executive and principal financial officers, or persons performing similar functions, and effected by the company’scompany's board of directors, management, and other personnel to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’scompany's internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’scompany's assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.
Because of the inherent limitations of internal control over financial reporting, including the possibility of collusion or improper management override of controls, material misstatements due to error or fraud may not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. Also, projections of any evaluation of the effectiveness of the internal control over financial reporting to future periods are subject to the risk that the controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Duke Energy Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2014, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Also, in our opinion, the Company maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2011,2014, based on the criteria established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.Commission.
/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

Charlotte, North Carolina
February 27, 2015


77


PART II

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
  Years Ended December 31,
(in millions, except per share amounts)2014
 2013
 2012
Operating Revenues        
Regulated electric$21,550
 $20,329
 $15,515
Nonregulated electric, natural gas, and other1,802
 1,916
 1,928
Regulated natural gas573
 511
 469
Total operating revenues23,925
 22,756
 17,912
Operating Expenses        
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power - regulated7,686
 7,108
 5,582
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power - nonregulated533
 540
 651
Cost of natural gas and other248
 224
 215
Operation, maintenance and other5,856
 5,673
 4,787
Depreciation and amortization3,066
 2,668
 2,145
Property and other taxes1,213
 1,274
 965
Impairment charges81
 399
 666
Total operating expenses18,683
 17,886
 15,011
Gains (Losses) on Sales of Other Assets and Other, net16
 (16) 10
Operating Income5,258
 4,854
 2,911
Other Income and Expenses        
Equity in earnings of unconsolidated affiliates130
 122
 148
Gains on sales of unconsolidated affiliates17
 100
 22
Other income and expenses, net351
 262
 397
Total other income and expenses498
 484
 567
Interest Expense1,622
 1,543
 1,244
Income From Continuing Operations Before Income Taxes4,134
 3,795
 2,234
Income Tax Expense from Continuing Operations1,669
 1,205
 623
Income From Continuing Operations2,465
 2,590
 1,611
(Loss) Income From Discontinued Operations, net of tax(576) 86
 171
Net Income1,889
 2,676
 1,782
Less: Net Income Attributable to Noncontrolling Interests6
 11
 14
Net Income Attributable to Duke Energy Corporation$1,883
 $2,665
 $1,768
      
Earnings Per Share - Basic and Diluted        
Income from continuing operations attributable to Duke Energy Corporation common shareholders        
Basic$3.46
 $3.64
 $2.77
Diluted$3.46
 $3.63
 $2.77
(Loss) Income from discontinued operations attributable to Duke Energy Corporation common shareholders        
Basic$(0.80) $0.13
 $0.30
Diluted$(0.80) $0.13
 $0.30
Net Income attributable to Duke Energy Corporation common shareholders        
Basic$2.66
 $3.77
 $3.07
Diluted$2.66
 $3.76
 $3.07
Weighted-average shares outstanding        
Basic707
 706
 574
Diluted707
 706
 575
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

78


PART II

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
  Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)  
2014
 2013
 2012
Net Income  $1,889
 $2,676
 $1,782
Other Comprehensive Loss, net of tax          
Foreign currency translation adjustments  (124) (197) (75)
Pension and OPEB adjustments(a)
4
 38
 19
Net unrealized (losses) gains on cash flow hedges(b)
(26) 59
 (28)
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges  7
 1
 (1)
Unrealized gains (losses) on investments in available-for-sale securities  3
 (4) 14
Reclassification into earnings from available-for-sale securities  
 4
 (5)
Other Comprehensive Loss, net of tax  
(136) (99) (76)
Comprehensive Income  
1,753
 2,577
 1,706
Less: Comprehensive Income Attributable to Noncontrolling Interests  
14
 5
 10
Comprehensive Income Attributable to Duke Energy Corporation  
$1,739
 $2,572
 $1,696
(a)Net of insignificant tax expense in 2014, $17 million tax expense in 2013 and $9 million tax expense in 2012. See Note 21 for additional information.
(b)Net of $13 million tax benefit in 2014, $20 million tax expense in 2013 and $6 million tax expense in 2012.

See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

79


PART II

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
  December 31,
(in millions)2014
 2013
ASSETS     
Current Assets     
Cash and cash equivalents$2,036
 $1,501
Short-term investments
 44
Receivables (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $17 at December 31, 2014 and $30 at December 31, 2013)791
 1,286
Restricted receivables of variable interest entities (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $51 at December 31, 2014 and $43 at December 31, 2013)1,973
 1,719
Inventory3,459

3,250
Assets held for sale364
 
Regulatory assets1,115
 895
Other1,837
 1,821
Total current assets11,575
 10,516
Investments and Other Assets     
Investments in equity method unconsolidated affiliates358
 390
Nuclear decommissioning trust funds5,546
 5,132
Goodwill16,321
 16,340
Assets held for sale2,642
 107
Other3,008
 3,432
Total investments and other assets27,875
 25,401
Property, Plant and Equipment     
Cost104,861
 103,115
Accumulated depreciation and amortization(34,824) (33,625)
Generation facilities to be retired, net9
 
Net property, plant and equipment70,046
 69,490
Regulatory Assets and Deferred Debits     
Regulatory assets11,042
 9,191
Other171
 181
Total regulatory assets and deferred debits11,213
 9,372
Total Assets$120,709
 $114,779
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY     
Current Liabilities     
Accounts payable$2,271
 $2,391
Notes payable and commercial paper2,514
 839
Taxes accrued569
 551
Interest accrued418
 440
Current maturities of long-term debt2,807
 2,104
Liabilities associated with assets held for sale262
 7
Regulatory liabilities204
 316
Other2,188
 1,996
Total current liabilities11,233
 8,644
Long-Term Debt37,213
 38,152
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities     
Deferred income taxes13,423
 12,097
Investment tax credits427
 442
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs1,145
 1,322
Liabilities associated with assets held for sale35
 66
Asset retirement obligations8,466
 4,950
Regulatory liabilities6,193
 5,949
Other1,675
 1,749
Total deferred credits and other liabilities31,364
 26,575
Commitments and Contingencies

 

Equity     
Common stock, $0.001 par value, 2 billion shares authorized; 707 million and 706 million shares outstanding at December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively1
 1
Additional paid-in capital39,405
 39,365
Retained earnings2,012
 2,363
Accumulated other comprehensive loss(543) (399)
Total Duke Energy Corporation shareholders' equity40,875
 41,330
Noncontrolling interests24
 78
Total equity40,899
 41,408
Total Liabilities and Equity$120,709
 $114,779
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

80


PART II

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
  Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2014
 2013
 2012
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES        
Net income$1,889
 $2,676
 $1,782
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating activities:     
Depreciation, amortization and accretion (including amortization of nuclear fuel)3,507
 3,229
 2,652
Equity component of AFUDC(135) (157) (300)
Severance expense
 
 92
FERC mitigation costs(15) 
 117
Community support and charitable contributions expense
 34
 92
Gains on sales of other assets(33) (79) (44)
Impairment charges915
 400
 586
Deferred income taxes1,149
 1,264
 584
Equity in earnings of unconsolidated affiliates(130) (122) (148)
Voluntary opportunity cost deferral
 
 (101)
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs108
 307
 239
Contributions to qualified pension plans
 (250) (304)
(Increase) decrease in     
Net realized and unrealized mark-to-market and hedging transactions44
 1
 60
Receivables58
 (281) 39
Inventory(269) (31) (258)
Other current assets(414) (35) 140
Increase (decrease) in     
Accounts payable(30) 73
 131
Taxes accrued(14) 77
 (142)
Other current liabilities(201) 24
 295
Other assets16
 (384) (129)
Other liabilities141
 (364) (139)
Net cash provided by operating activities6,586

6,382

5,244
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES     
Capital expenditures(5,384) (5,526) (5,501)
Investment expenditures(90) (81) (6)
Acquisitions(54) 
 (451)
Cash acquired from the merger with Progress Energy
 
 71
Purchases of available-for-sale securities(4,110) (6,142) (4,719)
Proceeds from sales and maturities of available-for-sale securities4,133
 6,315
 4,537
Net proceeds from the sales of equity investments and other assets, and sales of and collections on notes receivable179
 277
 212
Change in restricted cash9
 167
 (414)
Other(56) 12
 74
Net cash used in investing activities(5,373)
(4,978)
(6,197)
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES     
Proceeds from the:     
Issuance of long-term debt2,914
 3,601
 4,170
Issuance of common stock related to employee benefit plans25
 9
 23
Payments for the:     
Redemption of long-term debt(3,037) (2,761) (2,498)
Redemption of preferred stock of a subsidiary
 (96) 
Proceeds from the issuance of short-term debt with original maturities greater than 90 days1,066
 
 
Payments for the redemption of short-term debt with original maturities greater than 90 days(564) 
 
Notes payable and commercial paper1,186
 93
 278
Distributions to noncontrolling interests(65) (15) (25)
Contributions from noncontrolling interests
 9
 76
Dividends paid(2,234) (2,188) (1,752)
Other31
 21
 (5)
Net cash (used in) provided by financing activities(678)
(1,327)
267
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents535

77

(686)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period1,501
 1,424
 2,110
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period$2,036

$1,501

$1,424
Supplemental Disclosures:        
Cash paid for interest, net of amount capitalized$1,659
 $1,665
 $1,032
Cash paid for (received from) income taxes158
 (202) 72
Merger with Progress Energy     
Fair value of assets acquired
 
 48,944
Fair value of liabilities assumed
 
 30,873
Issuance of common stock
 
 18,071
Significant non-cash transactions:     
Accrued capital expenditures664
 594
 684
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

81


PART II

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN EQUITY
       
   
   
 
Duke Energy Corporation Shareholders
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss
   
   
   
(in millions)  
Common Stock Shares
 Common Stock
 Additional Paid-in Capital
 Retained Earnings
 Foreign Currency Adjustments
 Net Losses on Cash Flow Hedges
 Unrealized (Losses) Gains on Available-for-Sale Securities
 Pension and OPEB Related Adjustments
 Common Stockholders' Equity
 Noncontrolling Interests
 Total Equity
Balance at December 31, 2011445
 1
 21,132
 1,873
 (45) (71) (9) (109) 22,772
 93
 22,865
Net income(a)  

 
 
 1,768
 
 
 
 
 1,768
 12
 1,780
Other comprehensive (loss) income  

 
 
 
 (71) (29) 9
 19
 (72) (4) (76)
Common stock issued in connection with the
  Progress Energy Merger  
258
 
 18,071
 
 
 
 
 
 18,071
 
 18,071
Common stock issuances, including dividend
  reinvestment and employee benefits  
1
 
 76
 
 
 
 
 
 76
 
 76
Common stock dividends  
 
 
 (1,752) 
 
 
 
 (1,752) 
 (1,752)
Contribution from noncontrolling interest in
  DS Cornerstone, LLC

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 76
 76
Deconsolidation of DS Cornerstone, LLC
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (82) (82)
Changes in noncontrolling interest in
 subsidiaries(b)

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (17) (17)
Balance at December 31, 2012704
 1
 39,279
 1,889
 (116) (100) 
 (90) 40,863
 78
 40,941
Net income
 
 
 2,665
 
 
 
 
 2,665
 11
 2,676
Other comprehensive (loss) income  

 
 
 
 (191) 60
 
 38
 (93) (6) (99)
Common stock issuances, including dividend
  reinvestment and employee benefits  
2
 
 86
 
 
 
 
 
 86
 
 86
Common stock dividends  

 
 
 (2,188) 
 
 
 
 (2,188) 
 (2,188)
Premium on the redemption of preferred stock of subsidiaries  

 
 
 (3) 
 
 
 
 (3) 
 (3)
Contribution from noncontrolling interest  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 9
 9
Changes in noncontrolling interest in subsidiaries(b)

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (14) (14)
Balance at December 31, 2013706
 1
 39,365
 2,363
 (307) (40) 
 (52) 41,330
 78
 41,408
Net income  

 
 
 1,883
 
 
 
 
 1,883
 6
 1,889
Other comprehensive (loss) income  

 
 
 
 (132) (19) 3
 4
 (144) 8
 (136)
Common stock issuances, including dividend
  reinvestment and employee benefits  
1
 
 40
 
 
 
 
 
 40
 
 40
Common stock dividends  

 
 
 (2,234) 
 
 
 
 (2,234) 
 (2,234)
Changes in noncontrolling interest in subsidiaries(b)  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (65) (65)
Other
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (3) (3)
Balance at December 31, 2014707
 1
 39,405
 2,012
 (439) (59) 3
 (48) 40,875
 24
 40,899
(a)For the year ended December 31, 2012, consolidated net income of $1,782 million includes $2 million attributable to preferred shareholders of subsidiaries. Income attributable to preferred shareholders of subsidiaries is not a component of total equity and is excluded from the table above.
(b)This decrease primarily relates to cash distributions to noncontrolling interests.
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

82


PART II

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Board of Directors of
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
Charlotte, North Carolina
We have also audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC and subsidiaries (the "Company") as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, and the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income, changes in member’s equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2014. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States),. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC and consolidated financial statement schedule assubsidiaries at December 31, 2014 and 2013, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the yearthree years in the period ended December 31, 20112014, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of the Company and our report dated February 28, 2012 expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements and consolidated financial statement schedule.
America.
/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
 
Raleigh,Charlotte, North Carolina
February 28,27, 2015


83


PART II

DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
  Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2014
 2013
 2012
Operating Revenues$7,351
 $6,954
 $6,665
Operating Expenses        
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power2,133
 1,982
 1,864
Operation, maintenance and other1,995
 1,868
 1,979
Depreciation and amortization1,009
 921
 921
Property and other taxes316
 374
 365
Impairment charges3
 
 31
Total operating expenses5,456
 5,145
 5,160
Gains on Sales of Other Assets and Other, net
 
 12
Operating Income1,895
 1,809
 1,517
Other Income and Expenses, net172
 120
 185
Interest Expense407
 359
 384
Income Before Income Taxes1,660
 1,570
 1,318
Income Tax Expense588
 594
 453
Net Income$1,072
 $976
 $865
Other Comprehensive Income, net of tax        
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges2
 1
 2
Unrealized gain on investments in available-for-sale securities
 
 1
Comprehensive Income$1,074
 $977
 $868
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

84


PART II

DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
   December 31,
(in millions) 2014
 2013
ASSETS      
Current Assets      
Cash and cash equivalents $13
 $23
Receivables (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $3 at December 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013) 129
 186
Restricted receivables of variable interest entities (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $6 at December 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013) 647
 673
Receivables from affiliated companies 75
 75
Notes receivable from affiliated companies 150
 222
Inventory 1,124

1,065
Regulatory assets 399
 295
Other 77
 309
Total current assets 2,614
 2,848
Investments and Other Assets      
Nuclear decommissioning trust funds 3,042
 2,840
Other 959
 1,000
Total investments and other assets 4,001
 3,840
Property, Plant and Equipment      
Cost 37,372
 34,906
Accumulated depreciation and amortization (12,700) (11,894)
Net property, plant and equipment 24,672
 23,012
Regulatory Assets and Deferred Debits      
Regulatory assets 2,465
 1,527
Other 42
 46
Total regulatory assets and deferred debits 2,507
 1,573
Total Assets $33,794
 $31,273
LIABILITIES AND MEMBER'S EQUITY      
Current Liabilities      
Accounts payable $709
 $701
Accounts payable to affiliated companies 154
 161
Taxes accrued 146
 147
Interest accrued 95
 97
Current maturities of long-term debt 507
 47
Regulatory liabilities 34
 65
Other 434
 393
Total current liabilities 2,079
 1,611
Long-Term Debt 7,584
 8,089
Long-Term Debt Payable to Affiliated Companies 300
 300
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities      
Deferred income taxes 5,812
 5,706
Investment tax credits 204
 210
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs 111
 161
Asset retirement obligations 3,428
 1,594
Regulatory liabilities 2,710
 2,576
Other 642
 676
Total deferred credits and other liabilities 12,907
 10,923
Commitments and Contingencies 
 
Member's Equity      
Member's Equity 10,937
 10,365
Accumulated other comprehensive loss (13) (15)
Total member's equity 10,924
 10,350
Total Liabilities and Member's Equity $33,794
 $31,273
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

85


PART II

DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
  Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2014
 2013
 2012
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES        
Net income$1,072
 $976
 $865
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating activities:        
Depreciation and amortization (including amortization of nuclear fuel)1,273
 1,167
 1,143
Equity component of AFUDC(91) (91) (154)
FERC mitigation costs3
 
 46
Community support and charitable contributions expense
 14
 56
Gains on sales of other assets and other, net
 
 (12)
Deferred income taxes376
 534
 479
Voluntary opportunity cost deferral
 
 (101)
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs22
 38
 41
(Increase) decrease in        
Net realized and unrealized mark-to-market and hedging transactions
 (9) 
Receivables48
 (12) 22
Receivables from affiliated companies
 (72) (1)
Inventory(60) (9) (128)
Other current assets(236) (1) 46
Increase (decrease) in        
Accounts payable10
 58
 (51)
Accounts payable to affiliated companies(7) 33
 (28)
Taxes accrued(15) 4
 (12)
Other current liabilities(10) (40) 165
Other assets17
 (102) (117)
Other liabilities(22) (77) (126)
Net cash provided by operating activities2,380
 2,411
 2,133
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES        
Capital expenditures(1,879) (1,695) (1,908)
Purchases of available-for-sale securities(2,064) (2,405) (2,481)
Proceeds from sales and maturities of available-for-sale securities2,044
 2,363
 2,445
Notes receivable from affiliated companies72
 160
 541
Other(18) (24) (12)
Net cash used in investing activities(1,845) (1,601) (1,415)
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES        
Proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt
 100
 645
Payments for the redemption of long-term debt(45) (405) (1,177)
Distributions to parent(500) (499) (450)
Other
 (2) (6)
Net cash used in financing activities(545) (806) (988)
Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents(10) 4
 (270)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period23
 19
 289
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period$13
 $23
 $19
Supplemental Disclosures:        
Cash paid for interest, net of amount capitalized$388
 $336
 $385
Cash paid for (received from) income taxes305
 (7) (38)
Significant non-cash transactions:        
Accrued capital expenditures194
 199
 194
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

86


PART II

DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN MEMBER’S EQUITY
     
Accumulated Other
Comprehensive Loss
   
(in millions)  
Member's
Equity

 Net Losses on Cash Flow Hedges
 Unrealized Losses on Available-for-Sale Securities
 Total Equity
Balance at December 31, 2011$9,473
 $(17) $(2) $9,454
Net income   865
 
 
 865
Other comprehensive income     2
 1
 3
Distributions to parent  (450) 
 
 (450)
Balance at December 31, 2012$9,888
 $(15) $(1) $9,872
Net income  976
 
 
 976
Other comprehensive income     1
 
 1
Distributions to parent  (499) 
 
 (499)
Balance at December 31, 2013$10,365
 $(14) $(1) $10,350
Net income  
1,072
 
 
 1,072
Other comprehensive income  
   2
 
 2
Distributions to parent  
(500) 
 
 (500)
Balance at December 31, 2014$10,937
 $(12) $(1) $10,924
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

87


PART II

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Board of Directors of
Progress Energy, Inc.
Charlotte, North Carolina
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Progress Energy, Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company") as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, and the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income, changes in common stockholder’s equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2014. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Progress Energy, Inc. and subsidiaries at December 31, 2014 and 2013, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2014, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Charlotte, North Carolina
February 27, 2015

88


PART II

PROGRESS ENERGY, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
  Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)   2014
 2013
 2012
Operating Revenues  $10,166
 $9,533
 $9,405
Operating Expenses          
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power  4,195
 3,851
 4,304
Operation, maintenance and other  2,335
 2,247
 2,445
Depreciation and amortization  1,128
 883
 747
Property and other taxes  517
 557
 570
Impairment charges  (16) 380
 200
Total operating expenses8,159

7,918

8,266
Gains (Losses) on Sales of Other Assets and Other, net  11
 3
 (2)
Operating Income  2,018

1,618

1,137
Other Income and Expenses, net  77
 94
 130
Interest Expense  675
 680
 740
Income From Continuing Operations Before Income Taxes  1,420

1,032

527
Income Tax Expense From Continuing Operations  540
 373
 172
Income From Continuing Operations  880

659

355
(Loss) Income From Discontinued Operations, net of tax  (6) 16
 52
Net Income  874

675

407
Less: Net Income Attributable to Noncontrolling Interests  5
 3
 7
Net Income Attributable to Parent  $869

$672

$400
      
Net Income  
$874

$675

$407
Other Comprehensive Income, net of tax  
        
Pension and OPEB adjustments9
 9
 (2)
Net unrealized loss on cash flow hedges
 
 (5)
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges8
 (1) 8
Reclassification of cash flow hedges to regulatory assets(a)

 
 97
Unrealized gains on investments in available-for-sale securities1
 
 
Other Comprehensive Income, net of tax  
18

8

98
Comprehensive Income  
892

683

505
Less: Comprehensive Income Attributable to Noncontrolling Interests5
 3
 7
Comprehensive Income Attributable to Parent$887

$680

$498
(a)Net of $62 million tax expense in 2012.  
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

89


PART II

PROGRESS ENERGY, INC.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
  December 31,
(in millions)2014
 2013
ASSETS     
Current Assets     
Cash and cash equivalents$42
 $58
Receivables (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $8 at December 31, 2014 and $14 at December 31, 2013)129
 528
Restricted receivables of variable interest entities (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $8 at December 31, 2014)741
 417
Receivables from affiliated companies59
 4
Notes receivable from affiliated companies220
 75
Inventory1,590

1,424
Regulatory assets491
 353
Other1,285
 726
Total current assets4,557
 3,585
Investments and Other Assets     
Nuclear decommissioning trust funds2,503
 2,292
Goodwill3,655
 3,655
Other670
 804
Total investments and other assets6,828
 6,751
Property, Plant and Equipment     
Cost38,650
 36,480
Accumulated depreciation and amortization(13,506) (13,098)
Net property, plant and equipment25,144
 23,382
Regulatory Assets and Deferred Debits     
Regulatory assets5,408
 4,155
Other91
 96
Total regulatory assets and deferred debits5,499
 4,251
Total Assets$42,028
 $37,969
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY     
Current Liabilities     
Accounts payable$847
 $836
Accounts payable to affiliated companies203
 123
Notes payable to affiliated companies835
 1,213
Taxes accrued114
 105
Interest accrued184
 181
Current maturities of long-term debt1,507
 485
Regulatory liabilities106
 207
Other1,021
 896
Total current liabilities4,817
 4,046
Long-Term Debt13,247
 13,630
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities     
Deferred income taxes4,759
 3,283
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs533
 765
Asset retirement obligations4,711
 2,562
Regulatory liabilities2,379
 2,292
Other406
 527
Total deferred credits and other liabilities12,788
 9,429
Commitments and Contingencies
 
Common Stockholder's Equity     
Common stock, $0.01 par value, 100 shares authorized and outstanding at December 31, 2014 and 2013
 
Additional paid-in capital7,467
 7,467
Retained earnings3,782
 3,452
Accumulated other comprehensive loss(41) (59)
Total common stockholder's equity11,208
 10,860
Noncontrolling interests(32) 4
Total equity11,176
 10,864
Total Liabilities and Equity$42,028

$37,969
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

90


PART II

PROGRESS ENERGY, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
  Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2014
 2013
 2012
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES        
Net income$874
 $675
 $407
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating activities:        
Depreciation, amortization and accretion (including amortization of nuclear fuel)1,313
 1,041
 897
Equity component of AFUDC(26) (50) (106)
Severance expense
 
 38
FERC mitigation costs(18) 
 71
Community support and charitable contributions expense
 20
 36
(Gains) losses on sales of other assets(6) 2
 (16)
Impairment charges2
 380
 146
Deferred income taxes1,014
 616
 263
Amount to be refunded to customers
 
 100
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs27
 172
 179
Contributions to qualified pension plans
 (250) (346)
(Increase) decrease in        
Net realized and unrealized mark-to-market and hedging transactions12
 55
 7
Receivables(31) (148) 49
Receivables from affiliated companies(56) 11
 (15)
Inventory(101) 17
 (71)
Other current assets(934) (156) 2
Increase (decrease) in        
Accounts payable6
 (81) 175
Accounts payable to affiliated companies80
 93
 30
Taxes accrued(20) 22
 25
Other current liabilities(144) 61
 81
Other assets(14) (243) (25)
Other liabilities(12) (115) (87)
Net cash provided by operating activities1,966

2,122

1,840
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES        
Capital expenditures(1,940) (2,490) (2,366)
Purchases of available-for-sale securities(1,689) (2,558) (1,374)
Proceeds from sales and maturities of available-for-sale securities1,652
 2,513
 1,325
Change in restricted cash
 
 24
Notes receivable from affiliated companies(145) (75) 
Other(44) 13
 109
Net cash used in investing activities(2,166) (2,597) (2,282)
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES        
Proceeds from the:        
Issuance of long-term debt1,572
 845
 2,074
Issuance of common stock related to employee benefit plans
 
 6
Payments for the:        
Redemption of long-term debt(931) (1,196) (962)
Redemption of preferred stock of subsidiaries
 (96) 
Proceeds from the issuance of short-term debt with original maturities greater than 90 days
 
 65
Payments for the redemption of short-term debt with original maturities greater than 90 days
 
 (65)
Notes payable and commercial paper
 
 (671)
Notes payable to affiliated companies(378) 758
 455
Distributions to noncontrolling interests(37) (3) (7)
Dividends paid
 
 (445)
Other(42) (6) (7)
Net cash provided by financing activities184

302

443
Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents(16)
(173)
1
Cash and Cash Equivalents at Beginning of Period58
 231
 230
Cash and Cash Equivalents at End of Period42
 58
 231
Supplemental Disclosures:        
Cash paid for interest, net of amount capitalized664
 678
 784
Cash paid for (received from) income taxes141
 (167) (4)
Significant non-cash transactions:        
Accrued capital expenditures294
 255
 375
Asset retirement obligation additions for spent nuclear fuel disposal related to the Progress Energy merger
 
 837
Capital expenditures financed through capital leases
 
 140
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

91


PART II

PROGRESS ENERGY, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN COMMON STOCKHOLDER’S EQUITY
    
   
   
 
Accumulated Other
Comprehensive Income Loss
   
   
   
(in millions)  Common Stock
 Additional Paid-in Capital
 Retained Earnings
 Net Losses on Cash Flow Hedges
 Net Gains on Available for Sale Securities
 Pension and OPEB Related Adjustments
 Common Stockholders' Equity
 Noncontrolling Interests
 Total Equity
Balance at December 31, 2011$7,418
 $16
 $2,752
 $(142) $
 $(23) $10,021
 $4
 $10,025
Net income(a)

 
 400
 
 
 
 400
 3
 403
Other comprehensive income (loss)
 
 
 100
 
 (2) 98
 
 98
Common stock issuances, including dividend
  reinvestment and employee benefits  
18
 13
 
 
 
 
 31
 
 31
Common stock dividends  
 
 (369) 
 
 
 (369) 
 (369)
Distributions to noncontrolling interests
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (2) (2)
Recapitalization for merger with Duke Energy  (7,436) 7,436
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Other  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (1) (1)
Balance at December 31, 2012$

$7,465

$2,783

$(42)
$

$(25)
$10,181

$4

$10,185
Net income
 
 672
 
 
 
 672
 3
 675
Other comprehensive (loss) income
 
 
 (1) 
 9
 8
 
 8
Premium on the redemption of preferred stock of subsidiaries  
 
 (3) 
 
 
 (3) 
 (3)
Distributions to noncontrolling interests
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (3) (3)
Other  
 2
 
 
 
 
 2
 
 2
Balance at December 31, 2013$

$7,467

$3,452

$(43)
$

$(16)
$10,860

$4

$10,864
Net income  
 
 869
 
 
 
 869
 5
 874
Other comprehensive income  
 
 
 8
 1
 9
 18
 
 18
Distributions to noncontrolling interests
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (37) (37)
Transfer of service company net assets to Duke Energy
 
 (539) 
 
 
 (539) 
 (539)
Other  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (4) (4)
Balance at December 31, 2014$

$7,467

$3,782

$(35)
$1

$(7)
$11,208

$(32)
$11,176
(a)For the year ended December 31, 2012, consolidated net income of $407 million included $4 million attributable to preferred shareholders of subsidiaries. Income attributable to preferred shareholders of subsidiaries is not a component of total equity and is excluded from the table above.
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

92


PART II

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Board of Directors of
Duke Energy Progress, Inc.
Charlotte, North Carolina
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Duke Energy Progress, Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company") as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, and the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income, changes in common stockholder’s equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2014. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Duke Energy Progress, Inc. and subsidiaries at December 31, 2014 and 2013, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2014, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Charlotte, North Carolina
February 27, 2015

93


PART II

DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
  Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)   2014
 2013
 2012
Operating Revenues  $5,176
 $4,992
 $4,706
Operating Expenses          
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power  2,036
 1,925
 1,895
Operation, maintenance and other  1,470
 1,357
 1,494
Depreciation and amortization  582
 534
 535
Property and other taxes  174
 223
 219
Impairment charges  (18) 22
 54
Total operating expenses4,244
 4,061
 4,197
Gains on Sales of Other Assets and Other, net  3
 1
 1
Operating Income  935
 932
 510
Other Income and Expenses, net  51
 57
 79
Interest Expense  234
 201
 207
Income Before Income Taxes  752
 788
 382
Income Tax Expense  285
 288
 110
Net Income   467
 500
 272
Less: Preferred Stock Dividend Requirement  
 
 3
Net Income Available to Parent  $467
 $500
 $269
      
Net Income  $467
 $500
 $272
Other Comprehensive (Loss) Income, net of tax    
   
   
Net unrealized loss on cash flow hedges
 
 (4)
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges  
 
 4
Reclassification of cash flow hedges to regulatory assets(a)

 
 71
Other Comprehensive Income, net of tax  
 
 71
Comprehensive Income  $467
 $500
 $343
(a)Net of $46 million tax expense in 2012.  

See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements


94


PART II

DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
  December 31,
(in millions)2014
 2013
ASSETS     
Current Assets     
Cash and cash equivalents$9
 $21
Receivables (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $7 at December 31, 2014 and $10 at December 31, 2013)43
 145
Restricted receivables of variable interest entities (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $5 at December 31, 2014)

436
 417
Receivables from affiliated companies10
 2
Notes receivable from affiliated companies237
 
Inventory966

853
Regulatory assets287
 127
Other384
 296
Total current assets2,372
 1,861
Investments and Other Assets     
Nuclear decommissioning trust funds1,701
 1,539
Other412
 443
Total investments and other assets2,113
 1,982
Property, Plant and Equipment     
Cost24,207
 22,273
Accumulated depreciation and amortization(9,021) (8,623)
Net property, plant and equipment15,186
 13,650
Regulatory Assets and Deferred Debits     
Regulatory assets2,675
 1,384
Other34
 32
Total regulatory assets and deferred debits2,709
 1,416
Total Assets$22,380
 $18,909
LIABILITIES AND COMMON STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY     
Current Liabilities     
Accounts payable$481
 $420
Accounts payable to affiliated companies120
 103
Notes payable to affiliated companies
 462
Taxes accrued47
 37
Interest accrued81
 70
Current maturities of long-term debt945
 174
Regulatory liabilities71
 63
Other409
 392
Total current liabilities2,154
 1,721
Long-Term Debt5,256
 5,061
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities     
Deferred income taxes2,908
 2,557
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs290
 321
Asset retirement obligations3,905
 1,729
Regulatory liabilities1,832
 1,673
Other168
 222
Total deferred credits and other liabilities9,103
 6,502
Commitments and Contingencies   
Common Stockholder's Equity     
Common stock, no par value, 200 million shares authorized; 160 million shares outstanding at December 31, 2014 and 20132,159
 2,159
Retained earnings3,708
 3,466
Total common stockholder's equity5,867
 5,625
Total Liabilities and Common Stockholder's Equity$22,380
 $18,909
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

95


PART II

DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
  Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2014 2013 2012
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES        
Net income467
 500
 272
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating activities:        
Depreciation, amortization and accretion (including amortization of nuclear fuel)761
 685
 676
Equity component of AFUDC(25) (42) (69)
Severance expense
 
 18
FERC mitigation costs(18) 
 71
Community support and charitable contributions expense
 20
 36
Gains on sales of other assets and other, net(3) (1) (1)
Impairment charges
 22
 
Deferred income taxes455
 368
 164
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs(7) 72
 70
Contributions to qualified pension plans
 (63) (141)
(Increase) decrease in        
Net realized and unrealized mark-to-market and hedging transactions13
 (9) (25)
Receivables78
 (88) 2
Receivables from affiliated companies(8) 3
 (4)
Inventory(65) (26) (58)
Other current assets(416) (39) (24)
Increase (decrease) in        
Accounts payable27
 (18) 149
Accounts payable to affiliated companies17
 27
 47
Taxes accrued10
 15
 (5)
Other current liabilities(68) (86) 23
Other assets48
 (74) (28)
Other liabilities(21) (78) (6)
Net cash provided by operating activities1,245
 1,188
 1,167
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES        
Capital expenditures(1,241) (1,567) (1,525)
Purchases of available-for-sale securities(499) (901) (582)
Proceeds from sales and maturities of available-for-sale securities458
 856
 532
Notes receivable from affiliated companies(237) 
 
Other(12) 4
 91
Net cash used in investing activities(1,531) (1,608) (1,484)
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES        
Proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt1,347
 845
 988
Payments for the:        
Redemption of long-term debt(379) (451) (502)
Redemption of preferred stock
 (62) 
Notes payable and commercial paper
 
 (188)
Notes payable to affiliated companies(462) 98
 333
Dividends to parent(225) 
 (310)
Dividends paid on preferred stock
 
 (3)
Other(7) (7) (3)
Net cash provided by financing activities274
 423
 315
Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents(12) 3
 (2)
Cash and Cash Equivalents at Beginning of Period21
 18
 20
Cash and Cash Equivalents at End of Period$9
 $21
 $18
Supplemental Disclosures:        
Cash paid for interest, net of amount capitalized$220
 $217
 $249
Cash paid for (received from) income taxes81
 (94) 19
Significant non-cash transactions:        
Accrued capital expenditures194
 166
 232
Asset retirement obligation additions for spent nuclear fuel disposal related to the Progress Energy merger
 
 698
Capital expenditures financed through capital leases
 
 140
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

96


PART II

DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN COMMON STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY
    
   
 Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss   
(in millions)  
Common
Stock

 
Retained
Earnings

 Net Loss on Cash Flow Hedges
 Total Equity
Balance at December 31, 2011$2,148
 $3,011
 $(71) $5,088
Net income    
 272
 
 272
Other comprehensive income  
 
 71
 71
Stock-based compensation expense  11
 
 
 11
Dividends to parent  
 (310) 
 (310)
Preferred stock dividends at stated rate  
 (3) 
 (3)
Tax dividend  
 (2) 
 (2)
Balance at December 31, 2012$2,159
 $2,968
 $
 $5,127
Net income  
 500
 
 500
Premium on the redemption of preferred stock  
 (2) 
 (2)
Balance at December 31, 2013$2,159
 $3,466
 $
 $5,625
Net income  
 467
 
 467
Dividends to parent
 (225) 
 (225)
Balance at December 31, 2014$2,159
 $3,708
 $
 $5,867
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

97


PART II

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Board of Directors of
Duke Energy Florida, Inc.
Charlotte, North Carolina
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Duke Energy Florida, Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company") as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, and the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income, changes in common stockholder’s equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2014. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Duke Energy Florida, Inc. and subsidiaries at December 31, 2014 and 2013, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2014, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Charlotte, North Carolina
February 27, 2015

98


PART II

DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
  Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)   2014
 2013
 2012
Operating Revenues  $4,975
 $4,527
 $4,689
Operating Expenses          
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power  2,158
 1,927
 2,409
Operation, maintenance and other  850
 898
 969
Depreciation and amortization  545
 330
 192
Property and other taxes  343
 327
 346
Impairment charges  2
 358
 146
Total operating expenses3,898
 3,840
 4,062
Gains on Sales of Other Assets and Other, net  1
 1
 2
Operating Income  1,078
 688
 629
Other Income and Expenses, net  20
 30
 39
Interest Expense  201
 180
 255
Income Before Income Taxes  897
 538
 413
Income Tax Expense  349
 213
 147
Net Income   548
 325
 266
Less: Preferred Stock Dividend Requirement  
 
 2
Net Income Available to Parent  $548
 $325
 $264
      
Net Income  $548
 $325
 $266
Other Comprehensive Income (Loss), net of tax          
Net unrealized loss on cash flow hedges
 (1) 
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges  1
 
 1
Reclassification of cash flow hedges to regulatory assets(a)

 
 26
Other Comprehensive Income (Loss), net of tax  1
 (1) 27
Comprehensive Income  $549
 $324
 $293
(a)Net of $16 million tax expense in 2012.
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

99


PART II

DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
  December 31,
(in millions)   2014
 2013
ASSETS       
Current Assets       
Cash and cash equivalents  $8
 $16
Receivables (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $2 at December 31, 2014 and $4 at December 31, 2013)  84
 375
Restricted receivables of variable interest entities (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $3 at December 31, 2014)305
 
Receivables from affiliated companies  40
 3
Inventory  623

571
Regulatory assets  203
 221
Other  521
 182
Total current assets  1,784
 1,368
Investments and Other Assets       
Nuclear decommissioning trust funds  803
 753
Other  204
 252
Total investments and other assets  1,007
 1,005
Property, Plant and Equipment       
Cost  14,433
 13,863
Accumulated depreciation and amortization  (4,478) (4,252)
Net property, plant and equipment  9,955
 9,611
Regulatory Assets and Deferred Debits       
Regulatory assets  2,733
 2,729
Other  39
 44
Total regulatory assets and deferred debits  2,772
 2,773
Total Assets  $15,518
 $14,757
LIABILITIES AND COMMON STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY       
Current Liabilities       
Accounts payable  $365
 $333
Accounts payable to affiliated companies  70
 38
Notes payable to affiliated companies  84
 181
Taxes accrued  65
 66
Interest accrued  47
 46
Current maturities of long-term debt  562
 11
Regulatory liabilities  35
 144
Other  586
 445
Total current liabilities  1,814
 1,264
Long-Term Debt  4,298
 4,875
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities       
Deferred income taxes  2,452
 1,829
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs  221
 286
Asset retirement obligations  806
 833
Regulatory liabilities  547
 618
Other  158
 255
Total deferred credits and other liabilities  4,184
 3,821
Commitments and Contingencies  
 
Common Stockholder's Equity       
Common Stock, no par; 60 million shares authorized; 100 shares outstanding at December 31, 2014 and 2013  1,762
 1,762
Retained earnings  3,460
 3,036
Accumulated other comprehensive loss  
 (1)
Total common stockholder's equity  5,222
 4,797
Total Liabilities and Common Stockholder's Equity  $15,518
 $14,757
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

100


PART II

DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
  Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2014
 2013
 2012
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES        
Net income$548
 $325
 $266
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating activities:        
Depreciation, amortization and accretion550
 335
 197
Equity component of AFUDC
 (8) (37)
Severance expense
 
 6
Gains on sales of other assets and other, net(1) (1) (2)
Impairment charges2
 358
 146
Deferred income taxes400
 368
 142
Amount to be refunded to customers
 
 100
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs29
 79
 71
Contributions to qualified pension plans
 (133) (128)
(Increase) decrease in        
Net realized and unrealized mark-to-market and hedging transactions(9) 55
 73
Receivables(33) (44) 37
Receivables from affiliated companies(37) 17
 (13)
Inventory(36) 42
 (13)
Other current assets(269) (109) 22
Increase (decrease) in        
Accounts payable18
 (22) 21
Accounts payable to affiliated companies32
 (6) 30
Taxes accrued(31) 18
 15
Other current liabilities(80) 159
 51
Other assets(59) (154) 8
Other liabilities(58) (74) (94)
Net cash provided by operating activities966
 1,205
 898
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES        
Capital expenditures(699) (915) (809)
Purchases of available-for-sale securities(1,189) (1,656) (791)
Proceeds from sales and maturities of available-for-sale securities1,195
 1,658
 791
Notes receivable from affiliated companies
 207
 (207)
Other(31) 
 16
Net cash used in investing activities(724) (706) (1,000)
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES        
Proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt225
 
 642
Payments for the:        
Redemption of long-term debt(252) (435) (10)
Redemption of preferred stock
 (34) 
Proceeds from issuance of short-term debt with original maturities greater than 90 days
 
 65
Payments for the redemption of short-term debt with original maturities greater than 90 days
 
 (65)
Notes payable and commercial paper
 
 (233)
Notes payable to affiliated companies(97) 181
 (8)
Dividends to parent(124) (325) (170)
Dividends paid on preferred stock
 
 (2)
Other(2) (1) (2)
Net cash (used in) provided by financing activities(250) (614) 217
Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents(8) (115) 115
Cash and Cash Equivalents at Beginning of Period16
 131
 16
Cash and Cash Equivalents at End of Period$8
 $16
 $131
Supplemental Disclosures:        
Cash paid for interest, net of amount capitalized$203
 $201
 $266
Cash paid for (received from) income taxes59
 (84) 24
Significant non-cash transactions:        
Accrued capital expenditures100
 88
 139
Asset retirement obligation additions for spent nuclear fuel disposal related to the Progress Energy merger
 
 139
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

101


PART II

DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN COMMON STOCKHOLDER’S EQUITY
    
   
 Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss
   
(in millions)  
Common
Stock

 
Retained
Earnings

 Net Losses on Cash Flow Hedges
 Total Equity
Balance at December 31, 2011$1,757
 $2,945
 $(27) $4,675
Net income    
 266
 
 266
Other comprehensive income
 
 27
 27
Stock-based compensation expense  5
 
 
 5
Dividend to parent  
 (170) 
 (170)
Preferred stock dividends at stated rate  
 (2) 
 (2)
Tax dividend  
 (2) 
 (2)
Balance at December 31, 2012$1,762
 $3,037
 $
 $4,799
Net income    
 325
 
 325
Other comprehensive loss
 
 (1) (1)
Dividend to parent  
 (325) 
 (325)
Premium on the redemption of preferred stock  
 (1) 
 (1)
Balance at December 31, 2013$1,762
 $3,036
 $(1) $4,797
Net income  
 548
 
 548
Other comprehensive income
 
 1
 1
Dividend to parent  
 (124) 
 (124)
Balance at December 31, 2014$1,762
 $3,460
 $
 $5,222
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements


102


PART II

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Board of Directors of
Duke Energy Ohio, Inc.
Charlotte, North Carolina
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company") as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, and the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income, changes in common stockholder’s equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2014. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. and subsidiaries at December 31, 2014 and 2013, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2014, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Charlotte, North Carolina
February 27, 2015

103


PART II

DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
  Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)   2014
 2013
 2012
Operating Revenues          
Regulated electric  $1,316
 $1,258
 $1,281
Nonregulated electric and other  19
 34
 68
Regulated natural gas  578
 513
 471
Total operating revenues  1,913
 1,805
 1,820
Operating Expenses  
        
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power - regulated  459
 428
 475
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power - nonregulated  25
 41
 57
Cost of natural gas   185
 152
 142
Operation, maintenance and other  516
 546
 586
Depreciation and amortization  214
 213
 195
Property and other taxes  234
 242
 205
Impairment charges  94
 5
 2
Total operating expenses  1,727
 1,627
 1,662
Gains on Sales of Other Assets and Other, net  1
 4
 1
Operating Income  187
 182
 159
Other Income and Expenses, net  10
 2
 8
Interest Expense  86
 74
 89
Income From Continuing Operations Before Income Taxes111
 110
 78
Income Tax Expense From Continuing Operations43
 43
 33
Income From Continuing Operations68
 67
 45
(Loss) Income From Discontinued Operations, net of tax(563) 35
 130
Net (Loss) Income$(495) $102
 $175
Other Comprehensive Income, net of tax       
Pension and OPEB adjustments
 1
 27
Comprehensive (Loss) Income  $(495) $103
 $202
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

104


PART II

DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
  December 31,
(in millions)2014
 2013
ASSETS     
Current Assets     
Cash and cash equivalents$20
 $36
Receivables (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $2 at December 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013)93
 121
Receivables from affiliated companies107
 121
Notes receivable from affiliated companies145
 57
Inventory97

229
Assets held for sale316
 
Regulatory assets49
 57
Other167
 270
Total current assets994
 891
Investments and Other Assets     
Goodwill920
 920
Assets held for sale2,605
 
Other23
 232
Total investments and other assets3,548
 1,152
Property, Plant and Equipment     
Cost7,141
 11,143
Accumulated depreciation and amortization(2,213) (2,908)
Generation facilities to be retired, net9
 
Net property, plant and equipment4,937
 8,235
Regulatory Assets and Deferred Debits     
Regulatory assets512
 471
Other8
 14
Total regulatory assets and deferred debits520
 485
Total Assets$9,999
 $10,763
LIABILITIES AND COMMON STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY     
Current Liabilities     
Accounts payable$209
 $319
Accounts payable to affiliated companies74
 77
Notes payable to affiliated companies491
 43
Taxes accrued163
 167
Interest accrued19
 17
Current maturities of long-term debt157
 47
Liabilities associated with assets held for sale246
 
Regulatory liabilities10
 27
Other66
 110
Total current liabilities1,435
 807
Long-Term Debt1,584
 2,141
Long-Term Debt Payable to Affiliated Companies25
 
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities     
Deferred income taxes1,765
 2,012
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs48
 58
Liabilities associated with assets held for sale34
 
Asset retirement obligations27
 28
Regulatory liabilities241
 262
Other166
 186
Total deferred credits and other liabilities2,281
 2,546
Commitments and Contingencies   
Common Stockholder's Equity     
Common stock, $8.50 par value, 120,000,000 shares authorized; 89,663,086 shares outstanding at December 31, 2014 and 2013762
 762
Additional paid-in capital4,782
 4,882
Accumulated deficit(870) (375)
Total common stockholder's equity4,674
 5,269
Total Liabilities and Common Stockholder's Equity$9,999
 $10,763
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements


105


PART II

DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
  Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2014
 2013
 2012
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES        
Net (loss) income$(495) $102
 $175
Adjustments to reconcile net (loss) income to net cash provided by operating activities:        
Depreciation and amortization258
 357
 342
Equity component of AFUDC(4) (1) (6)
Gains on sales of other assets and other, net(1) (5) (7)
Impairment charges941
 5
 2
Deferred income taxes(219) 98
 61
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs8
 17
 11
(Increase) decrease in        
Net realized and unrealized mark-to-market and hedging transactions27
 17
 (5)
Receivables(56) (15) 29
Receivables from affiliated companies14
 (39) 61
Inventory8
 (3) 15
Other current assets(5) (1) (62)
Increase (decrease) in        
Accounts payable27
 13
 5
Accounts payable to affiliated companies(3) 15
 (22)
Taxes accrued(9) 1
 (24)
Other current liabilities27
 14
 (21)
Other assets(4) (6) 6
Other liabilities(33) (73) (116)
Net cash provided by operating activities481
 496
 444
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES        
Capital expenditures(322) (434) (514)
Net proceeds from the sales of other assets
 11
 82
Notes receivable from affiliated companies(88) (56) 400
Other(12) 1
 6
Net cash used in investing activities(422) (478) (26)
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES        
Proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt
 450
 
Payments for the redemption of long-term debt(449) (258) (556)
Notes payable to affiliated companies473
 (202) 245
Dividends to parent(100) 
 (175)
Other1
 (3) 
Net cash used in financing activities(75) (13) (486)
Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents(16) 5
 (68)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period36
 31
 99
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period20
 36
 31
Supplemental Disclosures:        
Cash paid for interest, net of amount capitalized$76
 $71
 $93
Cash (received from) paid for income taxes(5) 9
 18
Significant non-cash transactions:        
Accrued capital expenditures24
 27
 31
Transfer of Vermillion Generating Station to Duke Energy Indiana
 
 28
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

106


PART II

DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN COMMON STOCKHOLDER’S EQUITY
           
Accumulated Other
Comprehensive Loss

   
(in millions)  
Common
Stock

 
Additional
Paid-in
Capital

 Accumulated Deficit
 
Pension and
OPEB Related
Adjustments

 Total Equity
Balance at December 31, 2011$762
 $5,085
 $(652) $(28) $5,167
Net income  ― 
 ― 
 175
 
 175
Other comprehensive income  
 
 
 27
 27
Transfer of Vermillion Generating Station to Duke Energy Indiana  ― 
 (28) ― 
 ― 
 (28)
Dividends to parent  
 (175) 
 
 (175)
Balance at December 31, 2012$762
 $4,882
 $(477) $(1) $5,166
Net income  ― 
 ― 
 102
 ― 
 102
Other comprehensive income  
 
 ― 
 1
 1
Balance at December 31, 2013$762
 $4,882
 $(375) $
 $5,269
Net loss ― 
 ― 
 (495) ― 
 (495)
Dividends to parent
 (100) 
 
 (100)
Balance at December 31, 2014$762
 $4,782
 $(870) 
 $4,674
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

107


PART II

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Board of Directors of
Duke Energy Indiana, Inc.
Charlotte, North Carolina
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. and subsidiary (the "Company") as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, and the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income, changes in common stockholder’s equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2014. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. and subsidiary at December 31, 2014 and 2013, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2014, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Charlotte, North Carolina
February 27, 2015


108


PART II

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
  Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2014
 2013
 2012
Operating Revenues$3,175
 $2,926
 $2,717
Operating Expenses        
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power1,259
 1,131
 1,088
Operation, maintenance and other670
 649
 655
Depreciation and amortization413
 342
 389
Property and other taxes128
 71
 81
Impairment charges
 
 579
Total operating expenses2,470
 2,193
 2,792
Operating Income (Loss)705
 733
 (75)
Other Income and Expenses, net22
 18
 90
Interest Expense171
 170
 138
Income (Loss) Before Income Taxes556

581

(123)
Income Tax Expense (Benefit)197
 223
 (73)
Net Income (Loss)359

358

(50)
Other Comprehensive Loss, net of tax        
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges
 (2) (2)
Comprehensive Income (Loss)$359

$356

$(52)
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

109


PART II

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
  December 31,
(in millions)2014
 2013
ASSETS     
Current Assets     
Cash and cash equivalents$6
 $15
Receivables (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $1 at December 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013)87
 22
Receivables from affiliated companies115
 151
Notes receivable from affiliated companies
 96
Inventory537

434
Regulatory assets93
 118
Other326
 125
Total current assets1,164
 961
Investments and Other Assets     
Other251
 269
Total investments and other assets251
 269
Property, Plant and Equipment     
Cost13,034
 12,489
Accumulated depreciation and amortization(4,219) (3,913)
Net property, plant and equipment8,815
 8,576
Regulatory Assets and Deferred Debits     
Regulatory assets685
 717
Other24
 25
Total regulatory assets and deferred debits709
 742
Total Assets$10,939
 $10,548
LIABILITIES AND COMMON STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY     
Current Liabilities     
Accounts payable$179
 $206
Accounts payable to affiliated companies58
 56
Notes payable to affiliated companies71
 
Taxes accrued54
 57
Interest accrued56
 56
Current maturities of long-term debt5
 5
Regulatory liabilities54
 16
Other98
 88
Total current liabilities575
 484
Long-Term Debt3,636
 3,641
Long-Term Debt Payable to Affiliated Companies150
 150
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities     
Deferred income taxes1,591
 1,171
Investment tax credits139
 140
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs82
 163
Asset retirement obligations32
 30
Regulatory liabilities796
 782
Other90
 48
Total deferred credits and other liabilities2,730
 2,334
Commitments and Contingencies
 
Common Stockholder's Equity     
Common Stock, no par; $0.01 stated value, 60,000,000 shares authorized; 53,913,701 shares outstanding at December 31, 2014 and 20131
 1
Additional paid-in capital1,384
 1,384
Retained earnings2,460
 2,551
Accumulated other comprehensive income3
 3
Total common stockholder's equity3,848
 3,939
Total Liabilities and Common Stockholder's Equity$10,939
 $10,548
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

110


PART II

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
 Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2014
 2013
 2012
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES        
Net income (loss)$359
 $358
 $(50)
Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash provided by operating activities:        
Depreciation and amortization416
 346
 393
Equity component of AFUDC(14) (15) (84)
Impairment charges
 
 579
Deferred income taxes308
 304
 (74)
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs16
 25
 15
(Increase) decrease in        
Net realized and unrealized mark-to-market and hedging transactions
 (30) 
Receivables(35) 3
 6
Receivables from affiliated companies36
 (47) 52
Inventory(103) (53) (50)
Other current assets(8) (40) (25)
Increase (decrease) in        
Accounts payable(41) 32
 18
Accounts payable to affiliated companies2
 (4) (12)
Taxes accrued(32) (30) (27)
Other current liabilities5
 (5) 6
Other assets(21) (16) 6
Other liabilities17
 (84) (37)
Net cash provided by operating activities905
 744
 716
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES        
Capital expenditures(625) (545) (718)
Purchases of available-for-sale securities(20) (11) (17)
Proceeds from sales and maturities of available-for-sale securities16
 7
 18
Notes receivable from affiliated companies96
 (96) 
Other4
 (3) (1)
Net cash used in investing activities(529) (648) (718)
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES        
Proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt
 498
 250
Payments for the redemption of long-term debt(5) (405) (7)
Notes payable to affiliated companies71
 (81) (219)
Dividend to parent(450) (125) 
Other(1) (4) (2)
Net cash (used in) provided by financing activities(385) (117) 22
Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents(9) (21) 20
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period15
 36
 16
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period$6
 $15
 $36
Supplemental Disclosures:        
Cash paid for interest, net of amount capitalized$169
 $194
 $130
Cash (received from) paid for income taxes(61) 46
 57
Significant non-cash transactions:        
Accrued capital expenditures87
 73
 67
Transfer of Vermillion Generating Station from Duke Energy Ohio
 
 26
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

111


PART II

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN COMMON STOCKHOLDER’S EQUITY
           
Accumulated Other
Comprehensive Income

   
(in millions)  
Common
Stock

 
Additional
Paid-in
Capital

 
Retained
Earnings

 
Net Gains
on Cash
Flow Hedges

 Total Equity
Balance at December 31, 2011$1
 $1,358
 $2,368
 $7
 $3,734
Net loss
 
 (50) 
 (50)
Other comprehensive loss  
 
 
 (2) (2)
Transfer of Vermillion Generating Station from Duke Energy Ohio  
 26
 
 
 26
Balance at December 31, 2012$1

$1,384

$2,318

$5

$3,708
Net income
 
 358
 
 358
Other comprehensive loss  
 
 
 (2) (2)
Dividend to parent  
 
 (125) 
 (125)
Balance at December 31, 2013$1

$1,384

$2,551

$3

$3,939
Net income  
 
 359
 
 359
Dividend to parent  
 
 (450) 
 (450)
Balance at December 31, 2014$1

$1,384

$2,460

$3

$3,848
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

112


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements
For the Years Ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012

Index to Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements
The notes to the consolidated financial statements are a combined presentation. The following list indicates the registrants to which the notes apply.
  Applicable Notes
Registrant12345678910111213141516171819202122232425
Duke Energy Corporation  
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC      
Progress Energy, Inc.    
Duke Energy Progress, Inc.      
Duke Energy Florida, Inc.    
Duke Energy Ohio, Inc.        
Duke Energy Indiana, Inc.      
1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
Nature of Operations and Basis of Consolidation
Duke Energy Corporation (collectively with its subsidiaries, Duke Energy) is an energy company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, subject to regulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Duke Energy operates in the United States (U.S.) and Latin America primarily through its direct and indirect subsidiaries. Duke Energy’s subsidiaries include its subsidiary registrants, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy Carolinas); Progress Energy, Inc. (Progress Energy); Duke Energy Progress, Inc. (Duke Energy Progress); Duke Energy Florida, Inc. (Duke Energy Florida); Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. (Duke Energy Ohio) and Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. (Duke Energy Indiana). When discussing Duke Energy’s consolidated financial information, it necessarily includes the results of its six separate subsidiary registrants (collectively referred to as the Subsidiary Registrants), which, along with Duke Energy, are collectively referred to as the Duke Energy Registrants (Duke Energy Registrants).
On July 2, 2012, Duke Energy merged with Progress Energy, with Duke Energy continuing as the surviving corporation. Progress Energy became a subsidiary of Duke Energy and Progress Energy’s regulated utility subsidiaries, Duke Energy Progress (formerly Carolina Power & Light Company d/b/a Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.) and Duke Energy Florida (formerly Florida Power Corporation d/b/a Progress Energy Florida, Inc.), became indirect subsidiaries of Duke Energy. Duke Energy’s consolidated financial statements include Progress Energy, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida activity beginning July 2, 2012. The impacts of acquisition accounting from Progress Energy’s merger with Duke Energy were recorded by Duke Energy and were not reflected on the financial statements of Progress Energy, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida. See Note 2 for additional information regarding the merger. On July 2, 2012, just prior to the close of the merger, Duke Energy executed a one-for-three reverse stock split with respect to the issued and outstanding shares of Duke Energy common stock. All per-share amounts included in this Form 10-K are presented as if the stock split had been effective from the beginning of the earliest period presented.
On August 21, 2014, Duke Energy Commercial Enterprises, Inc., an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Duke Energy Corporation, and Duke Energy SAM, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Duke Energy Ohio, entered into a purchase and sale agreement (PSA) with a subsidiary of Dynegy Inc. (Dynegy) whereby Dynegy will acquire Duke Energy Ohio’s nonregulated Midwest generation business and Duke Energy Retail Sales LLC (Disposal Group). The results of operations of the nonregulated Midwest generation business have been classified as Discontinued Operations on the Consolidated Statements of Operations for the current and prior periods presented. Duke Energy has elected to present cash flows of discontinued operations combined with cash flows of continuing operations. Unless otherwise noted, the notes to these consolidated financial statements exclude amounts related to discontinued operations for all periods presented, assets held for sale and liabilities associated with assets held for sale as of December 31, 2014. See Note 2 for additional information.
The information in these combined notes relate to each of the Duke Energy Registrants as noted in the Index to the Combined Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. However, none of the registrants makes any representations as to information related solely to Duke Energy or the subsidiaries of Duke Energy other than itself.
These Consolidated Financial Statements include, after eliminating intercompany transactions and balances, the accounts of the Duke Energy Registrants and subsidiaries where the respective Duke Energy Registrants have control. These Consolidated Financial Statements also reflect the Duke Energy Registrants’ proportionate share of certain jointly owned generation and transmission facilities.
Duke Energy Carolinas is a regulated public utility primarily engaged in the generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electricity in portions of North Carolina and South Carolina. Duke Energy Carolinas is subject to the regulatory provisions of the North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC), Public Service Commission of South Carolina (PSCSC), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and FERC. Substantially all of Duke Energy Carolinas’ operations qualify for regulatory accounting.
Progress Energy is a public utility holding company headquartered in Raleigh, North Carolina, subject to regulation by the FERC. Progress Energy conducts operations through its wholly owned subsidiaries, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida. Substantially all of Progress Energy’s operations qualify for regulatory accounting.

113


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Duke Energy Progress is a regulated public utility primarily engaged in the generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electricity in portions of North Carolina and South Carolina. Duke Energy Progress is subject to the regulatory provisions of the NCUC, PSCSC, NRC and FERC. Substantially all of Duke Energy Progress’ operations qualify for regulatory accounting.
Duke Energy Florida is a regulated public utility primarily engaged in the generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electricity in portions of Florida. Duke Energy Florida is subject to the regulatory provisions of the Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC), NRC and FERC. Substantially all of Duke Energy Florida’s operations qualify for regulatory accounting.
Duke Energy Ohio is a regulated public utility primarily engaged in the transmission and distribution of electricity in Ohio and Kentucky, in the generation business in Kentucky, and the transportation and sale of natural gas in portions of Ohio and Kentucky. Operations in Kentucky are conducted through its wholly owned subsidiary, Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc. (Duke Energy Kentucky). Duke Energy Ohio conducts competitive auctions for retail electricity supply in Ohio whereby the energy price is recovered from retail customers. References herein to Duke Energy Ohio include Duke Energy Ohio and its subsidiaries, unless otherwise noted. Duke Energy Ohio is subject to the regulatory provisions of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO), Kentucky Public Service Commission (KPSC) and FERC. Duke Energy Ohio applies regulatory accounting to a portion of its operations. Duke Energy has agreed to sell Duke Energy Ohio's nonregulated Midwest generation business, which sells power into wholesale energy markets, to Dynegy. See Note 2 for additional information.
Duke Energy Indiana is a regulated public utility primarily engaged in the generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electricity in portions of Indiana. Duke Energy Indiana is subject to the regulatory provisions of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) and FERC. Substantially all of Duke Energy Indiana’s operations qualify for regulatory accounting.
Certain prior year amounts have been reclassified to conform to the current year presentation.
Other Current and Non-Current Assets and Liabilities
Other within Current Assets includes the current portion of deferred tax assets, which are disclosed in Note 22. Additionally, the following are included in Other within Current Assets or Current Liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheets of the Duke Energy Registrants at December 31, 2014 and 2013. The amounts presented exceeded 5 percent of current assets or 5 percent of current liabilities unless otherwise noted.
   December 31,
(in millions)Location 2014
 2013
Duke Energy     
Accrued compensationCurrent Liabilities $638
 $621
Duke Energy Carolinas     
Accrued compensation  Current Liabilities $216
 $198
Collateral liabilities  Current Liabilities 128
 120
Progress Energy       
   
Income taxes receivable(b)
Current Assets $718
 $119
Customer deposits  Current Liabilities 360
 349
Accrued compensation(a)
Current Liabilities 174
 214
Derivative liabilities(b)
Current Liabilities 271
 
Duke Energy Progress       
   
Income taxes receivable(b)
Current Assets $272
 $15
Customer deposits  Current Liabilities 135
 129
Accrued compensation  Current Liabilities 116
 121
Derivative liabilities(b)
Current Liabilities 108
 38
Duke Energy Florida       
   
Income taxes receivable(b)
Current Assets $177
 $65
Customer deposits  Current Liabilities 225
 220
Accrued compensation(a)
Current Liabilities 57
 65
Derivative liabilities(b)
Current Liabilities 163
 
Duke Energy Ohio       
   
Collateral assets(a)
Current Assets $13
 $122
Duke Energy Indiana       
   
Income taxes receivable  Current Assets $98
 $56
Accrued compensation(a)
Current Liabilities 25
 25
Collateral liabilitiesCurrent Liabilities 43
 40

114


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

(a) Does not exceed 5 percent of total current assets or liabilities, as appropriate, on the Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31, 2014.
(b) Does not exceed 5 percent of total current assets or liabilities, as appropriate, on the Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31, 2013.
Preferred Stock
In March 2013, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida redeemed all series of their outstanding preferred stock at prices ranging from $101.00 to $110.00 per share for Duke Energy Progress and $101.00 to $104.25 per share for Duke Energy Florida plus accrued dividends for all series. Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida redeemed the shares for $62 million and $34 million, respectively.
Discontinued Operations
For the year ended December 31, 2014, Duke Energy’s Loss from Discontinued Operations, net of tax was primarily related to a write-down of the carrying amount of the assets to the estimated fair value of the Disposal Group, based on the transaction price included in the PSA, and the operations of the Disposal Group. For the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, Duke Energy’s Income From Discontinued Operations, net of tax was primarily related to the operations of the Disposal Group. See Note 2 for additional information.
For the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012. Progress Energy’s (Loss) Income From Discontinued Operations, net of tax was primarily due to tax impacts related to prior sales of diversified businesses.
Amounts Attributable to Controlling Interests
The following table presents Net Income Attributable to Duke Energy Corporation for continuing operations and discontinued operations.
 Years ended December 31,
 2014 2013 2012
(in millions)Duke Energy
Progress Energy
 Duke Energy
Progress Energy
 Duke Energy
Progress Energy
Income from Continuing Operations$2,465
$880
 $2,590
$659
 1,611
355
Income of Continuing Operations Attributable to Noncontrolling Interests14
5

16
3

18
7
Income from Continuing Operations Attributable to Duke Energy Corporation$2,451
$875
 $2,574
$656

$1,593
$348
(Loss) Income From Discontinued Operations, net of tax$(576)$(6) $86
$16
 171
52
Loss of Discontinued Operations attributable to Noncontrolling Interests, net of tax(8)
 (5)
 (4)
(Loss) Income From Discontinued Operations Attributable to Duke Energy Corporation, net of tax$(568)$(6) $91
$16

$175
$52
Net Income$1,889
$874
 $2,676
$675

$1,782
$407
Net Income Attributable to Noncontrolling Interest6
5
 11
3
 14
7
Net Income Attributable to Duke Energy Corporation$1,883
$869
 $2,665
$672

$1,768
$400
Significant Accounting Policies
Use of Estimates
In preparing financial statements that conform to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) in the U.S., the Duke Energy Registrants must make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, the reported amounts of revenues and expenses, and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements. Actual results could differ from those estimates.
Regulatory Accounting
The majority of the Duke Energy Registrants’ operations are subject to price regulation for the sale of electricity and gas by state utility commissions or FERC. When prices are set on the basis of specific costs of the regulated operations and an effective franchise is in place such that sufficient gas or electric services can be sold to recover those costs, the Duke Energy Registrants apply regulatory accounting. Regulatory accounting changes the timing of the recognition of costs or revenues relative to a company that does not apply regulatory accounting. As a result, Regulatory assets and Regulatory liabilities are recognized on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Regulatory assets and liabilities are amortized consistent with the treatment of the related cost in the ratemaking process. See Note 4 for further information.
Regulated Fuel Costs and Purchased Power
The Duke Energy Registrants utilize cost-tracking mechanisms, commonly referred to as fuel adjustment clauses. These clauses allow for the recovery of fuel and fuel-related costs and portions of purchased power costs through surcharges on customer rates. The difference between the costs incurred and the surcharge revenues is recorded as an adjustment to Fuel Operating Revenues – Regulated electric on the Consolidated Statements of Operations with an off-setting impact on regulatory assets or liabilities.

115


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Cash and Cash Equivalents
All highly liquid investments with maturities of three months or less at the date of acquisition are considered cash equivalents. At December 31, 2014, $1,680 million of Duke Energy’s total cash and cash equivalents is held by entities domiciled in foreign jurisdictions. During the fourth quarter of 2014, Duke Energy declared a taxable dividend of historical foreign earnings in the form of notes payable that will result in the repatriation of approximately $2.7 billion in cash held and expected to be generated by International Energy over a period of up to 8 years. See Note 22 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Income Taxes,” for additional information.
Restricted Cash
The Duke Energy Registrants have restricted cash related primarily to collateral assets, escrow deposits and variable interest entities (VIEs). Restricted cash balances are reflected in Other within Current Assets and in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. At December 31, 2014 and 2013, Duke Energy had restricted cash totaling $298 million and $307 million, respectively.
Inventory
Inventory is used for operations and is recorded primarily using the average cost method. Inventory related to regulated operations is valued at historical cost. Inventory related to nonregulated operations is valued at the lower of cost or market. Materials and supplies are recorded as inventory when purchased and subsequently charged to expense or capitalized to property, plant and equipment when installed. Reserves are established for excess and obsolete inventory. The components of inventory are presented in the tables below.
  December 31, 2014
(in millions)  
Duke
Energy

 
Duke
Energy Carolinas

 Progress Energy
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 
Duke
 Energy 
 Ohio 

 
Duke
 Energy 
 Indiana 

Materials and supplies  $2,102
 $719
 $981
 $676
 $305
 $67
 $258
Coal held for electric generation  997
 362
 329
 150
 178
 21
 275
Oil, gas and other fuel held for electric generation  360
 43
 280
 140
 140
 9
 4
Total inventory  $3,459
 $1,124
 $1,590
 $966
 $623
 $97
 $537
  December 31, 2013
(in millions)  
Duke
Energy

 
Duke
Energy Carolinas

 Progress Energy
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 
Duke
 Energy 
 Ohio 

 
Duke
 Energy 
 Indiana 

Materials and supplies  $1,901
 $654
 $854
 $567
 $287
 $117
 $193
Coal held for electric generation  1,018
 374
 334
 187
 147
 65
 238
Oil, gas and other fuel held for electric generation  331
 37
 236
 99
 137
 47
 3
Total inventory  $3,250
 $1,065
 $1,424
 $853
 $571
 $229
 $434
Investments in Debt and Equity Securities
The Duke Energy Registrants classify investments into two categories — trading and available-for-sale. Both categories are recorded at fair value on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Realized and unrealized gains and losses on trading securities are included in earnings. For certain investments of regulated operations such as the Nuclear Decommissioning Trust Fund (NDTF), realized and unrealized gains and losses (including any other-than-temporary impairments) on available-for-sale securities are recorded as a regulatory asset or liability. Otherwise, unrealized gains and losses are included in Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (AOCI), unless other-than-temporarily impaired. Other-than-temporary impairments for equity securities and the credit loss portion of debt securities of nonregulated operations are included in earnings. Investments in debt and equity securities are classified as either current or noncurrent based on management’s intent and ability to sell these securities, taking into consideration current market liquidity. See Note 15 for further information.
Goodwill and Intangible Assets
Goodwill
Duke Energy, Progress Energy and Duke Energy Ohio perform annual goodwill impairment tests as of August 31 each year at the reporting unit level, which is determined to be an operating segment or one level below. Duke Energy, Progress Energy and Duke Energy Ohio update these tests between annual tests if events or circumstances occur that would more likely than not reduce the fair value of a reporting unit below its carrying value.
In 2012, Progress Energy changed its goodwill impairment testing date from October 31 to August 31 to better align its annual goodwill impairment testing procedure with those of Duke Energy. The change had no impact on goodwill. Neither the change in the goodwill impairment testing date nor the merger resulted in any changes to the Progress Energy reporting units.

116


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Intangible Assets
Intangible assets are included in Other in Investments and Other Assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Generally, intangible assets are amortized using an amortization method that reflects the pattern in which the economic benefits of the intangible asset are consumed, or on a straight-line basis if that pattern is not readily determinable. Amortization of intangibles is reflected in Depreciation and amortization in the Consolidated Statements of Operations. Intangible assets are subject to impairment testing and if impaired, the carrying value is accordingly reduced.
Emission allowances permit the holder of the allowance to emit certain gaseous byproducts of fossil fuel combustion, including sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOX). Allowances are issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at zero cost and may also be bought and sold via third-party transactions. Allowances allocated to or acquired by the Duke Energy Registrants are held primarily for consumption. Carrying amounts for emission allowances are based on the cost to acquire the allowances or, in the case of a business combination, on the fair value assigned in the allocation of the purchase price of the acquired business.
Renewable energy certificates are used to measure compliance with renewable energy standards and are held primarily for consumption. See Note 11 for further information.
Long-Lived Asset Impairments
The Duke Energy Registrants evaluate long-lived assets, excluding goodwill, for impairment when circumstances indicate the carrying value of those assets may not be recoverable. An impairment exists when a long-lived asset’s carrying value exceeds the estimated undiscounted cash flows expected to result from the use and eventual disposition of the asset. The estimated cash flows may be based on alternative expected outcomes that are probability weighted. If the carrying value of the long-lived asset is not recoverable based on these estimated future undiscounted cash flows, the carrying value of the asset is written-down to its then-current estimated fair value and an impairment charge is recognized.
The Duke Energy Registrants assess fair value of long-lived assets using various methods, including recent comparable third-party sales, internally developed discounted cash flow analysis and analysis from outside advisors. Significant changes in commodity prices, the condition of an asset or management’s interest in selling the asset are generally viewed as triggering events to re-assess cash flows. See Note 11 for further information.
Property, Plant and Equipment
Property, plant and equipment are stated at the lower of depreciated historical cost net of any disallowances or fair value, if impaired. The Duke Energy Registrants capitalize all construction-related direct labor and material costs, as well as indirect construction costs such as general engineering, taxes and financing costs. See “Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (AFUDC) and Interest Capitalized” for information on capitalized financing costs. Costs of renewals and betterments that extend the useful life of property, plant and equipment are also capitalized. The cost of repairs, replacements and major maintenance projects, which do not extend the useful life or increase the expected output of the asset, are expensed as incurred. Depreciation is generally computed over the estimated useful life of the asset using the composite straight-line method. Depreciation studies are conducted periodically to update composite rates and are approved by state utility commissions and/or the FERC when required. The composite weighted-average depreciation rates, excluding nuclear fuel, are included in the table that follows.
  Years Ended December 31,
  2014
 2013
 2012
Duke Energy  2.8% 2.8% 2.9%
Duke Energy Carolinas  2.7% 2.8% 2.8%
Progress Energy  2.5% 2.5% 2.6%
Duke Energy Progress  2.5% 2.5% 2.7%
Duke Energy Florida  2.7% 2.4% 2.5%
Duke Energy Ohio  2.3% 3.3% 3.2%
Duke Energy Indiana  3.0% 2.8% 3.3%
In general, when the Duke Energy Registrants retire regulated property, plant and equipment, original cost plus the cost of retirement, less salvage value, is charged to accumulated depreciation. However, when it becomes probable a regulated asset will be retired substantially in advance of its original expected useful life or is abandoned, the cost of the asset and the corresponding accumulated depreciation is recognized as a separate asset. If the asset is still in operation, the net amount is classified as Generation facilities to be retired, net on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. If the asset is no longer operating, the net amount is classified in Regulatory Assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. The carrying value of the asset is based on historical cost if the Duke Energy Registrants are allowed to recover the remaining net book value and a return equal to at least the incremental borrowing rate. If not, an impairment is recognized to the extent the net book value of the asset exceeds the present value of future revenues discounted at the incremental borrowing rate.
When the Duke Energy Registrants sell entire regulated operating units, or retire or sell nonregulated properties, the original cost and accumulated depreciation and amortization balances are removed from Property, Plant and Equipment on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Any gain or loss is recorded in earnings, unless otherwise required by the applicable regulatory body.
See Note 10 for further information.

117


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Nuclear Fuel
Nuclear fuel is classified as Property, Plant and Equipment on the Consolidated Balance Sheets, except for Duke Energy Florida. Duke Energy Florida has reclassified all Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Station (Crystal River Unit 3) investments, including nuclear fuel, to a regulatory asset. Refer to Note 4, “Regulatory Matters,” for additional information on Crystal River Unit 3.
Nuclear fuel in the front-end fuel processing phase is considered work in progress and not amortized until placed in service. Amortization of nuclear fuel is included within Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power - regulated in the Consolidated Statements of Operations. Amortization is recorded using the units-of-production method.
Allowance for Funds Used During Construction and Interest Capitalized
For regulated operations, the debt and equity costs of financing the construction of property, plant and equipment are reflected as AFUDC and capitalized as a component of the cost of property, plant and equipment. AFUDC equity is reported on the Consolidated Statements of Operations as non-cash income in Other income and expenses, net. AFUDC debt is reported as a non-cash offset to Interest Expense. After construction is completed, the Duke Energy Registrants are permitted to recover these costs through their inclusion in rate base and the corresponding subsequent depreciation or amortization of those regulated assets.
AFUDC equity, a permanent difference for income taxes, reduces the effective tax rate when capitalized and increases the effective tax rate when depreciated or amortized. See Note 22 for additional information.
For nonregulated operations, interest is capitalized during the construction phase with an offsetting non-cash credit to Interest Expense on the Consolidated Statements of Operations.
Asset Retirement Obligations
Asset retirement obligations are recognized for legal obligations associated with the retirement of property, plant and equipment. Substantially all asset retirement obligations are related to regulated operations. When recording an asset retirement obligation, the present value of the projected liability is recognized in the period in which it is incurred, if a reasonable estimate of fair value can be made. The liability is accreted over time. For operating plants, the present value of the liability is added to the cost of the associated asset and depreciated over the remaining life of the asset. For retired plants, the present value of the liability is recorded as a regulatory asset and expensed over the recovery period in rates.
The present value of the initial obligation and subsequent updates are based on discounted cash flows, which include estimates regarding timing of future cash flows, selection of discount rates and cost escalation rates, among other factors. These estimates are subject to change. Depreciation expense is adjusted prospectively for any changes to the carrying amount of the associated asset. The Duke Energy Registrants receive amounts to fund the cost of the asset retirement obligation for regulated operations through a combination of regulated revenues and NDTF. As a result, the net of amounts recovered in regulated revenues, earnings on the NDTF, accretion expense and depreciation of the associated asset is deferred as a regulatory asset or liability.
Obligations for nuclear decommissioning are based on site-specific cost studies. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress assume prompt dismantlement of the nuclear facilities after operations are ceased. Duke Energy Florida assumes Crystal River Unit 3 will be placed into a safe storage configuration until eventual dismantlement begins in approximately 60 years. Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida also assume that spent fuel will be stored on site until such time that it can be transferred to a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) facility.
Obligations for closure of ash basins are based upon discounted cash flows of estimated costs based upon probability weightings of the potential closure methods as evaluated on a site by site basis. Duke Energy Registrants with ash basins in North Carolina and certain basins in South Carolina and Indiana have a legal obligation that results in recognition of an asset retirement obligation at December 31, 2014. See Notes 5 and 9 for further information.
Revenue Recognition and Unbilled Revenue
Revenues on sales of electricity and gas are recognized when service is provided or the product is delivered. Unbilled revenues are recognized by applying customer billing rates to the estimated volumes of energy delivered but not yet billed. Unbilled revenues can vary significantly from period to period as a result of seasonality, weather, customer usage patterns, customer mix, average price in effect for customer classes and meter reading schedules.

118


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Unbilled revenues are included within Receivables and Restricted receivables of variable interest entities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as shown in the following table. This table excludes amounts included in assets held for sale (AHFS).
  December 31,
(in millions)  2014
 2013
Duke Energy  $827
 $937
Duke Energy Carolinas  295
 323
Progress Energy  217
 189
Duke Energy Progress  135
 120
Duke Energy Florida  82
 69
Duke Energy Ohio  
 55
Duke Energy Indiana  27
 5
Additionally, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana sell, on a revolving basis, nearly all of their retail accounts receivable, including receivables for unbilled revenues, to an affiliate, Cinergy Receivables Company, LLC (CRC) and account for the transfers of receivables as sales. Accordingly, the receivables sold are not reflected on the Consolidated Balance Sheets of Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana. See Note 17 for further information. These receivables for unbilled revenues are shown in the table below.
  December 31,
(in millions)2014
 2013
Duke Energy Ohio79
 89
Duke Energy Indiana112
 144
Allowance for Doubtful Accounts
Allowances for doubtful accounts are presented in the following table.
  December 31,
(in millions)  2014
 2013
 2012
Allowance for Doubtful Accounts          
Duke Energy  $17
 30
 34
Duke Energy Carolinas  3
 3
 3
Progress Energy  8
 14
 16
Duke Energy Progress  7
 10
 9
Duke Energy Florida  2
 4
 7
Duke Energy Ohio  2
 2
 2
Duke Energy Indiana  1
 1
 1
Allowance for Doubtful Accounts - VIEs          
Duke Energy  $51
 43
 44
Duke Energy Carolinas  6
 6
 6
Progress Energy  8
 
 
Duke Energy Progress  5
 
 
Duke Energy Florida  3
 
 
Derivatives and Hedging
Derivative and non-derivative instruments may be used in connection with commodity price, interest rate and foreign currency risk management activities, including swaps, futures, forwards and options. All derivative instruments except those that qualify for the normal purchase/normal sale (NPNS) exception are recorded on the Consolidated Balance Sheets at their fair value. Qualifying derivative instruments may be designated as either cash flow hedges or fair value hedges. Other derivative instruments (undesignated contracts) either have not been designated or do not qualify as hedges. The effective portion of the change in the fair value of cash flow hedges is recorded in AOCI. The effective portion of the change in the fair value of a fair value hedge is offset in net income by changes in the hedged item. For activity subject to regulatory accounting, gains and losses on derivative contracts are reflected as regulatory assets or liabilities and not as other comprehensive income or current period income. As a result, changes in fair value of these derivatives have no immediate earnings impact.
Formal documentation, including transaction type and risk management strategy, is maintained for all contracts accounted for as a hedge. At inception and at least every three months thereafter, the hedge contract is assessed to see if it is highly effective in offsetting changes in cash flows or fair values of hedged items.
See Note 14 for further information.

119


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Captive Insurance Reserves
Duke Energy has captive insurance subsidiaries that provide coverage, on an indemnity basis, to the Subsidiary Registrants as well as certain third parties, on a limited basis, for various business risks and losses, such as property, workers’ compensation and general liability. Liabilities include provisions for estimated losses incurred but not yet reported (IBNR), as well as estimated provisions for known claims. IBNR reserve estimates are primarily based upon historical loss experience, industry data and other actuarial assumptions. Reserve estimates are adjusted in future periods as actual losses differ from experience.
Duke Energy, through its captive insurance entities, also has reinsurance coverage with third parties for certain losses above a per occurrence and/or aggregate retention. Receivables for reinsurance coverage are recognized when realization is deemed probable.
Unamortized Debt Premium, Discount and Expense
Premiums, discounts and expenses incurred with the issuance of outstanding long-term debt are amortized over the term of the debt issue. Call premiums and unamortized expenses associated with refinancing higher-cost debt obligations in the regulated operations are amortized. Amortization expense is recorded as Interest Expense in the Consolidated Statements of Operations and is reflected as Depreciation, amortization and accretion within Net cash provided by operating activities on the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows.
Loss Contingencies and Environmental Liabilities
Contingent losses are recorded when it is probable a loss has occurred and can be reasonably estimated. When a range of the probable loss exists and no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount, the minimum amount in the range is recorded. Unless otherwise required by GAAP, legal fees are expensed as incurred.
Environmental liabilities are recorded on an undiscounted basis when environmental remediation or other liabilities becomes probable and can be reasonably estimated. Environmental expenditures related to past operations that do not generate current or future revenues are expensed. Environmental expenditures related to operations that generate current or future revenues are expensed or capitalized, as appropriate. Certain environmental expenditures receive regulatory accounting treatment and are recorded as regulatory assets.
See Notes 4 and 5 for further information.
Pension and Other Post-Retirement Benefit Plans
Duke Energy maintains qualified, non-qualified and other post-retirement benefit plans. Eligible employees of the Subsidiary Registrants participate in the respective qualified, non-qualified and other post-retirement benefit plans and the Subsidiary Registrants are allocated their proportionate share of benefit costs. See Note 21 for further information, including significant accounting policies associated with these plans.
Severance and Special Termination Benefits
Duke Energy has an ongoing severance plan under which, in general, the longer a terminated employee worked prior to termination the greater the amount of severance benefits. A liability for involuntary severance is recorded once an involuntary severance plan is committed to by management, or sooner, if involuntary severances are probable and can be reasonably estimated. For involuntary severance benefits incremental to its ongoing severance plan benefits, the fair value of the obligation is expensed at the communication date if there are no future service requirements, or over the required future service period. From time to time, Duke Energy offers special termination benefits under voluntary severance programs. Special termination benefits are recorded immediately upon employee acceptance absent a significant retention period. Otherwise, the cost is recorded over the remaining service period. Employee acceptance of voluntary severance benefits is determined by management based on the facts and circumstances of the benefits being offered. See Note 19 for further information.
Guarantees
Liabilities are recognized at the time of issuance or material modification of a guarantee for the estimated fair value of the obligation it assumes. Fair value is estimated using a probability-weighted approach. The obligation is reduced over the term of the guarantee or related contract in a systematic and rational method as risk is reduced. Any additional contingent loss for guarantee contracts subsequent to the initial recognition of a liability is accounted for and recognized at the time a loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated. See Note 7 for further information.
Stock-Based Compensation
Stock-based compensation represents costs related to stock-based awards granted to employees and Duke Energy Board of Directors (Board of Directors) members. Duke Energy recognizes stock-based compensation based upon the estimated fair value of awards, net of estimated forfeitures at the date of issuance. The recognition period for these costs begin at either the applicable service inception date or grant date and continues throughout the requisite service period, or for certain share-based awards until the employee becomes retirement eligible, if earlier. Compensation cost is recognized as expense or capitalized as a component of property, plant and equipment. See Note 20 for further information.
Income Taxes
Duke Energy and its subsidiaries file a consolidated federal income tax return and other state and foreign jurisdictional returns. The Subsidiary Registrants entered into a tax-sharing agreement with Duke Energy. Income taxes recorded represent amounts the Subsidiary Registrants would incur as separate C-Corporations. Deferred income taxes have been provided for temporary differences between GAAP and tax bases of assets and liabilities because the differences create taxable or tax-deductible amounts for future periods. Deferred taxes are not provided on translation gains and losses when earnings of a foreign operation are expected to be indefinitely reinvested. Investment tax credits (ITC) associated with regulated operations are deferred and amortized as a reduction of income tax expense over the estimated useful lives of the related properties.

120


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Positions taken or expected to be taken on tax returns, including the decision to exclude certain income or transactions from a return, are recognized in the financial statements when it is more likely than not the tax position can be sustained based solely on the technical merits of the position. The largest amount of tax benefit that is greater than 50 percent likely of being effectively settled is recorded. Management considers a tax position effectively settled when: (i) the taxing authority has completed its examination procedures, including all appeals and administrative reviews; (ii) the Duke Energy Registrants do not intend to appeal or litigate the tax position included in the completed examination; and (iii) it is remote the taxing authority would examine or re-examine the tax position. The amount of a tax return position that is not recognized in the financial statements is disclosed as an unrecognized tax benefit. If these unrecognized tax benefits are later recognized, then there will be a decrease in income taxes payable, an income tax refund or a swap between deferred and current taxes payable. If the portion of tax benefits that has been recognized changes and those tax benefits are subsequently unrecognized, then the previously recognized tax benefits may impact the financial statements through increasing income taxes payable, reducing income tax refunds receivable changing deferred taxes. Changes in assumptions on tax benefits may also impact interest expense or interest income and may result in the recognition of tax penalties.
Tax-related interest and penalties are recorded in Interest Expense and Other Income and Expenses, net, in the Consolidated Statements of Operations.
See Note 22 for further information.
Accounting for Renewable Energy Tax Credits and Cash Grants
When Duke Energy receives ITC or cash grants on wind or solar facilities, it reduces the basis of the property recorded on the Consolidated Balance Sheets by the amount of the ITC or cash grant and, therefore, the ITC or grant benefit is recognized through reduced depreciation expense. Additionally, certain tax credits and government grants received provide for initial tax depreciable base in excess of the book carrying value equal to one half of the ITC or government grant. Deferred tax benefits are recorded as a reduction to income tax expense in the period that the basis difference is created.
Excise Taxes
Certain excise taxes levied by state or local governments are required to be paid even if not collected from the customer. These taxes are recognized on a gross basis. Otherwise, the taxes are accounted for net. Excise taxes accounted for on a gross basis as both operating revenues and property and other taxes in the Consolidated Statements of Operations were as follows.
  Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)  2014
 2013
 2012
Duke Energy  $498
 $602
 $466
Duke Energy Carolinas  94
 164
 161
Progress Energy  263
 304
 317
Duke Energy Progress  56
 115
 113
Duke Energy Florida  207
 189
 205
Duke Energy Ohio  103
 105
 102
Duke Energy Indiana  38
 29
 33
During the third quarter of 2014, the North Carolina gross receipts tax was terminated due to the North Carolina Tax Simplification and Rate Reduction Act. The North Carolina gross receipts tax is no longer imposed effective July 1, 2014.

On July 23, 2013, North Carolina House Bill 998 (HB 998) was signed into law. HB 998 repealed the utility franchise tax effective July 1, 2014. The utility franchise tax was 3.22 percent gross receipts tax on sales of electricity. The result of this change in law will be an annual reduction in excise taxes of approximately $160 million for Duke Energy Carolinas and approximately $110 million for Duke Energy Progress. HB 998 also increases sales tax on electricity from 3 percent to 7 percent effective July 1, 2014. HB 998 requires the NCUC to adjust retail electric rates for the elimination of the utility franchise tax, changes due to the increase in sales tax on electricity, and the resulting change in liability of utility companies under the general franchise tax.
Foreign Currency Translation
The local currencies of most of Duke Energy’s foreign operations have been determined to be their functional currencies. However, certain foreign operations’ functional currency has been determined to be the U.S. dollar, based on an assessment of the economic circumstances of the foreign operationAssets and liabilities of foreign operations whose functional currency is not the U.S. dollar are translated into U.S. dollars at the exchange rates in effect at period end. Translation adjustments resulting from changes in exchange rates are included in AOCI. Revenue and expense accounts are translated at average exchange rates during the year. Remeasurement gains and losses arising from balances and transactions denominated in currencies other than the local currency are included in the results of operations when they occur.
Dividend Restrictions and Unappropriated Retained Earnings
Duke Energy does not have any legal, regulatory or other restrictions on paying common stock dividends to shareholders. However, as further described in Note 4, due to conditions established by regulators in conjunction with merger transaction approvals, Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana have restrictions on paying dividends or otherwise advancing funds to Duke Energy. At December 31, 2014 and 2013, an insignificant amount of Duke Energy’s consolidated Retained earnings balance represents undistributed earnings of equity method investments.

121


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

New Accounting Standards
The new accounting standards that were adopted for 2014, 2013 and 2012 had no significant impact on the presentation or results of operations, cash flows or financial position of the Duke Energy Registrants. Disclosures have been enhanced to provide a discussion and tables on derivative contracts subject to enforceable master netting agreements and a table of quantitative disclosures about unobservable inputs. See Notes 14 and 16 for further information.
The following new Accounting Standards Updates (ASUs) have been issued, but have not yet been adopted by the Duke Energy Registrants, as of December 31, 2014.
ASC 205 — Reporting Discontinued Operations. In April 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued revised accounting guidance for reporting discontinued operations. A discontinued operation would be either (i) a component of an entity or a group of components of an entity that represents a separate major line of business or major geographical area of operations that either has been disposed of or is part of a single coordinated plan to be classified as held for sale or (ii) a business that, on acquisition, meets the criteria to be classified as held for sale.
For the Duke Energy Registrants, this guidance is effective on a prospective basis for interim and annual periods beginning January 1, 2015. This guidance will also result in increased disclosures for discontinued operations or disposals of individually significant components that are not classified as discontinued operations. In general, this guidance is likely to result in fewer disposals of assets qualifying as discontinued operations.
ASC 606 — Revenue from Contracts with Customers. In May 2014, the FASB issued revised accounting guidance for revenue recognition from contracts with customers. The core principle of this guidance is that an entity should recognize revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. The amendments in this update also require disclosure of sufficient information to allow users to understand the nature, amount, timing and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows arising from contracts with customers.
For the Duke Energy Registrants, this guidance is effective for interim and annual periods beginning January 1, 2017. Duke Energy is currently evaluating the requirements. The ultimate impact of the new standard has not yet been determined.
2. ACQUISITIONS, DISPOSITIONS AND SALES OF OTHER ASSETS
ACQUISITIONS
The Duke Energy Registrants consolidate assets and liabilities from acquisitions as of the purchase date, and include earnings from acquisitions in consolidated earnings after the purchase date.
Purchase of NCEMPA's Generation
On September 5, 2014, Duke Energy Progress executed an agreement to purchase North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency’s (NCEMPA) ownership interests in certain generating assets jointly owned with and operated by Duke Energy Progress. The agreement provides for the acquisition of a total of approximately 700 megawatts (MW) at Brunswick Nuclear Station (Brunswick), Shearon Harris Nuclear Station (Harris), Mayo Steam Station and Roxboro Steam Station. The purchase price for the ownership interest and fuel and spare parts inventory is approximately $1.2 billion. Under the agreement, Duke Energy Progress and NCEMPA will enter into a 30-year wholesale power supply agreement to continue meeting the needs of NCEMPA’s customers. Closing of the transaction is subject to certain conditions, including state and federal regulatory approvals and legislative action required prior to completing the transaction. On December 9, 2014, the FERC approved Duke Energy Progress' request to purchase NCEMPA's interests in the generation assets, approved Duke Energy Progress' 30-year wholesale power supply agreement with NCEMPA, and approved Duke Energy Progress' inclusion of the acquisition adjustment resulting from the asset purchase in wholesale power formula rates. The transaction is expected to close by the end of 2015 or early 2016.
Merger with Progress Energy
On July 2, 2012, Duke Energy completed its merger with Progress Energy, a North Carolina corporation engaged in the regulated utility business of generation, transmission and distribution and sale of electricity in portions of North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida. As a result of the merger, Progress Energy became a wholly owned subsidiary of Duke Energy. 
The merger between Duke Energy and Progress Energy provides increased scale and diversity with potentially enhanced access to capital over the long term and a greater ability to undertake the significant construction programs necessary to respond to increasing environmental regulation, plant retirements and customer demand growth. Duke Energy’s business risk profile is expected to improve over time due to the increased proportion of the business that is regulated. Additionally, cost savings, efficiencies and other benefits are expected from the combined operations.

122


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Purchase Price
Total consideration transferred was based on the closing price of Duke Energy common shares on July 2, 2012, and was calculated as shown in the following table.
238
(dollars in millions, except per share amounts; shares in thousands) 
Progress Energy common shares outstanding at July 2, 2012296,116
Exchange ratio0.87083
Duke Energy common shares issued for Progress Energy common shares outstanding257,867
Closing price of Duke Energy common shares on July 2, 2012$69.84
Purchase price for common stock$18,009
Fair value of outstanding earned stock compensation awards62
Total purchase price$18,071

Progress Energy’s stock-based compensation awards, including performance shares and restricted stock, were replaced with Duke Energy awards upon consummation of the merger. In accordance with accounting guidance for business combinations, a portion of the fair value of these awards is included in the purchase price as it represents consideration transferred in the merger.
Purchase Price Allocation
Fair value of assets acquired and liabilities assumed was determined based on significant estimates and assumptions, including Level 3 inputs, which are judgmental in nature. Estimates and assumptions include the projected timing and amount of future cash flows, discount rates reflecting risk inherent in future cash flows, and future market prices.
Additionally, the February 5, 2013 announcement of the decision to retire Crystal River Unit 3 reflected additional information related to facts and circumstances existing as of the acquisition date. See Note 4 for additional information related to Crystal River Unit 3. As such, Duke Energy presents assets acquired and liabilities assumed as if the retirement of Crystal River Unit 3 occurred on the acquisition date.
The majority of Progress Energy’s operations are subject to the rate-setting authority of the FERC, NCUC, PSCSC, and FPSC and are accounted for pursuant to U.S. GAAP, including the accounting guidance for regulated operations. Rate-setting and cost recovery provisions currently in place for Progress Energy’s regulated operations provide revenues derived from costs, including a return on investment of assets and liabilities included in rate base. Except for long-term debt, asset retirement obligations, capital leases, pension and other post-retirement benefit obligations (OPEB), and the wholesale portion of Crystal River Unit 3, fair values of tangible and intangible assets and liabilities subject to these rate-setting provisions approximate their carrying values. Accordingly, assets acquired and liabilities assumed and pro forma financial information do not reflect any net adjustments related to these amounts. The difference between fair value and pre-merger carrying amounts for long-term debt, asset retirement obligations, capital leases and pension and OPEB plans for regulated operations were recorded as Regulatory assets.
The excess of purchase price over estimated fair values of assets acquired and liabilities assumed was recognized as goodwill at the acquisition date. The goodwill reflects the value paid primarily for long-term potential for enhanced access to capital as a result of increased scale and diversity, opportunities for synergies, and an improved risk profile. Goodwill resulting from the merger was allocated entirely to the Regulated Utilities segment. None of the goodwill recognized is deductible for income tax purposes, and as such, no deferred taxes have been recorded related to goodwill.
The completed purchase price allocation is presented in the following table.
(in millions) 
Current assets$3,204
Property, plant and equipment23,141
Goodwill12,469
Other long-term assets9,990
Total assets48,804
Current liabilities, including current maturities of long-term debt3,593
Long-term liabilities, preferred stock and noncontrolling interests10,394
Long-term debt16,746
Total liabilities and preferred stock30,733
Total purchase price$18,071
The purchase price allocation in the table above reflects refinements made to preliminary fair values of assets acquired and liabilities assumed as of December 31, 2012. These refinements include adjustments associated with the retirement of Crystal River Unit 3. The changes resulted in an increase to Goodwill of $2 million, an increase to the fair value of Current liabilities, including current maturities of long-term debt of $12 million, a decrease to Property, plant and equipment of $138 million, a decrease to Other long-term assets of $4 million and a decrease to Long-term liabilities, preferred stock and noncontrolling interests of $152 million. These refinements had no impact on the amortization of purchase accounting adjustments recorded to earnings during the year ended December 31, 2013, or for the six months ended December 31, 2012.

123


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Pro Forma Financial Information
The following unaudited pro forma financial information reflects the consolidated results of operations of Duke Energy and the amortization of purchase price adjustments assuming the merger had taken place on January 1, 2012. The unaudited pro forma financial information has been presented for illustrative purposes only and is not necessarily indicative of the consolidated results of operations that would have been achieved or future consolidated results of operations of Duke Energy.
Non-recurring merger consummation, integration and other costs incurred by Duke Energy and Progress Energy during the period have been excluded from pro forma earnings presented below. After-tax non-recurring merger consummation, integration and other costs incurred by both Duke Energy and Progress Energy were $413 million for the year ended 2012. The pro forma financial information also excludes potential future cost savings or non-recurring charges related to the merger.
  Year Ended December 31,
(in millions, except per share amounts)2012
Revenues$23,976
Net Income Attributable to Duke Energy Corporation2,417
Basic and Diluted Earnings Per Share3.43
PECAccounting Charges Related to the Merger Consummation
The following pretax consummation charges were recognized upon closing of the merger and are included in the Duke Energy Registrants’ Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income for the year ended December 31, 2012.
DISCLOSURE CONTROLS
(in millions)  Duke Energy
 Duke Energy Carolinas
 Progress Energy
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 Duke Energy Ohio
 Duke Energy Indiana
FERC Mitigation  $117
 $46
 $71
 $71
 $
 $
 $
Severance costs  196
 63
 82
 55
 27
 21
 18
Community support, charitable
contributions and other  
169
 79
 74
 63
 11
 7
 6
Total  $482
 $188
 $227
 $189
 $38
 $28
 $24
FERC Mitigation charges reflect the portion of transmission project costs probable of disallowance, impairment of the carrying value of the generation assets serving Interim FERC Mitigation, and mark-to-market losses recognized on power sale agreements upon closing of the merger. Charges related to transmission projects and impairment of the carrying value of generation assets were recorded within Impairment charges in the Consolidated Statements of Operations. Mark-to-market losses on interim power sale agreements was recorded in Regulated electric operating revenues in the Consolidated Statements of Operations. Subsequent changes in fair value of interim power sale agreements over the life of the contracts and realized gains or losses on interim contract sales are also recorded within Regulated electric operating revenues. The ability to successfully defend future recovery of a portion of transmission projects in rates and any future changes to estimated transmission project costs could impact the amount not expected to be recovered.
In conjunction with the merger, in November 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy each offered a voluntary severance plan (VSP) to certain eligible employees. VSP and other severance costs incurred were recorded primarily within Operation, maintenance and other in the Consolidated Statements of Operations. See Note 19 for further information related to employee severance expenses.
Community support, charitable contributions and other reflect (i) the unconditional obligation to provide funding at a level comparable to historic practices over the next four years, and (ii) financial and legal advisory costs incurred upon the closing of the merger, retention and relocation costs paid to certain employees. These charges were recorded within Operation, maintenance and other in the Consolidated Statements of Operations.
Impact of Merger
The impact of Progress Energy on Duke Energy’s revenues and net income attributable to Duke Energy in the Consolidated Statements of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2012 was an increase of $4,943 million and $368 million, respectively.
Chilean Operations
In December 2012, Duke Energy acquired Iberoamericana de Energía Ibener, S.A. (Ibener) of Santiago, Chile, for cash consideration of $415 million. This acquisition included the 140 MW Duqueco hydroelectric generation complex consisting of two run-of-the-river plants located in southern Chile. Purchase price allocation consisted primarily of $383 million of property, plant and equipment, $30 million of intangible assets, $57 million of deferred income tax liabilities, $54 million of goodwill and $8 million of working capital.

124


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

DISPOSITIONS
Midwest Generation Exit
On August 21, 2014, Duke Energy Commercial Enterprises, Inc., an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Duke Energy Corporation, and Duke Energy SAM, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Duke Energy Ohio, entered into a PSA with a subsidiary of Dynegy whereby Dynegy will acquire Duke Energy’s Disposal Group for approximately $2.8 billion in cash subject to adjustments at closing for changes in working capital and capital expenditures. The completion of the transaction is conditioned on approval by FERC. On January 16, 2015, FERC issued a letter requesting additional information in connection with the transaction application. The request was for further economic analysis relating to the combined market power impacts of the proposed transaction and Dynegy's simultaneous acquisition of other assets in the PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM) market, and information relating to rate protections for Dynegy's customers. On February 6, 2015, Duke Energy and Dynegy made two filings with FERC. The first filing provided additional information requested by FERC. The second filing provided information related to Dynegy's settlement agreement with the Independent Market Monitor for PJM, which no longer opposes the proposed transaction. The transaction is expected to close by the end of the second quarter of 2015.
The Disposal Group is included in the Commercial Power segment. The following table presents information related to the Duke Energy Ohio generation plants included in the Disposal Group.
FacilityPlant Type Primary Fuel Location 
Total MW Capacity(c)

 
Owned MW Capacity(c)

 Ownership Interest
Stuart(a)(b)
Fossil Steam Coal OH 2,308
 900
 39%
Zimmer(a)
Fossil Steam Coal OH 1,300
 605
 46.5%
Hanging RockCombined Cycle Gas OH 1,226
 1,226
 100%
Miami Fort (Units 7 and 8)(a)
Fossil Steam Coal OH 1,020
 652
 64%
Conesville(a)(b)
Fossil Steam Coal OH 780
 312
 40%
WashingtonCombined Cycle Gas OH 617
 617
 100%
FayetteCombined Cycle Gas PA 614
 614
 100%
Killen(a)(b)
Fossil Steam Coal OH 600
 198
 33%
LeeCombustion Turbine Gas IL 568
 568
 100%
Dick's CreekCombustion Turbine Gas OH 136
 136
 100%
Miami FortCombustion Turbine Oil OH 56
 56
 100%
Total Midwest Generation      9,225
 5,884
  
(a)Jointly owned with American Electric Power Generation Resources and/or The Dayton Power & Light Company.
(b)Station is not operated by Duke Energy Ohio.
(c)Total MW capacity is based on summer capacity.
The Disposal Group also includes a retail sales business owned by Duke Energy. In the second quarter of 2014, Duke Energy Ohio removed Ohio Valley Electric Corporation's (OVEC) purchase power agreement from the Disposal Group as it no longer intended to sell it with the Disposal Group. Duke Energy Ohio has requested cost-based recovery of its contractual entitlement in OVEC in its 2014 Electric Security Plan (ESP) application filed on May 29, 2014. See Note 4 for information related to the 2014 ESP.
The assets and associated liabilities of the Disposal Group are classified as held for sale in Duke Energy's and Duke Energy Ohio's Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31, 2014.
The results of operations of the Disposal Group are classified as discontinued operations for current and prior periods in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income. Certain immaterial costs that that may be eliminated as a result of the sale have remained in continuing operations. The following table presents the results of discontinued operations.
Duke Energy
 Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2014

2013

2012
Operating Revenues$1,748
 $1,885
 $1,771
Estimated loss on disposition(929) 
 
      
(Loss) Income before income taxes$(818) $141
 $227
Income tax (benefit) expense(294) 56
 82
(Loss) Income from discontinued operations of the Disposal Group(524) 85
 145
Other, net of tax(a)
(52) 1
 26
(Loss) Income from Discontinued Operations, net of tax$(576) $86
 $171

125


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

(a)Other discontinued operations relate to prior sales of businesses and includes indemnifications provided for certain legal, tax and environmental matters, and foreign currency translation adjustments.
Duke Energy Ohio
 Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2014
 2013
 2012
Operating Revenues$1,299
 $1,503
 $1,435
Estimated loss on disposition(959) 
 
      
(Loss) Income before income taxes$(863) $67
 $195
Income tax (benefit) expense(300) 32
 65
(Loss) Income from Discontinued Operations, net of tax$(563) $35
 $130
The Duke Energy and Duke Energy Ohio held for sale assets include net pretax impairments of approximately $929 million and $959 million, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2014. The impairment was recorded to write-down the carrying amount of the assets to the estimated fair value of the business, based on the expected selling price to Dynegy less cost to sell. These losses were included in (Loss) Income from Discontinued Operations, net of tax in the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income. The impairment will be updated, if necessary, based on the final sales price, after any adjustments at closing for working capital and capital expenditures.
Commercial Power has a revolving credit agreement (RCA) to support the operations of the nonregulated Midwest generation business. Interest expense associated with the RCA has been allocated to discontinued operations. No other interest expense related to corporate level debt has been allocated to discontinued operations.
The following table presents the Disposal Group's carrying values in the Consolidated Balance Sheets' major classes of Assets held for sale.
 December 31, 2014
(in millions)Duke Energy
 Duke Energy Ohio
Current assets$364
 $316
Investments and other assets52
 46
Property, plant and equipment2,590
 2,559
Total assets held for sale$3,006
 $2,921
Current liabilities$262
 $246
Deferred credits and other liabilities35
 34
Total liabilities associated with assets held for sale$297
 $280
Duke Energy Ohio may continue to have transactions with the Disposal Group after the divestiture is complete depending on when the transaction closes. Duke Energy Ohio has a power purchase agreement with the Disposal Group, which extends through May 2015, for a portion of its standard service offer (SSO) supply requirement. In addition, for a period of up to 12 months, Duke Energy may provide transition services to Dynegy. Duke Energy will be reimbursed for transition services provided. The continuing cash flows are not expected to be material and are not considered direct cash flows. These arrangements do not allow Duke Energy or Duke Energy Ohio to significantly influence the operations of the Disposal Group once the sale is complete.
See Notes 4 and 5 for a discussion of contingencies related to the Disposal Group that will be retained by Duke Energy Ohio subsequent to the sale.
Vermillion Generating Station
On January 12, 2012, after receiving approvals from the FERC and IURC on August 12, 2011 and December 28, 2011, respectively, Duke Energy Vermillion II, LLC (Duke Energy Vermillion), an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Duke Energy Ohio, completed the sale of its ownership interest in Vermillion Generating Station (Vermillion) to Duke Energy Indiana and Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc. (WVPA). Upon closing of the sale, Duke Energy Indiana held a 62.5 percent interest in Vermillion. Duke Energy Ohio received net proceeds of $82 million, of which $68 million was paid by Duke Energy Indiana. Following the transaction, Duke Energy Indiana retired Gallagher Units 1 and 3 effective February 1, 2012.
As Duke Energy Indiana is an affiliate of Duke Energy Vermillion, the transaction was accounted for as a transfer between entities under common control with no gain or loss recorded and did not have a significant impact to Duke Energy Ohio’s or Duke Energy Indiana’s results of operations. Proceeds received from Duke Energy Indiana are included in Net proceeds from the sales of other assets on Duke Energy Ohio’s Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows. Cash paid to Duke Energy Ohio is included in Capital expenditures on Duke Energy Indiana’s Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows. Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana recognized non-cash equity transfers of $28 million and $26 million, respectively, in their Consolidated Statements of Common Stockholder’s Equity on the transaction representing the difference between cash exchanged and the net book value of Vermillion. These amounts are not reflected in Duke Energy’s Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows or Consolidated Statements of Equity as the transaction is eliminated in consolidation.

126


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Proceeds from WVPA are included in Net proceeds from the sales of other assets on Duke Energy Ohio’s Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows and Net proceeds from the sales of equity investments and other assets, and sales of and collections on notes receivable on Duke Energy’s Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows. The sale of the proportionate share of Vermillion to WVPA did not result in a significant gain or loss upon close of the transaction.
Sales Of Other Assets
During 2012, Duke Energy received proceeds of $187 million from the sale of non-core business assets within the Commercial Power segment for which no material gain or loss was recognized.
3. BUSINESS SEGMENTS
Duke Energy evaluates segment performance based on segment income. Segment income is defined as income from continuing operations net of income attributable to noncontrolling interests. Segment income, as discussed below, includes intercompany revenues and expenses that are eliminated in the Consolidated Financial Statements. Certain governance costs are allocated to each segment. In addition, direct interest expense and income taxes are included in segment income.
Operating segments are determined based on information used by the chief operating decision maker in deciding how to allocate resources and evaluate the performance.
Products and services are sold between affiliate companies and reportable segments of Duke Energy at cost. Segment assets as presented in the tables that follow exclude all intercompany assets.
Duke Energy
Duke Energy has the following reportable operating segments: Regulated Utilities, International Energy and Commercial Power.
Regulated Utilities conducts operations primarily through Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Florida, Duke Energy Indiana, and the regulated transmission and distribution operations of Duke Energy Ohio. These electric and natural gas operations are subject to the rules and regulations of the FERC, NCUC, PSCSC, FPSC, PUCO, IURC and KPSC. Substantially all of Regulated Utilities’ operations are regulated and, accordingly, these operations qualify for regulatory accounting treatment.
International Energy principally operates and manages power generation facilities and engages in sales and marketing of electric power, natural gas and natural gas liquids outside the U.S. Its activities principally target power generation in Latin America. Additionally, International Energy owns a 25 percent interest in National Methanol Company (NMC), a large regional producer of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) located in Saudi Arabia. The investment in NMC is accounted for under the equity method of accounting.
Commercial Power builds, develops and operates renewable generation and energy transmission projects throughout the continental U.S. As discussed in Note 2, Duke Energy entered into an agreement to sell Commercial Power's nonregulated Midwest generation business to Dynegy in a transaction that is expected to close during the second quarter of 2015. As a result of this divestiture, the results of operations of the nonregulated Midwest generation business have been reclassified to Discontinued Operations on the Consolidated Statements of Operations. Certain costs such as interest and general and administrative expenses previously allocated to the Disposal Group were not reclassified to discontinued operations. 

127


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

The remainder of Duke Energy’s operations is presented as Other. While it is not an operating segment, Other primarily includes unallocated corporate interest expense, certain unallocated corporate costs, Bison Insurance Company Limited (Bison), Duke Energy’s wholly owned, captive insurance subsidiary, and contributions to the Duke Energy Foundation. On December 31, 2013, Duke Energy sold its interest in DukeNet Communications Holdings, LLC (DukeNet) to Time Warner Cable, Inc.
 Year Ended December 31, 2014
(in millions)Regulated Utilities
 International Energy
 Commercial Power
 Total Reportable Segments
 Other
 Eliminations
 Total
Unaffiliated Revenues$22,228
 $1,417
 $255
 $23,900
 $25
 $
 $23,925
Intersegment Revenues43
 
 
 43
 80
 (123) 
Total Revenues$22,271
 $1,417
 $255
 $23,943
 $105
 $(123) $23,925
Interest Expense$1,093
 $93
 $58
 $1,244
 $400
 $(22) $1,622
Depreciation and amortization2,759
 97
 92
 2,948
 118
 
 3,066
Equity in earnings of unconsolidated affiliates(3) 120
 10
 127
 3
 
 130
Income tax expense (benefit)(a)
1,628
 449
 (171) 1,906
 (237) 
 1,669
Segment income(b)(c)(d)
2,795
 55
 (55) 2,795
 (334) (10) 2,451
Add back noncontrolling interest component  
   
   
   
   
   
 14
Loss from discontinued operations, net of tax  
   
   
   
   
   
 (576)
Net income  
   
   
   
   
   
 $1,889
Capital investments expenditures and acquisitions$4,744
 $67
 $555
 $5,366
 $162
 $
 $5,528
Segment Assets106,657
 5,132
 6,278
 118,067
 2,453
 189
 120,709
(a)International Energy includes a tax adjustment of $373 million related to deferred tax impact resulting from the decision to repatriate all cumulative historical undistributed foreign earnings. See Note 22 for additional information.
(b)Commercial Power recorded a pretax impairment charge of $94 million related to OVEC. See Note 11 for additional information.
(c)Other includes costs to achieve the Progress Energy merger. See Notes 2 and 25 for additional information about the merger and related costs.
(d)Regulated Utilities includes an increase in the litigation reserve related to the criminal investigation of the Dan River coal ash spill. See Note 5 for additional information.
 Year Ended December 31, 2013
(in millions)Regulated Utilities
 International Energy
 Commercial Power
 Total Reportable Segments
 Other
 Eliminations
 Total
Unaffiliated Revenues(a)(b)(c)
$20,871
 $1,546
 $254
 $22,671
 $85
 $
 $22,756
Intersegment Revenues39
 
 6
 45
 90
 (135) 
Total Revenues$20,910
 $1,546
 $260
 $22,716
 $175
 $(135) $22,756
Interest Expense$986
 $86
 $61
 $1,133
 $416
 $(6) $1,543
Depreciation and amortization2,323
 100
 110
 2,533
 135
 
 2,668
Equity in earnings of unconsolidated affiliates(1) 110
 7
 116
 6
 
 122
Income tax expense (benefit)1,522
 166
 (148) 1,540
 (335) 
 1,205
Segment income (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)
2,504
 408
 (88) 2,824
 (238) (12) 2,574
Add back noncontrolling interest component  
   
   
   
   
   
 16
Income from discontinued operations, net of tax  
   
   
   
   
   
 86
Net income  
   
   
   
   
   
 $2,676
Capital investments expenditures and acquisitions$5,049
 $67
 $268
 $5,384
 $223
 $
 $5,607
Segment Assets99,884
  4,998
 6,955
 111,837
 2,754
 188
 114,779

128


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

(a)In May 2013, the PUCO approved a Duke Energy Ohio settlement agreement that provides for a net annual increase in electric distribution revenues beginning in May 2013. This rate increase impacts Regulated Utilities. See Note 4 for additional information.
(b)In June 2013, NCUC approved a Duke Energy Progress settlement agreement that included an increase in rates in the first year beginning in June 2013. This rate increase impacts Regulated Utilities. See Note 4 for additional information.
(c)In September 2013, Duke Energy Carolinas implemented revised customer rates approved by the NCUC and the PSCSC. These rate increases impact Regulated Utilities. See Note 4 for additional information.
(d)Regulated Utilities recorded an impairment charge related to Duke Energy Florida's Crystal River Unit 3. See Note 4 for additional information.
(e)Regulated Utilities recorded an impairment charge related to the letter Duke Energy Progress filed with the NRC requesting the NRC to suspend its review activities associated with the combined construction and operating license (COL) at the Harris site. Regulated Utilities also recorded an impairment charge related to the write-off of the wholesale portion of the Levy investments at Duke Energy Florida in accordance with the 2013 Settlement. See Note 4 for additional information.
(f)Other includes costs to achieve the Progress Energy merger. See Notes 2 and 25 for additional information about the merger and related costs.
(g)Other includes gain from the sale of Duke Energy's ownership interest in DukeNet. See Note 12 for additional information on the sale of DukeNet.
 Year Ended December 31, 2012
(in millions)Regulated Utilities
 International Energy
 Commercial Power
 Reportable Segments
 Other
 Eliminations
 Total
Unaffiliated Revenues$16,042
 $1,549
 $299
 $17,890
 $22
 $
 $17,912
Intersegment Revenues38
  
 8
 46
 62
 (108) 
Total Revenues$16,080
 $1,549
 $307
 $17,936
 $84
 $(108) $17,912
Interest Expense$806
 $77
 $63
 $946
 $298
 $
 $1,244
Depreciation and amortization1,827
 99
 85
 2,011
 134
 
 2,145
Equity in earnings of unconsolidated affiliates(5) 134
 14
 143
 5
 
 148
Income tax expense (benefit)942
 149
 (82) 1,009
 (386) 
 623
Segment income (a)(b)
1,744
 439
 (59) 2,124
 (523) (8) 1,593
Add back noncontrolling interest component  
   
   
   
   
   
 18
Income from discontinued operations, net of tax  
   
   
   
   
   
 171
Net income  
   
   
   
   
   
 $1,782
Capital investments expenditures and acquisitions$4,220
 $551
 $1,038
 $5,809
 $149
 $
 $5,958
Segment Assets98,162
  5,406
 6,992
 110,560
 3,126
 170
 113,856
(a)Regulated Utilities recorded charges related to Duke Energy Indiana's Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle
(IGCC) project. See Note 4 for additional information about these charges. Regulated Utilities also recorded the reversal of expenses of $60 million, net of tax, related to a prior year Voluntary Opportunity Plan in accordance with Duke Energy Carolinas' 2011 rate case. See Note 19 for additional information about these expenses.
(b)Other includes costs to achieve the Progress Energy merger. See Notes 2 and 25 for additional information about the merger and related costs.

Geographical Information
(in millions)U.S.
 
Latin America(a)

 Consolidated
2014        
Consolidated revenues$22,508
 $1,417
 $23,925
Consolidated long-lived assets80,709
 2,458
 83,167
2013        
Consolidated revenues$21,211
 $1,545
 $22,756
Consolidated long-lived assets78,581
 2,781
 81,362
2012        
Consolidated revenues$16,366
 $1,546
 $17,912
Consolidated long-lived assets79,144
 2,467
 81,611

129


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

(a)Change in amounts of long-lived assets in Latin America includes foreign currency translation adjustments on property, plant and equipment and other long-lived asset balances.
Products and Services
(in millions)Retail Electric
 Wholesale Electric
 Retail Natural Gas
 Wholesale Natural Gas
 Other
 Total Revenues
2014          
Regulated Utilities$19,007
 $1,879
 $571
 $
 $814
 $22,271
International Energy
 1,326
 
 91
 
 1,417
Commercial Power
 255
 
 
 
 255
Total Reportable Segments$19,007
 $3,460
 $571

$91
 $814
 $23,943
2013          
Regulated Utilities$17,837
 $1,720
 $506
 $
 $847
 $20,910
International Energy
 1,447
 
 99
 
 1,546
Commercial Power
 260
 
 
 
 260
Total Reportable Segments$17,837
 $3,427
 $506

$99
 $847
 $22,716
2012          
Regulated Utilities$13,773
 $1,120
 $470
 $
 $717
 $16,080
International Energy
 1,444
 
 105
 
 1,549
Commercial Power
 307
 
 
 
 307
Total Reportable Segments$13,773
 $2,871
 $470

$105

$717
 $17,936
Duke Energy Ohio
Duke Energy Ohio has two reportable operating segments, Regulated Utilities and Commercial Power.
Regulated Utilities transmits and distributes electricity in portions of Ohio and generates, distributes and sells electricity in portions of Kentucky. Regulated Utilities also transports and sells natural gas in portions of Ohio and northern Kentucky. It conducts operations primarily through Duke Energy Ohio and its wholly owned subsidiary, Duke Energy Kentucky.
As discussed in Note 2, Duke Energy entered into an agreement to sell Commercial Power's nonregulated Midwest generation business to Dynegy in a transaction that is expected to close in the second quarter of 2015. As a result of this divestiture, the results of operations of the nonregulated Midwest generation business have been reclassified to Discontinued Operations on the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income. Amounts remaining in Commercial Power relate to assets not included in the Disposal Group. Certain costs such as interest and general and administrative expenses previously allocated to the Disposal Group were not reclassified to discontinued operations.
The remainder of Duke Energy Ohio’s operations is presented as Other. While it is not considered an operating segment, Other primarily includes certain governance costs allocated by its parent, Duke Energy. See Note 13 for additional information. All of Duke Energy Ohio’s revenues are generated domestically and its long-lived assets are all in the U.S.
  Year Ended December 31, 2014
(in millions)  
Regulated Utilities
 Commercial Power
 Total Reportable Segments
 Other
 Eliminations
 Total
Unaffiliated revenues$1,894
 $19
 $1,913
 $
 $
 $1,913
Intersegment revenues  1
 
 1
 
 (1) 
Total revenues$1,895
 $19
 $1,914
 $
 $(1) $1,913
Interest expense  $81
 $5
 $86
 $
 $
 $86
Depreciation and amortization  211
 2
 213
 1
 
 214
Income tax expense (benefit)  117
 (67) 50
 (7) 
 43
Segment income (loss)(a)
202
 (121) 81
 (13) 
 68
Income from discontinued operations, net of tax          (563)
Net loss

 

 

 

   $(495)
Capital expenditures  $300
 $22
 $322
 $
 $
 $322
Segment assets  6,908
 3,187
 10,095
 134
 (230) 9,999
(a)Commercial Power recorded a pretax impairment charge of $94 million related to OVEC. See Note 11 for additional information.

130


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

 Year Ended December 31, 2013
(in millions)  Regulated Utilities
 Commercial Power
 Total Reportable Segments
 Other
 Eliminations
 Total
Unaffiliated revenues$1,765
 $40
 $1,805
 $
 $
 $1,805
Total revenues$1,765
 $40
 $1,805
 $
 $
 $1,805
Interest expense  $74
 $
 $74
 $
 $
 $74
Depreciation and amortization  200
 13
 213
 
 
 213
Income tax expense (benefit)  91
 (36) 55
 (12) 
 43
Segment income (loss)151
 (65) 86
 (19) 
 67
Income from discontinued operations, net of tax          35
Net income

 

 

 

   $102
Capital expenditures  $375
 $58
 $433
 $
 $
 $433
Segment assets  6,649
 4,170
 10,819
 99
 (155) 10,763
 Year Ended December 31, 2012
(in millions)  Regulated Utilities
 Commercial Power
 Total Reportable Segments
 Other
 Eliminations
 Total
Unaffiliated revenues$1,745
 $75
 $1,820
 $
 $
 $1,820
Intersegment revenues  1
 1
 2
 
 (2) 
Total revenues$1,746
 $76
 $1,822
 $
 $(2) $1,820
Interest expense  $61
 $28
 $89
 $
 $
 $89
Depreciation and amortization  179
 16
 195
 
 
 195
Income tax expense (benefit)  91
 (40) 51
 (18) 
 33
Segment income (loss)159
 (80) 79
 (34) 
 45
Income from discontinued operations, net of tax          130
Net income

 

 

 

   $175
Capital expenditures  $427
 $87
 $514
 $
 $
 $514
Segment assets  6,434
 4,175
 10,609
 117
 (166) 10,560
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, PROGRESS ENERGY, DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA AND PROCEDURESDUKE ENERGY INDIANA
Duke Energy Carolinas, Progress Energy, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Florida and Duke Energy Indiana each have one reportable operating segment, Regulated Utility, which generates, transmits, distributes and sells electricity. The remainder of each company’s operations is classified as Other. While not considered a reportable segment for any of these companies, Other consists of certain unallocated corporate costs. Other for Progress Energy also includes interest expense on corporate debt instruments of $241 million, $300 million and $304 million for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012. The following table summarizes the net loss for Other for each of these entities.
  Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2014
 2013
 2012
Duke Energy Carolinas$(79) $(97) $(169)
Progress Energy(190) (241) (379)
Duke Energy Progress(31) (46) (139)
Duke Energy Florida(19) (24) (58)
Duke Energy Indiana(11) (16) (27)
Duke Energy Progress earned approximately 11 percent of its consolidated operating revenues from North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation (NCEMC) in 2014. These revenues relate to wholesale contracts and transmission revenues. The respective Regulated Utility and Regulated Utilities operating segments own substantially all of Duke Energy Carolinas’, Progress Energy’s, Duke Energy Progress’, Duke Energy Florida’s and Duke Energy Indiana’s assets at December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012.

131


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

4. 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, 2014
(in millions)Duke Energy
 Duke Energy Carolinas
 Progress Energy
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 Duke Energy Ohio
 Duke Energy Indiana
Regulatory Assets             
Asset retirement obligations$3,017
 $907
 $1,882
 $1,584
 $298
 $
 $
Accrued pension and OPEB2,015
 412
 812
 354
 458
 132
 217
Retired generation facilities1,659
 58
 1,545
 152
 1,393
 
 56
Debt fair value adjustment1,305
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net regulatory asset related to income taxes1,144
 614
 354
 141
 213
 64
 111
Hedge costs and other deferrals628
 103
 490
 217
 273
 7
 28
Demand side management (DSM)/Energy efficiency (EE)330
 106
 203
 193
 10
 21
 
Grid Modernization76
 
 
 
 
 76
 
Vacation accrual213
 86
 46
 46
 
 6
 12
Deferred fuel 246
 50
 182
 138
 44
 9
 5
Nuclear deferral296
 141
 155
 43
 112
 
 
Post-in-service carrying costs and deferred operating expenses494
 124
 121
 28
 93
 21
 228
Gasification services agreement buyout55
 
 
 
 
 
 55
Transmission expansion obligation70
 
 
 
 
 74
 
Manufactured gas plant (MGP)115
 
 
 
 
 115
 
Other494
 263
 109
 66
 42
 36
 66
Total regulatory assets12,157
 2,864
 5,899
 2,962
 2,936
 561
 778
Less: current portion1,115
 399
 491
 287
 203
 49
 93
Total non-current regulatory assets$11,042
 $2,465
 $5,408
 $2,675
 $2,733
 $512
 $685
 December 31, 2014
(in millions)Duke Energy
 Duke Energy Carolinas
 Progress Energy
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 Duke Energy Ohio
 Duke Energy Indiana
Regulatory Liabilities  
                    
Costs of removal   $5,221
 $2,420
 $1,975
 $1,692
 $283
 $222
 $613
Amounts to be refunded to customers  166
 
 70
 
 70
 
 96
Storm reserve  150
 25
 125
 
 125
 
 
Accrued pension and OPEB  379
 76
 121
 61
 60
 19
 91
Deferred fuel  37
 6
 23
 23
 
 
 8
Other  444
 217
 171
 127
 44
 10
 42
Total regulatory liabilities  
6,397
 2,744
 2,485
 1,903
 582
 251
 850
Less: current portion  
204
 34
 106
 71
 35
 10
 54
Total non-current regulatory liabilities  
$6,193
 $2,710
 $2,379
 $1,832
 $547
 $241
 $796

132


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

  December 31, 2013
(in millions)  Duke Energy
 Duke Energy Carolinas
 Progress Energy
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 Duke Energy Ohio
 Duke Energy Indiana
Regulatory Assets  
                    
Asset retirement obligations  $1,608
 $123
 786
 $389
 $397
 $
 $
Accrued pension and OPEB  1,723
 347
 750
 269
 438
 120
 219
Retired generation facilities  1,748
 68
 1,619
 241
 1,378
 
 61
Debt fair value adjustment  1,338
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net regulatory asset related to income taxes  1,115
 555
 331
 113
 218
 72
 157
Hedge costs and other deferrals  450
 98
 318
 165
 153
 5
 29
DSM/EE  306
 140
 152
 140
 12
 14
 
Grid Modernization65
 
 
 
 
 65
 
Vacation accrual  210
 82
 55
 50
 
 7
 13
Deferred fuel  94
 
 37
 6
 31
 14
 43
Nuclear deferral  262
 40
 222
 77
 145
 
 
Post-in-service carrying costs and deferred operating expenses  459
 150
 137
 19
 118
 21
 151
Gasification services agreement buyout   75
 
 
 
 
 
 75
Transmission expansion obligation  70
 
 
 
 
 74
 
MGP   90
 
 
 
 
 90
 
Other  473
 219
 101
 42
 60
 46
 87
Total regulatory assets  10,086
 1,822
 4,508
 1,511
 2,950
 528
 835
Less: current portion  895
 295
 353
 127
 221
 57
 118
Total non-current regulatory assets  $9,191
 $1,527
 $4,155
 $1,384
 $2,729
 $471
 $717
  December 31, 2013
(in millions)  Duke Energy
 Duke Energy Carolinas
 Progress Energy
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 Duke Energy Ohio
 Duke Energy Indiana
Regulatory Liabilities  
                    
Costs of removal  $5,308
 $2,423
 $2,008
 $1,637
 $371
 $241
 $645
Amounts to be refunded to customers  151
 
 120
 
 120
 
 31
Storm reserve  145
 20
 125
 
 125
 
 
Accrued pension and OPEB  138
 
 
 
 
 21
 77
Deferred fuel   177
 45
 132
 
 132
 
 
Other  346
 153
 114
 99
 14
 27
 45
Total regulatory liabilities  6,265
 2,641
 2,499
 1,736
 762
 289
 798
Less: current portion  316
 65
 207
 63
 144
 27
 16
Total non-current regulatory liabilities  $5,949
 $2,576
 $2,292
 $1,673
 $618
 $262
 $782
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.
Asset retirement obligations. Represents legal obligations associated with the future retirement of property, plant and equipment. Asset retirement obligations relate primarily to decommissioning nuclear power facilities and closure of ash basins in North Carolina and South Carolina. No return is currently earned on these balances. 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 2097. The recovery period for costs related to ash basin closures has not yet been determined. See Notes 1 and 9 for additional information.
Accrued pension and OPEB. Accrued pension and OPEB represent regulatory assets and liabilities related to each of the Duke Energy Registrants’ respective shares of unrecognized actuarial gains and losses, unrecognized prior service cost, and unrecognized transition obligation 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, prior service cost, and transition obligations to net periodic benefit costs for pension and OPEB plans. See Note 21 for additional detail.

133


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Retired generation facilities. Duke Energy Florida earns a reduced return on a substantial portion of the amount of regulatory asset associated with the retirement of Crystal River Unit 3 not included in rate base and a full return on a portion of the retired plant currently recovered in the nuclear cost recovery clause (NCRC). Once included in base rates the amount will be amortized over 20 years. Duke Energy Carolinas earns a return on the outstanding retail balance with recovery periods ranging from 5 to 10 years. Duke Energy Progress earns a return on the outstanding balance with recovery over a period of 10 years 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.
Debt fair value adjustment. Purchase accounting adjustment to restate the carrying value of Progress Energy debt to fair value. 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.
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 2027.
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. 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. Recovery period is generally one year for depreciation and operating expenses. Recovery for post-in-service carrying costs are over the life of the assets.
Vacation accrual. Generally recovered within one year.
Deferred fuel. Deferred fuel costs represent certain energy costs that are recoverable or refundable as approved by the applicable regulatory body. Duke Energy Florida amount includes capacity costs. Duke Energy Florida and Duke Energy Ohio earn 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 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 in North Carolina and South Carolina, and Duke Energy Progress in North 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 Levy, currently expected to be recovered in revenues by the end of 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. Duke Energy Florida earns a return at a reduced rate. 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 2081.
Gasification services agreement buyout. The IURC authorized Duke Energy Indiana to recover costs incurred to buyout a gasification services agreement, including carrying costs through 2018.
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 for former MGP sites. In November 2013, the PUCO approved recovery of these costs through 2018. Duke Energy Ohio does not earn a return on these costs. See Note 5 for additional information.
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 refund period is through 2016 for Duke Energy Florida and through 2017 for Duke Energy Indiana.
Storm reserve. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Florida are allowed to petition the PSCSC and FPSC, respectively, to seek recovery of 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 and Duke Energy Indiana 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.

134


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

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, 2014.
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.
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 merger between Duke Energy and Progress Energy to (i) the amount of retained earnings on the day prior to the closing of the merger, 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.
The restrictions discussed above were less than 25 percent of Duke Energy's net assets at December 31, 2014.
Rate Related Information
The NCUC, PSCSC, FPSC, IURC, PUCO 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.
Duke Energy Carolinas
2013 North Carolina Rate Case
On September 24, 2013, the NCUC approved a settlement agreement related to Duke Energy Carolinas’ request for a rate increase with minor modifications. The NCUC Public Staff (Public Staff) was a party to the settlement. The settling parties agreed to a three-year step-in rate increase, with the first two years providing for $204 million, or a 4.5 percent average increase in rates, and the third year providing for rates to be increased by an additional $30 million, or 0.6 percent. The agreement is based upon a return on equity of 10.2 percent and an equity component of the capital structure of 53 percent. The settlement agreement (i) allows for the recognition of nuclear outage expenses over the refueling cycle rather than when the outage occurs, (ii) a $10 million shareholder contribution to agencies that provide energy assistance to low-income customers, and (iii) an annual reduction in the regulatory liability for costs of removal of $30 million for each of the first two years. Duke Energy Carolinas has agreed not to request additional base rate increases to be effective before September 2015. New rates went into effect on September 25, 2013.
On October 23, 2013, the North Carolina Attorney General (NCAG) appealed the rate of return and capital structure approved in the agreement. The NC Waste Awareness and Reduction Network (NC WARN) appealed various matters in the settlement on October 24, 2013. The North Carolina Supreme Court (NCSC) denied a motion to consolidate these appeals with other North Carolina rate case appeals involving Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress on March 13, 2014. Briefing concluded in this matter and oral argument occurred on September 8, 2014. On January 23, 2015, the NCSC affirmed the NCUC's September 24, 2013 order.

135


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

2013 South Carolina Rate Case
On September 11, 2013, the PSCSC approved a settlement agreement related to Duke Energy Carolinas’ request for a rate increase. Parties to the settlement agreement were the Office of Regulatory Staff, Wal-Mart Stores East, LP and Sam’s East, Incorporated, the South Carolina Energy Users Committee, Public Works of the City of Spartanburg, South Carolina and the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce. The parties agreed to a two-year step-in rate increase, with the first year providing for approximately $80 million, or a 5.5 percent average increase in rates, and the second year providing for rates to be increased by an additional $38 million, or 2.6 percent. The settlement agreement is based upon a return on equity of 10.2 percent and a 53 percent equity component of the capital structure. The settlement agreement (i) allows for the recognition of nuclear outage expenses over the refueling cycle rather than when the outage occurs, (ii) approximately $4 million of contributions to agencies that provide energy assistance to low-income customers and for economic development, and (iii) a reduction in the regulatory liability for costs of removal of $45 million for the first year. Duke Energy Carolinas has agreed not to request additional base rate increases to be effective before September 2015. New rates went into effect on September 18, 2013.
2011 North Carolina Rate Case
On January 27, 2012, the NCUC approved a settlement agreement related to Duke Energy Carolinas’ request for a rate increase. On October 23, 2013, the NCUC issued a second order in the case reaffirming the rate of return approved in the settlement agreement, in response to an appeal by the NCAG. On November 21, 2013, the NCAG appealed the NCUC's October 2013 order. On December 19, 2014, the NCSC affirmed the NCUC's October 2013 order concluding the appeal.
William States Lee Combined Cycle Facility
On April 9, 2014, the PSCSC granted Duke Energy Carolinas and 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 its existing William States Lee Generating Station in Anderson, South Carolina. On May 16, 2014, Duke Energy Carolinas announced its intention to begin construction in summer 2015 and estimated 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 and Southern Alliance for Clean Energy jointly filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeals of South Carolina seeking the court's review of the PSCSC's decision. Duke Energy Carolinas' initial brief in support of the PSCSC's order granting the CECPCN was filed on January 12, 2015. 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 a COL for two Westinghouse AP1000 (advanced passive) reactors for the proposed William States Lee III Nuclear Station (Lee Nuclear Station) at a site in Cherokee County, South Carolina. Submitting the COL application did not commit Duke Energy Carolinas to build nuclear units. Through several separate orders, the NCUC and PSCSC concurred with the prudency of Duke Energy Carolinas incurring certain project development and pre-construction costs, although recovery of costs is not guaranteed. Duke Energy Carolinas has incurred approximately $427 million, including AFUDC through December 31, 2014. This amount is included in Net property, plant and equipment on Duke Energy Carolinas’ Consolidated Balance Sheets.
Design changes have been identified in the Westinghouse AP1000 certified design that must be addressed before NRC can complete its review of the Lee Nuclear Station COL application. These design changes set the schedule for completion of the NRC COL application review and issuance of the Lee COL. Receipt of the Lee Nuclear Station COL is currently expected by mid-2016.
Duke Energy Progress
2012 North Carolina Rate Case
On May 30, 2013, the NCUC approved a settlement agreement related to Duke Energy Progress’ request for a rate increase. The Public Staff was a party to the settlement agreement. The settling parties agreed to a two-year step-in rate increase, with the first year providing for a $147 million, or a 4.5 percent average increase in rates, and the second year providing for rates to be increased by an additional $31 million, or a 1.0 percent average increase in rates. The agreement is based upon a return on equity of 10.2 percent and an equity component of the capital structure of 53 percent. The settlement agreement (i) allows for the recognition of nuclear outage expenses over the refueling cycle rather than when the outage occurs, (ii) a $20 million shareholder contribution to agencies that provide energy assistance to low-income customers, and (iii) a reduction in the regulatory liability for costs of removal of $20 million for the first year. The initial rate increase went into effect on June 1, 2013 and the step-in rate increase went into effect in June 2013.
On July 1, 2013, the NCAG appealed the NCUC’s approval of the rate of return and capital structure included in the agreement. NC WARN also appealed various matters in the settlement. On August 20, 2014, the NCSC affirmed the NCUC's order approving Duke Energy Progress' rate of return and capital structure concluding the appeal.
L.V. Sutton Combined Cycle Facility
Duke Energy Progress completed construction of a 625 MW combined cycle natural gas-fired generating facility at its existing L.V. Sutton Steam Station (Sutton) in New Hanover County, North Carolina. Sutton began commercial operations in the fourth quarter of 2013.

136


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Shearon Harris Nuclear Station 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. As a result of the decision to suspend the COL applications, during the second quarter of 2013, Duke Energy Progress recorded a pretax impairment charge of $22 million which represented costs associated with the COL, which were not probable of recovery. As of December 31, 2014, approximately $48 million is recorded in Regulatory assets on Duke Energy Progress’ Consolidated Balance Sheets.
Wholesale Depreciation Rates
On April 19, 2013, Duke Energy Progress filed an application with FERC for acceptance of changes to generation depreciation rates and in August 2013 filed for acceptance of additional changes. These changes affect the rates of Duke Energy Progress' wholesale power customers that purchase or will purchase power under formula rates. Certain Duke Energy Progress wholesale customers filed interventions and protests. FERC accepted the depreciation rate changes, subject to refund, and set the matter for settlement and hearing in a consolidated proceeding. FERC further initiated an action with respect to the justness and reasonableness of the proposed rate changes. Settlement was reached in October 2014 for changes to the depreciation rates and conforming changes to the wholesale formula rates. FERC approved the settlement in December 2014. The agreement will have no material or adverse impact to the rates originally proposed by Duke Energy Progress, and Duke Energy Progress will receive cost recovery for early retired plants previously included in the depreciation rates.
Duke Energy Florida
FERC Transmission Return on Equity Complaint
On February 12, 2012, Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. and Florida Municipal Power Agency filed with FERC a complaint against Duke Energy Florida alleging that the current rate of return on equity in Duke Energy Florida's transmission formula rates of 10.8 percent is unjust and unreasonable and should be reduced to 9.02 percent. The complainants further alleged that return on equity adjustments should take effect retroactive to January 1, 2010 under the governing transmission formula rate protocols. On May 13, 2013, the complainants filed a second complaint alleging that the return on equity should be reduced to 8.63 percent or 8.84 percent. On June 19, 2014, FERC issued orders consolidating the two complaints, setting them for settlement and hearing procedures, setting refund effective dates of February 29, 2012 for the first complaint and May 13, 2013 for the second complaint, and setting for settlement and hearing the issue of whether return on equity adjustments should take effect prior to the refund effective date of the first complaint. On August 12, 2014, the complainants filed a third complaint alleging that the return on equity should be 8.69 percent. On December 5, 2014, FERC issued an order consolidating the third complaint with the first two complaints for the purposes of settlement, hearing, and decision, and establishing a refund effective date of August 12, 2014 for the third complaint. The parties are engaged in settlement discussions. Duke Energy Florida cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
FPSC Settlement Agreements
On February 22, 2012, the FPSC approved a settlement agreement (the 2012 Settlement) among Duke Energy Florida, the Florida Office of Public Counsel (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, 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
On February 5, 2013, Duke Energy Florida announced the retirement of Crystal River Unit 3. On February 20, 2013, Duke Energy Florida filed with the NRC a certification of permanent cessation of power operations and permanent removal of fuel from the reactor vessel. In December 2013, and March 2014, Duke Energy Florida filed an updated site-specific decommissioning plan with the NRC and FPSC, respectively. The plan, which was approved by the FPSC in November 2014, included a decommissioning cost estimate of $1,180 million, including amounts applicable to joint owners, under the SAFSTOR option. Duke Energy Florida’s decommissioning study assumes Crystal River Unit 3 will be in SAFSTOR configuration, requiring limited staffing to monitor plant conditions, until the eventual dismantling and decontamination activities to be completed by 2073. This decommissioning approach is currently utilized at a number of retired domestic nuclear power plants and is one of three accepted approaches to decommissioning approved by the NRC.
Duke Energy Florida has reclassified all Crystal River Unit 3 investments, including property, plant and equipment, nuclear fuel, inventory, and other assets, to a regulatory asset. Duke Energy agreed to forgo recovery of $295 million of regulatory assets and an impairment charge was recorded in the second quarter of 2013 for this matter. Duke Energy Florida is allowed to accelerate cash recovery of approximately $130 million of the Crystal River Unit 3 regulatory asset from retail customers from 2014 through 2016 through its fuel clause. Duke Energy Florida will begin recovery of the remaining Crystal River Unit 3 regulatory asset, up to a cap of $1,466 million from retail customers upon the earlier of (i) full recovery of the uncollected Levy investment or (ii) the first billing period of January 2017. Recovery will continue 240 months from inception of collection of the regulatory asset in base rates. The Crystal River Unit 3 base rate component will be adjusted at least every four years.
Included in this recovery, but not subject to the cap, are costs of building an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI). The return rate will be 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 December 2014, the FPSC approved Duke Energy Florida's decision to construct the ISFSI and approved Duke Energy Florida's request to defer amortization of the ISFSI pending resolution of its litigation against the federal government as a result of the Department of Energy's breach of its obligation to accept spent nuclear fuel. The regulatory asset associated with the original power uprate project to increase generating capacity will continue to be recovered through the Nuclear Cost Recovery Clause over an estimated seven-year period that began in 2013.

137


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Through December 31, 2014, Duke Energy Florida deferred $1,377 million for rate recovery related to Crystal River Unit 3, which is subject to the rate recovery cap in the 2013 Settlement. In addition, Duke Energy Florida deferred $260 million for recovery associated with building an ISFSI and the original uprate project, which is not subject to the rate recovery cap discussed above. Duke Energy Florida does not expect the Crystal River Unit 3 costs to exceed the cap.
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 the recovery of the Crystal River Unit 3 regulatory asset beginning no later than 2017 and 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 2012 Settlement provided for a $150 million increase in base revenue effective with the first billing cycle of January 2013. Costs associated with Crystal River Unit 3 investments were removed from retail rate base effective with the first billing cycle of January 2013. Duke Energy Florida is accruing, for future rate-setting purposes, a carrying charge on the Crystal River Unit 3 investment until the Crystal River Unit 3 regulatory asset is recovered in base rates. 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.
Duke Energy Florida agreed to refund $388 million to retail customers through its fuel clause, as required by the 2012 Settlement. At December 31, 2014, $120 million remains to be refunded, of which $50 million credit is recorded in Regulatory assets within Current Assets as an offset to deferred fuel and $70 million is recorded in Regulatory liabilities in Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
Levy
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. Design changes have been identified in the Westinghouse AP1000 certified design that must be addressed before the NRC can complete its review of the Levy COL application. These design changes set the schedule for completion of the NRC COL application review and issuance of the Levy COL. Based on the current review schedule, the Levy COL is currently expected by mid-2016.
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. As of December 31, 2014, Duke Energy Florida has recorded an exit obligation of $25 million 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. In the second quarter of 2013, Duke Energy Florida recorded a pretax charge of $65 million to write off the wholesale portion of Levy investments. This amount is included in Impairment charges on Duke Energy Florida's Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income.
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 five 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, 2014, Duke Energy Florida has a net uncollected investment in Levy of approximately $180 million, including AFUDC. Of this amount, $91 million related to land and the COL is included in Net, property, plant and equipment and will be recovered through base rates and $89 million is included in Regulatory assets within Current Assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets and will be recovered through the NCRC.
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.
New Generation
The 2013 Settlement establishes a recovery mechanism for additional generation needs. This recovery mechanism, the Generation Base Rate Adjustment, allows recovery of prudent costs of these items through an increase in base rates, upon the in-service date of such assets, without a general rate case at a 10.5 percent return on equity.

138


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

On May 27, 2014, Duke Energy Florida petitioned the FPSC for a Determination of Need to (i) construct a 1,640 MW combined cycle natural gas plant in Citrus County, Florida to be in service in 2018 with an estimated cost of $1.5 billion, (ii) construct a 320 MW combustion turbine plant at its existing Suwannee generating facility (Suwannee project) with an estimated cost of $197 million, and (iii) add inlet chilling to its existing Hines Energy Complex (Hines) combined cycle units which will increase the output of those units by 220 MW at an estimated cost of $160 million. These cost estimates include AFUDC. On August 26, 2014, Duke Energy Florida requested the FPSC withdraw consideration for the Suwannee project so that Duke Energy Florida could pursue further negotiations on an alternative power plant acquisition. On October 2, 2014, the FPSC approved the requests for the Citrus County plant and the uprate project at the Hines facility. Additional environmental and governmental approvals will be sought for the Citrus County project. The Hines uprate project is expected to be completed no later than 2017.
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. Closing is subject to the approval of FERC, FPSC and the expiration of the Hart Scott Rodino waiting period and is expected to occur by the first quarter of 2017 upon the expiration of an existing Power Purchase Agreement between Calpine and Duke Energy Florida. On January 30, 2015, Duke Energy Florida filed a petition with the FPSC requesting a determination that the Osprey Plant acquisition or, alternatively, the Suwannee project is the most cost effective generation alternative to meet Duke Energy Florida's remaining need prior to 2018.
Cost of Removal Reserve
The 2012 Settlement and the 2013 Settlement provide Duke Energy Florida the discretion to reduce cost of removal amortization expense for a certain portion of the cost of removal reserve until the earlier of its applicable cost of removal reserve reaches zero or the expiration of the 2013 Settlement. Duke Energy Florida may not reduce amortization expense if the reduction would cause it to exceed the appropriate high point of the return on equity range. Duke Energy Florida recognized a reduction in amortization expense of $114 million, and $178 million for the years ended December 31, 2013, and 2012 respectively. Duke Energy Florida had no cost of removal reserves eligible for amortization to income remaining at December 31, 2013.
Duke Energy Ohio
W.C. Beckjord Fuel Release
On August 18, 2014, approximately 9,000 gallons of fuel oil were inadvertently discharged into the Ohio River during a fuel oil transfer at the W.C. Beckjord generating plant. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) issued a Notice of Violation related to the discharge. Duke Energy Ohio is cooperating with the Ohio EPA, the EPA and the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio, responding to a Request for Information from the EPA. No Notice of Violation has been issued by the EPA and no civil or criminal penalty amount has been established. Total repair and remediation costs related to the release are not expected to be material. Other costs related to the release, including state or federal civil enforcement proceedings, cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.
2014 Electric Security Plan (ESP)
On May 29, 2014, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application for approval of an SSO in the form of an ESP, effective June 1, 2015. The proposed ESP includes a competitive procurement process for SSO load, a distribution capital investment rider, a tracking mechanism for incremental distribution costs caused by major storms, and a cost-based recovery of Duke Energy Ohio’s contractual entitlement in OVEC. The proposed plan also seeks rate design modifications and continuance, revision, or termination of existing riders. An evidentiary hearing in this case concluded in November 2014 and final briefs were submitted in December 2014. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Capacity Rider Filing
On August 29, 2012, Duke Energy Ohio applied to the PUCO for the establishment of a charge for capacity provided pursuant to its obligations as a Fixed Resource Requirement entity. The charge, which was consistent with Ohio’s state compensation mechanism, was estimated to be approximately $729 million, and reflected Duke Energy Ohio’s embedded cost of capacity. On February 13, 2014, the PUCO denied Duke Energy Ohio’s request.
2012 Electric Rate Case
On May 1, 2013, the PUCO approved a settlement agreement between Duke Energy Ohio and all intervening parties (the Electric Settlement) related to Duke Energy Ohio’s electric distribution rate case. The Electric Settlement provides for a net increase in electric distribution revenues of $49 million, or an average increase of 2.9 percent, based upon a return on equity of 9.84 percent. Revised rates were effective in May 2013.
2012 Natural Gas Rate Case
On November 13, 2013, the PUCO issued an order approving a settlement among Duke Energy Ohio, the PUCO Staff and intervening parties (the Gas Settlement). The Gas Settlement provided for (i) no increase in base rates for natural gas distribution service and (ii) a return on equity of 9.84 percent. The Gas Settlement provided for a subsequent hearing on Duke Energy Ohio’s request for rider recovery of environmental remediation costs associated with its former MGP sites. After the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing and briefs, the PUCO authorized Duke Energy Ohio to recover $56 million, excluding carrying costs, of environmental remediation costs. The MGP rider became effective in April 2014 for a five-year period. On March 31, 2014, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application with the PUCO to adjust the MGP rider for investigation and remediation costs incurred in 2013. As of December 31, 2014, Duke Energy Ohio has a balance of $115 million in Regulatory assets in the Consolidated Balance Sheets related to MGP sites which includes the $56 million authorized for recovery in the rate case.

139


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

On May 14, 2014, the Ohio Supreme Court granted certain consumer groups' motion to stay the MGP rider pending their appeals of the PUCO approval of the Gas Settlement and Duke Energy Ohio suspended billing of the MGP rider in June 2014. Amounts collected under the rider prior to suspension were immaterial. The appellants, the PUCO and Duke Energy Ohio all filed briefs addressing the merits of this matter with the Ohio Supreme Court. On July 29, 2014, the Ohio Supreme Court denied Duke Energy Ohio's motion to lift the stay, but required appellants to post a bond. The Ohio Supreme Court also requested briefs on the appropriate amount of the bond. On November 5, 2014, the Ohio Supreme Court ordered the Appellants to post a bond of approximately $2.5 million to continue the stay of the rider. The bond was to be posted within ten days or the stay would be lifted. The Appellants failed to post the required bond and on November 18, 2014, Duke Energy Ohio requested the PUCO to reinstate the MGP rider. The PUCO approved reinstatement of the rider on January 15, 2015 and Duke Energy Ohio began billings of the MGP rider. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of the appeals in this matter.
Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) Realignment
Duke Energy Ohio, including Duke Energy Kentucky, transferred control of its transmission assets from MISO to PJM, effective December 31, 2011.
On December 22, 2010, the KPSC approved Duke Energy Kentucky’s 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.
On May 25, 2011, the PUCO approved a settlement between Duke Energy Ohio, Ohio Energy Group, the Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel and the PUCO Staff related to Duke Energy Ohio’s recovery of certain costs of the 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.
Upon its exit from MISO on December 31, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio recorded a liability for its exit obligation and share of MTEP costs, excluding MVP. This liability was recorded within Other in Current liabilities and Other in Deferred credits and other liabilities on Duke Energy Ohio’s Consolidated Balance Sheets.
The following table provides a reconciliation of the beginning and ending balance of Duke Energy Ohio’s recorded obligations related to its withdrawal from MISO. As of December 31, 2014, $74 million is recorded as a Regulatory asset on Duke Energy Ohio's Consolidated Balance Sheets.
(in millions)December 31, 2013
 Provision / Adjustments
 Cash Reductions
 December 31, 2014
Duke Energy Ohio$95
 $3
 $(4) $94
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. 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 the FERC overturn the ALJ’s decision. After reviewing the initial decision, along with all exceptions and responses filed by the parties, the FERC will issue a final decision. Duke Energy Ohio fully intends to appeal to the federal court of appeals if the FERC affirms the ALJ’s decision. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of these proceedings.
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. The estimated obligation is subject to great uncertainty including the ultimate cost of the projects, the annual costs of operations and maintenance, taxes and return over the project lives, the number of years in service for the projects and the allocation to Duke Energy Ohio.
Any liability related to the MISO MVP matter attributable to the Disposal Group will not be transferred to Dynegy upon closing of the disposal of the Midwest generation business.

140


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

FERC Transmission Return on Equity and MTEP Cost Settlement
On October 14, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky submitted with FERC proposed modifications to the PJM Interconnection Open Access Transmission Tariff pertaining to recovery of the transmission revenue requirement as PJM transmission owners. The filing was made in connection with the Duke Energy Ohio's and Duke Energy Kentucky's move from MISO to PJM effective January 1, 2012. On April 24, 2012, FERC issued an order accepting the proposed filing effective January 1, 2012, except that the order denied a request to recover certain costs associated with the move from MISO to PJM without prejudice to the right to submit another filing seeking such recovery and including certain additional evidence, and set the rate of return on equity of 12.38 percent for settlement and hearing. A February 2013 settlement agreement filed with the FERC was rejected in September 2013. On October 30, 2014, the companies and six PJM transmission customers with load in the Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky zone filed with FERC for approval of another settlement agreement. The principal terms of the settlement agreement are that, effective upon the date of FERC approval, (i) the return on equity will be reduced from 12.38 percent to 11.38 percent and (ii) Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky will recover 30 percent of costs arising from their obligation to pay any portion of the costs of projects included in any MTEP that was approved prior to the date of the Duke Energy Ohio's and Duke Energy Kentucky's integration into PJM. The settlement is pending FERC approval. Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky cannot predict the outcome of this matter
Duke Energy Indiana
Edwardsport IGCC Plant
On November 20, 2007, the IURC granted Duke Energy Indiana a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction of a 618 MW IGCC power plant at Duke Energy Indiana’s existing Edwardsport Generating Station in Knox County, Indiana with a cost estimate of $1.985 billion assuming timely recovery of financing costs related to the project. The Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc., Sierra Club, Inc., Save the Valley, Inc., and Valley Watch, Inc. (collectively, the Joint Intervenors) were intervenors in several matters related to the Edwardsport IGCC Plant.
On December 27, 2012, the IURC approved a settlement agreement (the 2012 Edwardsport settlement) related to the cost increase for the construction of the project, including subdockets before the IURC related to the project. The Office of Utility Consumer Counselor (OUCC), the Duke Energy Indiana Industrial Group and Nucor Steel-Indiana were parties to the settlement. The settlement agreement, as approved, capped costs to be reflected in customer rates at $2.595 billion, including estimated AFUDC through June 30, 2012. Duke Energy Indiana is allowed to recover AFUDC after June 30, 2012, until customer rates are revised, with such recovery decreasing to 85 percent on AFUDC accrued after November 30, 2012.
Over the course of construction of the project to date, Duke Energy Indiana has recorded pretax charges of approximately $897 million related to the project and the settlement agreement discussed above. Of this amount, pretax impairment and other charges of $631 million were recorded during the year ended December 31, 2012. These charges were recorded in Impairment charges and Operations, maintenance and other on Duke Energy Indiana's Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income.
The project was placed in commercial operation in June 2013. Costs for the Edwardsport IGCC plant are recovered from retail electric customers through a tracking mechanism, the IGCC rider. Updates to the IGCC rider are filed semi-annually. An order on the eleventh semi-annual IGCC rider is currently pending. The twelfth and thirteenth semi-annual IGGC riders were combined into one proceeding. In this proceeding, the OUCC, Duke Energy Indiana Industrial Group and Joint Intervenors alleged the Edwardsport IGCC plant was not properly placed in commercial operation in June 2013 and therefore operating and maintenance costs for the time period June 2013 through March 2014 should not be recoverable. The Duke Energy Indiana Industrial Group and Joint Intervenors also argued that the plant's performance was unsatisfactory during the first ten months of operations and recommended cost recovery disallowances. Evidentiary hearings concluded in February 2015 and an order is expected in the second half of 2015.
On March 18, 2014, the Indiana Court of Appeals denied an appeal filed by the Joint Intervenors and affirmed the IURC order approving the 2012 Edwardsport settlement and other related regulatory orders. On June 5, 2014, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the decision on rehearing. The Joint Intervenors requested to seek transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court. On November 7, 2014, the Indiana Supreme Court denied the Joint Intervenors' request to transfer the appeal of these proceedings. The ninth and tenth semi-annual IGCC rider orders have also been appealed. On August 21, 2014, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the IURC order in the tenth IGCC rider proceeding, and on October 29, 2014, denied Joint Intervenors' request for rehearing. The Joint Intervenors have requested a transfer of the matter to the Indiana Supreme Court. On September 8, 2014, the Indiana Court of Appeals remanded the IURC order in the ninth IGCC rider proceeding back to the IURC for further findings concerning approximately $61 million of financing charges Joint Intervenors claimed were caused by construction delay and a ratemaking issue concerning the in-service date determination for tax purposes. On February 25, 2015, the IURC issued an order on remand that upheld its prior order and added additional findings on the two issues as requested by the Indiana Court of Appeals. First, the IURC concluded the schedule delays in the construction of the IGCC plant were not the result of imprudence or unreasonable actions by Duke Energy Indiana and therefore recovery of the financing costs were appropriate. On the second issue, the IURC determined the federal tax in-service determination was to be made by the Internal Revenue Service, not the IURC, and the IURC appropriately reviewed and accepted the impact of such decision on customer rates in this and prior proceedings.
On April 2, 2014, the IURC established a subdocket to Duke Energy Indiana’s current fuel adjustment clause proceeding. In this fuel adjustment subdocket, the IURC intends to review underlying causes for net negative generation amounts at the Edwardsport IGCC plant during the period September through November 2013. Duke Energy Indiana contends the net negative generation is related to the consumption of fuel and auxiliary power when the plant was in start-up or off line. In addition to the OUCC, the Duke Energy Indiana Industrial Group, Nucor Steel-Indiana, Steel Dynamics, Inc., and the Joint Intervenors are parties to the subdocket. The IURC has deferred the fuel adjustment subdocket until resolution of the twelfth and thirteenth semi-annual IGCC rider proceedings. In addition, although the IURC approved fuel adjustment clause recovery for the period December 2013 through March 2014, it determined such fuel costs reasonably related to the operational performance of the Edwardsport IGCC plant shall be subject to refund pending the outcome of the twelfth and thirteenth semi-annual IGCC riders.
Duke Energy Indiana cannot predict the outcome of the fuel adjustment clause proceedings or pending and future IGCC Rider proceedings.

141


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

FERC Transmission Return on Equity Complaint
On November 12, 2013, customer groups filed with FERC a complaint 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 and should be reduced to 9.15 percent. On October 16, 2014, FERC issued an order setting the return on equity issue for settlement and hearing and establishing a refund effective date of November 12, 2013. On November 6, 2014, the MISO transmission owners submitted revisions to the MISO tariff to implement a 0.50 percent adder to the base return on equity based on participation in a RTO. On January 5, 2015, FERC issued an order accepting the adder subject to it being applied to a base return on equity that is shown to be just and reasonable in the pending base return on equity complaint. On January 5, 2015, settlement procedures in the base return on equity proceeding were terminated and a hearing was scheduled for August 17, 2015. On February 12, 2015, certain MISO transmission customers filed with FERC a complaint alleging that the base return on equity should be 8.67 percent and requesting consolidation with the pending base return on equity complaint. Duke Energy Indiana cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Grid Infrastructure Improvement Plan
On August 29, 2014, 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. If approved, 80 percent of the costs will be recovered through a rate rider. The remaining 20 percent are subject to recovery through future rate case proceedings. Hearings were held in January 2015 and Duke Energy Indiana expects a decision in the second quarter of 2015.
Other Regulatory Matters
Atlantic Coast Pipeline
On September 2, 2014, Duke Energy, Dominion Resources (Dominion), Piedmont Natural Gas and AGL Resources announced the formation of a joint venture, Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC, to build and own the proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP), a 550-mile interstate natural gas pipeline. The ACP is designed to meet the needs identified in requests for proposals by Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Piedmont Natural Gas. Dominion will build and operate the ACP and will own 45 percent. Duke Energy will own 40 percent of the pipeline through its Commercial Power segment. The remaining share will be owned by Piedmont Natural Gas and AGL Resources. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress will be customers of the pipeline and enter into 20-year transportation capacity contracts with ACP, 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. The project will require FERC approval, which the joint venture will seek to secure by summer 2016. The estimated in-service date of the pipeline is late 2018.
East Bend Station
On December 30, 2014, Duke Energy Ohio acquired The Dayton Power and Light Company’s 31 percent interest in East Bend Station for approximately $12.4 million. The purchase price has been reflected in the accompanying financial statements with the net purchase amount as an increase to property, plant and equipment in accordance with FERC guidelines. Duke Energy Ohio expects FERC approval to present the property, plant and equipment and accumulated depreciation at The Dayton Power and Light Company's historical cost.
NC WARN FERC Complaint
On December 16, 2014, NC WARN filed a complaint with the FERC against Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress that alleged Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress manipulated the electricity market by constructing costly and unneeded generation facilities leading to unjust and unreasonable rates; Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress failed to comply with Order 1000 by not effectively connecting their transmission systems with neighboring utilities which also have excess capacity; the plans of Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress for unrealistic future growth leads to unnecessary and expensive generating plants; FERC should investigate the practices of Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress and the potential benefits of having them enter into a regional transmission organization; and FERC should force Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress to purchase power from other utilities rather than construct wasteful and redundant power plants. A copy of the complaint was filed with the PSCSC on January 6, 2015. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress have filed a responses requesting dismissal of the complaint with the FERC and the PSCSC. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of these proceedings.
Merger Appeals
On January 9, 2013, the City of Orangeburg and NC WARN appealed the NCUC’s approval of the merger between Duke Energy and Progress Energy. On April 29, 2013, the NCUC granted Duke Energy’s motion to dismiss certain exceptions contained in NC WARN’s appeal.
On March 4, 2014, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion affirming the NCUC’s approval of the merger. On April 8, 2014, NC WARN filed a petition for discretionary review by the North Carolina Supreme Court. On April 21, 2014, Duke Energy and the Public Staff jointly filed their response opposing NC WARN’s petition. The City of Orangeburg did not file a petition for discretionary review. On December 19, 2014, the North Carolina Supreme Court denied NC WARN's petition, concluding the appeal.

142


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

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. Several intervenors filed requests for rehearing challenging various aspects of the FERC approval. On October 29, 2014, FERC denied all of the requests for rehearing.
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. Therefore, Duke Energy Carolinas' and Duke Energy Progress' obligations associated with the Interim FERC Mitigation have terminated. In the second quarter of 2014, Duke Energy Progress recorded an $18 million partial reversal of an impairment recorded in the third quarter of 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, 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. 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. Duke Energy does not expect the costs to comply with this order to be material. FERC also referred Duke Energy’s failure to expressly designate the phase shifter reactivation as a mitigation project in Duke Energy’s original mitigation plan filing in March 2012 to the FERC Office of Enforcement for further inquiry. Duke Energy cannot predict the outcome of this additional inquiry.
Planned and Potential Coal Plant Retirements
The Subsidiary Registrants periodically file Integrated Resource Plans (IRP) with 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, Ohio and Indiana earlier than their current estimated useful lives. These facilities do not have the requisite emission control equipment, primarily to meet EPA regulations recently approved or proposed.
The table below contains the net carrying value of generating facilities planned for early retirement or being evaluated for potential retirement included in Net property, plant and equipment on the Consolidated Balance Sheets, excluding the Duke Energy Carolinas 170 MW Lee Unit 3 which is being converted to gas in 2015.
  December 31, 2014
  Duke Energy
 
Progress Energy(b)

 
Duke Energy Florida(b)

 
Duke Energy Ohio(c)

 
Duke Energy Indiana(d)

Capacity (in MW)  1,704
 873
 873
 163
 668
Remaining net book value (in millions)(a)
$239
 $114
 $114
 $9
 $116
(a)Included in Net property, plant and equipment as of December 31, 2014, on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
(b)Includes Crystal River Units 1 and 2. 
(c)Includes Miami Fort Unit 6 which is expected to be retired by June 1, 2015. 
(d)Includes Wabash River Units 2 through 6. Wabash River Unit 6 is being evaluated for potential conversion to gas. Duke Energy Indiana committed to retire or convert these units by June 2018 in conjunction with a settlement agreement associated with the Edwardsport air permit.
Duke Energy continues to evaluate the potential need to retire these coal-fired generating facilities earlier than the current estimated useful lives, and plans to seek regulatory recovery for amounts that would not be otherwise recovered when any of these assets are retired. However, such recovery, including recovery of carrying costs on remaining book values, could be subject to future regulatory approvals and therefore cannot be assured.
5. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
General Insurance
The Duke Energy Registrants have insurance and reinsurance coverage either directly or through indemnification from Duke Energy’s captive insurance company, Bison, and its affiliates, consistent with companies engaged in similar commercial operations with similar type properties. The Duke Energy Registrants’ coverage includes (i) commercial general liability coverage for liabilities arising to third parties for bodily injury and property damage; (ii) workers’ compensation; (iii) automobile liability coverage; and (iv) property coverage for all real and personal property damage. Real and personal property damage coverage excludes electric transmission and distribution lines, but includes damages arising from boiler and machinery breakdowns, earthquakes, flood damage and extra expense, but not outage or replacement power coverage. All coverage is subject to certain deductibles or retentions, sublimits, exclusions, terms and conditions common for companies with similar types of operations.

143


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

The Duke Energy Registrants self-insure their electric transmission and distribution lines against loss due to storm damage and other natural disasters. As discussed further in Note 4, Duke Energy Florida maintains a storm damage reserve and has a regulatory mechanism to recover the cost of named storms on an expedited basis.
The cost of the Duke Energy Registrants’ coverage can fluctuate year to year reflecting claims history and conditions of the insurance and reinsurance markets.
In the event of a loss, terms and amounts of insurance and reinsurance available might not be adequate to cover claims and other expenses incurred. Uninsured losses and other expenses, to the extent not recovered by other sources, could have a material effect on the Duke Energy Registrants’ results of operations, cash flows or financial position. Each company is responsible to the extent losses may be excluded or exceed limits of the coverage available.
Nuclear Insurance
Duke Energy Carolinas owns and operates the McGuire Nuclear Station (McGuire) and the Oconee Nuclear Station (Oconee) and operates and has a partial ownership interest in the Catawba Nuclear Station (Catawba). McGuire and Catawba each have two reactors. Oconee has three reactors. The other joint owners of Catawba reimburse Duke Energy Carolinas for certain expenses associated with nuclear insurance per the Catawba joint owner agreements.
Duke Energy Progress owns and operates the Robinson Nuclear Station (Robinson) and operates and has a partial ownership interest in the Brunswick and Harris stations. Robinson and Harris each have one reactor. Brunswick has two reactors. The other joint owners of Brunswick and Harris reimburse Duke Energy Progress for certain expenses associated with nuclear insurance per the Brunswick and Harris joint owner agreements.
Duke Energy Florida manages and has a partial ownership interest in Crystal River Unit 3, which has been retired. The other joint owners of Crystal River Unit 3 reimburse Duke Energy Florida for certain expenses associated with nuclear insurance per the Crystal River Unit 3 joint owner agreement.
In the event of a loss, terms and amounts of insurance available might not be adequate to cover property damage and other expenses incurred. Uninsured losses and other expenses, to the extent not recovered by other sources, could have a material effect on Duke Energy Carolinas’, Duke Energy Progress’ and Duke Energy Florida’s results of operations, cash flows or financial position. Each company is responsible to the extent losses may be excluded or exceed limits of the coverage available.
Nuclear Liability Coverage
The Price-Anderson Act requires owners of nuclear reactors to provide for public nuclear liability protection per nuclear incident up to a maximum total financial protection liability. The maximum total financial protection liability, which is currently $13.6 billion, is subject to change every five years for inflation and the number of licensed reactors. Total nuclear liability coverage consists of a combination of private primary nuclear liability insurance coverage and a mandatory industry risk-sharing program to provide for excess nuclear liability coverage above the maximum reasonably available private primary coverage. The United States Congress could impose revenue-raising measures on the nuclear industry to pay claims.
Primary Liability Insurance
Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida have purchased the maximum reasonably available private primary nuclear liability insurance as required by law, which currently is $375 million per station.
Excess Liability Program
This program provides $13.2 billion of coverage per incident through the Price-Anderson Act’s mandatory industry-wide excess secondary financial protection program of risk pooling. This amount is the product of potential cumulative retrospective premium assessments of $127 million times the current 104 licensed commercial nuclear reactors in U.S. Under this program, licensees could be assessed retrospective premiums to compensate for public nuclear liability damages in the event of a nuclear incident at any licensed facility in the U.S. Retrospective premiums may be assessed at a rate not to exceed $19 million per year per licensed reactor for each incident. The assessment may be subject to state premium taxes.
Nuclear Property and Accidental Outage Coverage
Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida are members of Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (NEIL), an industry mutual insurance company, which provides "all risk" property damage, decontamination, and premature decommissioning insurance for each station for losses resulting from damage to its nuclear plants, either due to accidents or acts of terrorism. Additionally, NEIL provides some replacement power cost insurance for each station for losses in the event of a major accidental outage at an insured nuclear station. NEIL requires its members to maintain an investment grade credit rating or to ensure collectability of their annual retrospective premium obligation by providing a financial guarantee, letter of credit, deposit premium or other means of assurance. The companies are required each year to report to the NRC the current levels and sources of insurance that demonstrate it possesses sufficient financial resources to stabilize and decontaminate its reactors and reactor station sites in the event of an accident.
Pursuant to regulations of the NRC, each company’s property damage insurance policies provide that all proceeds from such insurance be applied, first, to place the plant in a safe and stable condition after a qualifying accident, and second, to decontaminate the plant before any proceeds can be used for decommissioning, plant repair or restoration.

144


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Losses resulting from acts of terrorism are covered as common occurrences, such that if terrorist acts occur against one or more commercial nuclear power plants insured by NEIL within a 12-month period, they would be treated as one event and the owners of the plants where the act occurred would share one full limit of liability. The full limit of liability is currently $3.2 billion. NEIL sublimits the total aggregate for all of their policies for non-nuclear terrorist events to approximately $1.83 billion.
Each nuclear facility has accident property damage, decontamination and premature decommissioning liability insurance from NEIL with limits of $1.5 billion, except for Crystal River Unit 3. Crystal River Unit 3’s limit is $1.1 billion and is on an actual cash value basis. NEIL coverage for Crystal River 3 does not include property damage to or resulting from the containment structure except coverage does apply to decontamination and debris removal, if required following an accident, to ensure public health and safety or if property damage results from a terrorism event. All nuclear facilities except for Catawba and Crystal River Unit 3 also share an additional $1.25 billion nuclear accident insurance limit above their dedicated underlying limit. This shared additional excess limit is not subject to reinstatement in the event of a loss. Catawba has a dedicated $1.25 billion of additional nuclear accident insurance limit above its dedicated underlying limit. Catawba and Oconee also have an additional $750 million of non-nuclear accident property damage limit.
NEIL’s Accidental Outage policy provides some replacement power cost insurance for losses in the event of a major accident property damage outage of a nuclear unit. Coverage is provided on a weekly limit basis after a significant waiting period deductible and at 100 percent of the available weekly limits for 52 weeks and 80 percent of the available weekly limits for the next 110 weeks. Coverage is provided until policy aggregate limits are met where the accidental outage policy limit is $490 million for McGuire and Catawba, $381 million for Oconee, $419 million for Brunswick, $384 million for Harris and $329 million for Robinson. NEIL sublimits the accidental outage recovery to the first 104 weeks of coverage not to exceed $328 million from non-nuclear accidental property damage. Coverage amounts decrease in the event more than one unit at a station is out of service due to a common accident.
Potential Retroactive Premium Assessments
In the event of NEIL losses, NEIL’s board of directors may assess member companies retroactive premiums of amounts up to 10 times their annual premiums for up to 6 years after a loss. NEIL has never exercised this assessment. The maximum aggregate annual retrospective premium obligations for Duke Energy Carolinas are $73 million for primary property insurance and $32 million for accidental outage insurance. The maximum aggregate annual retrospective premium obligations Duke Energy Progress are $60 million for primary property insurance and $16 million for accidental outage insurance. Duke Energy Carolinas maintains excess property insurance for Catawba with a maximum assessment of $7 million, and shares with Duke Energy Progress blanket excess property limits across other sites with a combined potential maximum assessment of $17 million. The current potential maximum assessments for Duke Energy Florida are $8 million for primary property insurance. The maximum assessment amounts include 100 percent of Duke Energy Carolinas’, Duke Energy Progress’, and Duke Energy Florida’s potential obligations to NEIL for their share of jointly owned reactors.
ENVIRONMENTAL
Duke Energy is subject to international, federal, state, and local regulations regarding air and water quality, hazardous and solid waste disposal, and other environmental matters. The Subsidiary Registrants are subject to federal, state, and local regulations regarding air and water quality, hazardous and solid waste disposal and other environmental matters. These regulations can be changed from time to time, imposing new obligations on the Duke Energy Registrants.
The following environmental matters impact all of the Duke Energy Registrants.
Remediation Activities
The Duke Energy Registrants are responsible for environmental remediation at various contaminated sites. These include some properties that are part of ongoing operations and sites formerly owned or used by Duke Energy entities. These sites are in various stages of investigation, remediation and monitoring. Managed in conjunction with relevant federal, state and local agencies, activities vary with site conditions and locations, remediation requirements, complexity and sharing of responsibility. If remediation activities involve joint and several liability provisions, strict liability, or cost recovery or contribution actions, the Duke Energy Registrants could potentially be held responsible for contamination caused by other potentially responsible parties, and may also benefit from insurance policies or contractual indemnities that cover some or all cleanup costs. Liabilities are recorded when losses become probable and are reasonably estimable. The total costs that may be incurred cannot be estimated because the extent of environmental impact, allocation among potentially responsible parties, remediation alternatives, and/or regulatory decisions have not yet been determined. Additional costs associated with remediation activities are likely to be incurred in the future and could be significant. Costs are typically expensed as Operation, maintenance and other in the Consolidated Statements of Operations unless regulatory recovery of the costs is deemed probable.

145


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

The following table contains information regarding reserves for probable and estimable costs related to the various environmental sites. These reserves are recorded in Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
(in millions)Duke Energy
 Duke Energy Carolinas
 Progress Energy
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 Duke Energy Ohio
 Duke Energy Indiana
Balance at December 31, 201161
 12
 23
 11
 12
 28
 9
Provisions / adjustments39
 1
 19
 5
 14
 5
 3
Cash reductions(25) (1) (9) (2) (7) (18) (4)
Balance at December 31, 201275
 12
 33
 14
 19
 15
 8
Provisions / adjustments26
 
 4
 (1) 5
 20
 1
Cash reductions(22) (1) (10) (5) (5) (8) (2)
Balance at December 31, 201379
 11
 27
 8
 19
 27
 7
Provisions / adjustments32
 (1) 1
 4
 (3) 28
 4
Cash reductions(14) 
 (11) (7) (4) (1) (1)
Balance at December 31, 201497
 10
 17
 5
 12
 54
 10
Additional losses in excess of recorded reserves that could be incurred for the stages of investigation, remediation and monitoring for environmental sites that have been evaluated at this time are presented in the table below.
(in millions) 
Duke Energy$89
Duke Energy Carolinas25
Progress Energy15
Duke Energy Progress1
Duke Energy Florida14
Duke Energy Ohio42
Duke Energy Indiana7
North Carolina and South Carolina Ash Basins
On February 2, 2014, a break in a 48-inch stormwater pipe beneath an ash basin at Duke Energy Carolinas’ retired Dan River steam station caused a release of ash basin water and ash into the Dan River. On February 8, 2014, a permanent plug was installed in the 48-inch stormwater pipe, stopping the release of materials into the river. Duke Energy Carolinas estimates 30,000 to 39,000 tons of ash and 24 million to 27 million gallons of basin water were released into the river during the incident. Duke Energy Carolinas incurred approximately $24 million of repairs and remediation expense related to this incident during the year ended December 31, 2014. These amounts are recorded in Operations, maintenance and other on the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income. Duke Energy Carolinas will not seek recovery of these costs from customers. In July, Duke Energy completed remediation work identified by the EPA and continues to cooperate with the EPA's civil enforcement process. See the "Litigation" section below for additional information on litigation, investigations, and enforcement actions related to ash basins. Other costs related to the Dan River release, including pending or future state or federal civil enforcement proceedings, future regulatory directives, natural resources damages, additional pending litigation, future claims or litigation, and long-term environmental impact costs cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.
On September 20, 2014, the North Carolina Coal Ash Management Act of 2014 (Coal Ash Act) became law. The Coal Ash Act (i) establishes a Coal Ash Management Commission to oversee handling of coal ash within the state; (ii) prohibits construction of new and expansion of existing ash impoundments and use of existing impoundments at retired facilities, effective October 1, 2014; (iii) requires closure of ash impoundments at Duke Energy Progress' Asheville and Sutton stations and Duke Energy Carolinas' Riverbend and Dan River stations no later than August 1, 2019; (iv) requires dry disposal of fly ash at active plants not retired by December 31, 2018; (v) requires dry disposal of bottom ash at active plants by December 31, 2019, or retirement of active plants; (vi) requires all remaining ash impoundments in North Carolina to be categorized as high-risk, intermediate-risk, or low-risk no later than December 31, 2015 by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) with the method of closure and timing to be based upon the assigned risk, with closure no later than December 31, 2029; (vii) establishes requirements to deal with groundwater and surface water impacts from impoundments and (viii) enhances the level of regulation for structural fills utilizing coal ash. The Coal Ash Act includes a variance procedure for compliance deadlines and modification of requirements regarding structural fills and compliance boundaries. Provisions of the Coal Ash Act prohibit cost recovery for unlawful discharge of ash basin waters occurring after January 1, 2014. The Coal Ash Act included a moratorium for any NCUC ordered rate changes to effectuate the legislation, which ended January 15, 2015. The Coal Ash Act leaves the decision on cost recovery determinations related to closure of coal combustion residuals surface impoundments (ash basins or impoundments) to the normal ratemaking processes before utility regulatory commissions. In November 2014, Duke Energy submitted to DENR site specific coal ash excavation plans for the four high priority stations required to be closed no later than August 1, 2019. These plans and all associated permits must be approved by DENR before any excavation work can begin.
In September 2014, Duke Energy Carolinas executed a consent agreement with the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) requiring the excavation of an inactive ash basin and ash fill area at the W.S. Lee Steam Station. As part of this agreement, in December 2014, Duke Energy Carolinas filed an ash removal plan and schedule with SCDHEC.

146


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress recorded asset retirement obligations at December 31, 2014 based upon the legal obligation for closure of coal ash basins and the disposal of related ash as a result of the Coal Ash Act and the agreement with SCDHEC. Refer to Note 9 for further discussion of the asset retirement obligations recorded at December 31, 2014.
Coal Combustion Residuals
On December 19, 2014, the EPA signed the first federal regulation for the disposal of coal combustion residuals (CCR) from power plants. The federal regulation classifies CCR as nonhazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and applies to all new and existing landfills, new and existing surface impoundments, structural fills and CCR piles. The rule establishes requirements regarding landfill design, structural integrity design and assessment criteria for surface impoundments, groundwater monitoring and protection procedures and other operational and reporting procedures to ensure the safe disposal and management of CCR. In addition to the requirements of the federal CCR regulation, CCR landfills and surface impoundments will continue to be independently regulated by most states. Duke Energy records an asset retirement obligation when it has a legal obligation to incur retirement costs associated with the retirement of a long-lived asset and the obligation can be reasonably estimated. Once the rule is effective in 2015, additional asset retirement obligation amounts will be recorded at the Duke registrants. Cost recovery for future expenditures will be pursued through the normal ratemaking process with state utility commissions, which permit recovery of necessary and prudently incurred costs associated with Duke Energy’s regulated operations. At this time, Duke Energy is evaluating the CCR regulation and developing cost estimates that will largely be dependent upon compliance alternatives selected to meet requirements of the regulations. For further discussion of asset retirement obligations see Note 9.
Litigation
Duke Energy
Ash Basin Shareholder Derivative Litigation
Five shareholder derivative lawsuits have been filed in Delaware Chancery Court relating to the release at Dan River and to the management of Duke Energy’s ash basins. On October 31, 2014, the five lawsuits were consolidated in a single proceeding titled "In Re Duke Energy Corporation Coal Ash Derivative Litigation." On December 2, 2014, plaintiffs filed a Corrected Verified Consolidated Shareholder Derivative Complaint (Consolidated Complaint).
The Consolidated Complaint names as defendants several current and former Duke Energy officers and directors (collectively, the “Duke Energy Defendants”). Duke Energy is named as a nominal defendant.
The Consolidated Complaint alleges the Duke Energy Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the company by failing to adequately oversee Duke Energy’s ash basins and that these breaches of fiduciary duty may have contributed to the incident at Dan River and continued thereafter. The lawsuit also asserts claims against the Duke Energy Defendants for corporate waste (relating to the money Duke Energy has spent and will spend as a result of the fines, penalties, and coal ash removal) and unjust enrichment (relating to the compensation and director remuneration that was received despite these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty). The lawsuit seeks both injunctive relief against Duke Energy and restitution from the Duke Energy Defendants. On January 21, 2015, the Duke Energy Defendants filed a Motion to Stay and an alternative Motion to Dismiss.
On May 28, 2014, Duke Energy received a shareholder litigation demand letter sent on behalf of shareholder Mitchell Pinsly. The letter alleges that the members of the Board of Directors and certain officers breached their fiduciary duties by allowing the company to illegally dispose of and store coal ash pollutants. The letter demands that the Board of Directors take action to recover damages associated with those breaches of fiduciary duty; otherwise, the attorney will file a shareholder derivative action. By letter dated July 3, 2014, counsel for the shareholder was informed that the Board of Directors appointed a Demand Review Committee to evaluate the allegations in the Demand Letter.
It is not possible to predict whether Duke Energy will incur any liability or to estimate the damages, if any, it might incur in connection with these matters.
Progress Energy Merger Shareholder Litigation
Duke Energy, the eleven members of the Board of Directors who were also members of the pre-merger Board of Directors (Legacy Duke Energy Directors) and certain Duke Energy officers are defendants in a purported securities class action lawsuit (Nieman v. Duke Energy Corporation, et al). This lawsuit consolidates three lawsuits originally filed in July 2012, and is pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The plaintiffs allege federal Securities Act and Exchange Act claims based on allegations of 1934, PEC carried out an evaluation,materially false and misleading representations and omissions in the Registration Statement filed on July 7, 2011, and purportedly incorporated into other documents, all in connection with the participation of its management, including PEC’spost-merger change in Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer,(CEO). On August 15, 2014, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation for an amount which, net of the effectivenessexpected proceeds of PEC’s disclosure controlsinsurance policies, is not anticipated to have a material effect on the results of operations, cash flows or financial position of Duke Energy. On December 2, 2014, the parties executed a Memorandum of Understanding relating to the settlement which will be submitted to the court for approval.
On May 31, 2013, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated four shareholder derivative lawsuits filed in 2012. The Court also appointed a lead plaintiff and procedures (as definedcounsel for plaintiffs and designated the case as In Re Duke Energy Corporation Derivative Litigation. The lawsuit names as defendants the Legacy Duke Energy Directors. Duke Energy is named as a nominal defendant. The case alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duties of loyalty and care in connection with the post-merger change in CEO. The case is stayed pending resolution of the Nieman v. Duke Energy Corporation, et al. case in North Carolina.

147


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Two shareholder Derivative Complaints, filed in 2012 in federal district court in Delaware, were consolidated as Tansey v. Rogers, et al. The case alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty and waste of corporate assets, as well as claims under Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Duke Energy is named as a nominal defendant. Pursuant to an Order entered on September 2, 2014, the court administratively closed this consolidated derivative action. The parties filed a status report with the court on December 1, 2014, and will continue to do so every six months thereafter until the Nieman v. Duke Energy Corporation, et al. case in North Carolina has been resolved.
On August 3, 2012, Duke Energy was served with a shareholder Derivative Complaint, which was transferred to the North Carolina Business Court (Krieger v. Johnson, et al.). The lawsuit names as defendants William D. Johnson and the Legacy Duke Energy Directors. Duke Energy is named as a nominal defendant. The lawsuit alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty in granting excessive compensation to Mr. Johnson. On April 30, 2014, the North Carolina Business Court granted the Legacy Duke Energy Directors’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
It is not possible to estimate the maximum exposure of loss that may occur in connection with these lawsuits.
Price Reporting Cases
A total of five lawsuits were filed against Duke Energy affiliates and other energy companies and remain pending in a consolidated, single federal court proceeding in Nevada. Each of these lawsuits contain similar claims that defendants allegedly manipulated natural gas markets by various means, including providing false information to natural gas trade publications and entering into unlawful arrangements and agreements in violation of the antitrust laws of the respective states. Plaintiffs seek damages in unspecified amounts.
On July 18, 2011, the judge granted a defendant’s motion for summary judgment in two of the remaining five cases to which Duke Energy affiliates are a party. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit subsequently reversed the lower court’s decision. On July 1, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the defendants', including Duke Energy, petition for certiorari. Oral argument was held on January 12, 2015.
It is not possible to predict whether Duke Energy will incur any liability or to estimate the damages, if any, it might incur in connection with the remaining matters. However, based on Duke Energy’s past experiences with similar cases of this nature, it does not believe its exposure under these remaining matters is material.
Brazil Expansion Lawsuit
On August 9, 2011, the State of São Paulo sued Duke Energy International Geracao Paranapenema S.A. (DEIGP) in Brazilian state court. The lawsuit claims DEIGP is under a continuing obligation to expand installed generation capacity in the State of São Paulo by 15 percent pursuant to a stock purchase agreement under which DEIGP purchased generation assets from the state. On August 10, 2011, a judge granted an ex parte injunction ordering DEIGP to present a detailed expansion plan in satisfaction of the 15 percent obligation. DEIGP has previously taken a position the expansion obligation is no longer viable given changes that have occurred in the electric energy sector since privatization. DEIGP submitted its proposed expansion plan on November 11, 2011, but reserved objections regarding enforceability. It is not possible to predict whether Duke Energy will incur any liability or to estimate the damages, if any, it might incur in connection with this matter.
Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress
DENR State Enforcement Actions
In the first quarter of 2013, environmental organizations sent notices of intent to sue Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress related to alleged groundwater violations and Clean Water Act (CWA) violations from coal ash basins at two of their coal-fired power plants in North Carolina. DENR filed enforcement actions against Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress alleging violations of water discharge permits and North Carolina groundwater standards. The case against Duke Energy Carolinas was filed in Mecklenburg County Superior Court. The case against Duke Energy Progress was filed in Wake County Superior Court. The cases are being heard before a single judge.
On October 4, 2013, Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and DENR negotiated a proposed consent order covering these two plants. The consent order would have assessed civil penalties and imposed a compliance schedule requiring Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress to undertake monitoring and data collection activities toward making appropriate corrective action to address any substantiated violations. In light of the coal ash release that occurred at Dan River on February 2, 2014, on March 21, 2014, DENR withdrew its support of the consent orders and requested that the court proceed with the litigation.
On August 16, 2013, DENR filed an enforcement action against Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress related to their remaining plants in North Carolina, alleging violations of the CWA and violations of the North Carolina groundwater standards. The case against Duke Energy Carolinas was filed in Mecklenburg County Superior Court. The case against Duke Energy Progress was filed in Wake County Superior Court. Both of these cases have been assigned to the judge handling the enforcement actions discussed above. Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC), on behalf of several environmental groups, has been permitted to intervene in these cases.
It is not possible to predict any liability or estimate any damages Duke Energy Carolinas or Duke Energy Progress might incur in connection with these matters.
North Carolina Declaratory Judgment Action
On October 10, 2012, the SELC, on behalf of the same environmental groups that were permitted to challenge the consent decrees discussed above, filed a petition with the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC) asking for a declaratory ruling seeking to clarify the application of the state’s groundwater protection rules to coal ash basins. The petition sought to change the interpretation of regulations that permitted DENR to assess the extent, cause and significance of any groundwater contamination before ordering action to eliminate the source of contamination, among other issues. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress were both permitted to intervene in the matter. On December 3, 2012, the EMC affirmed this interpretation of the regulations.

148


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

On March 6, 2014, the North Carolina State Court judge overturned the ruling of the EMC holding that in the case of groundwater contamination, DENR was required to issue an order to immediately eliminate the source of the contamination before an assessment of the nature, significance and extent of the contamination or the continuing damage to the groundwater was conducted. Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress, and the EMC appealed the ruling in April 2014. On May 16, 2014, the North Carolina Court of Appeals denied a petition to stay the case during the appeal. On October 10, 2014, the parties were notified the case has been transferred to the NCSC. Oral argument has been scheduled for March 16, 2015.
Federal Citizens Suits
There are currently five cases filed in various North Carolina federal courts contending that the DENR state enforcement actions discussed above do not adequately address the issues raised in the notices of intent to sue related to the Riverbend, Sutton, Cape Fear, H.F. Lee and Buck plants.
On June 11, 2013, Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation, Inc. (Catawba Riverkeeper) filed a separate action in the United States Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The lawsuit contends the state enforcement action discussed above does not adequately address issues raised in Catawba Riverkeeper’s notice of intent to sue relating to the Riverbend plant. On April 11, 2014, the Court denied Catawba Riverkeeper’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that plaintiff’s case be dismissed as well as Duke Energy Carolinas’ motion to dismiss. The Court allowed limited discovery, after which Duke Energy Carolinas may file any renewed motions to dismiss.
On September 12, 2013, Cape Fear River Watch, Inc., Sierra Club, and Waterkeeper Alliance filed a citizen suit in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The lawsuit alleges unpermitted discharges to surface water and groundwater violations at the Sutton plant. On June 9, 2014, the court granted Duke Energy Progress' request to dismiss the groundwater claims but rejected its request to dismiss the surface water claims. In response to a motion filed by the SELC, on August 1, 2014, the court modified the original June 9th order to dismiss only the plaintiff's federal law claim based on hydrologic connections at Sutton Lake. The claims related to the alleged state court violations of the permits are back in the case.
On September 3, 2014, three cases were filed by various environmental groups: (i) a citizen suit in the United States Court for the Middle District of North Carolina alleging unpermitted discharges to surface water and groundwater violations at the Cape Fear plant; (ii) a citizen suit in the United States Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina alleging unpermitted discharges to surface water and groundwater violations at the H.F. Lee plant; and (iii) a citizen suit in the United States Court for the Middle District of North Carolina alleging unpermitted discharges to surface water and groundwater violations at the Buck plant. On January 5, 2015, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion to Stay the proceeding relating to the Buck plant.
It is not possible to predict whether Duke Energy Carolinas or Duke Energy Progress will incur any liability or to estimate the damages, if any, they might incur in connection with these matters.
North Carolina Ash Basin Grand Jury Investigation
As a result of the Dan River ash basin water release discussed above, DENR issued a Notice of Violation and Recommendation of Assessment of Civil Penalties with respect to this matter on February 28, 2014, which the company responded to on March 13, 2014. Duke Energy and certain Duke Energy employees received subpoenas issued by the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina in connection with a criminal investigation related to the release and all 14 of the North Carolina facilities with ash basins and the nature of Duke Energy's contacts with DENR with respect to those facilities. This is a multidistrict investigation that also involves state law enforcement authorities.
On February 20, 2015, Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Business Services LLC (DEBS), a wholly owned subsidiary of Duke Energy, each entered into a Memorandum of Plea Agreement (Plea Agreements) in connection with the investigation initiated by the United States Department of Justice Environmental Crimes Section and the United States Attorneys for the Eastern District of North Carolina, the Middle District of North Carolina and the Western District of North Carolina (collectively, USDOJ). The Plea Agreements are subject to the approval of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina and, if approved, will end the grand jury investigation related to the Dan River ash basin release and the management of coal ash basins at 14 plants in North Carolina with coal ash basins, as discussed above.
Under the Plea Agreements, the USDOJ charged DEBS and Duke Energy Progress with four misdemeanor CWA violations related to violations at Duke Energy Progress’ H.F. Lee Steam Electric Plant, Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant and Asheville Steam Electric Generating Plant. The USDOJ charged Duke Energy Carolinas and DEBS with five misdemeanor CWA violations related to violations at Duke Energy Carolinas’ Dan River Steam Station and Riverbend Steam Station. DEBS, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress also agreed (i) to a five-year probation period, (ii) to pay a total of approximately $68 million in fines and restitution and $34 million for community service and mitigation (the Payments), and (iii) to establish environmental compliance plans subject to the oversight of a court-appointed monitor paid for by the companies for the duration of the probation period (iii) for Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress each to maintain $250 million under their Master Credit Facility as security to meet their obligations under the Securities ExchangePleas Agreements, in addition to certain other conditions set out in the Plea Agreements. Payments under the Plea Agreements will be borne by shareholders and are not tax deductible. Duke Energy Corporation has agreed to issue a guarantee of all payments and performance due from the Companies, including but not limited to payments for fines, restitution, community service, mitigation and the funding of, and obligations under, the environmental compliance plans. As a result of the Plea Agreements, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress recognized charges of $72 million and $30 million, respectively, in the fourth quarter of 2014. The amounts are recorded in Operation, maintenance and other on the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income.
The Plea Agreements do not cover pending civil claims related to the Dan River coal ash release and operations at other North Carolina coal plants. Duke Energy Corporation will continue to cooperate with government agencies and defend against remaining civil litigation associated with these matters.

149


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Duke Energy Carolinas
New Source Review
In 1999-2000, the U.S. Department of Justice on behalf of the EPA filed a number of complaints and notices of violation against multiple utilities, including Duke Energy Carolinas, for alleged violations of the New Source Review (NSR) provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The government alleges the utilities violated the CAA when undertaking certain maintenance and repair projects at certain coal plants without (i) obtaining NSR permits and (ii) installing the best available emission controls for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter. The complaints seek the installation of pollution control technology on generating units that allegedly violated the CAA, and unspecified civil penalties in amounts of up to $37,500 per day for each violation. Duke Energy Carolinas asserts there were no CAA violations because the applicable regulations do not require NSR permitting in cases where the projects undertaken are “routine” or otherwise do not result in a net increase in emissions.
In 2000, the government sued Duke Energy Carolinas in the U.S. District Court in Greensboro, North Carolina, claiming NSR violations for 29 projects performed at 25 of Duke Energy Carolinas’ coal-fired units. Duke Energy Carolinas asserts the projects were routine and not projected to increase emissions. The parties subsequently filed a stipulation agreeing to dismiss with prejudice all but 13 claims at 13 generating units, 11 of which have since been retired. The parties filed opposing motions for summary judgment on the remaining claims. The Court substantially denied both motions for summary judgment. A Duke Energy request for leave to file another motion for summary judgment on alternative grounds, including expiration of the applicable statute of limitations, was denied. On October 24, 2014, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a motion to certify an appeal of the statute of limitations issue to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. That motion is pending. Trial date has been set for October 2015. It is not possible to predict whether Duke Energy Carolinas will incur any liability or to estimate the damages, if any, it might incur in connection with this matter. Ultimate resolution of these matters could have a material effect on the results of operations, cash flows or financial position of Duke Energy Carolinas. However, the appropriate regulatory recovery will be pursued for costs incurred in connection with such resolution.
Asbestos-related Injuries and Damages Claims
Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced numerous claims for indemnification and medical cost reimbursement related to asbestos exposure. These claims relate to damages for bodily injuries alleged to have arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos in connection with construction and maintenance activities conducted on its electric generation plants prior to 1985. As of December 31, 2014, there were 54 asserted claims for non-malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to $11 million, and 28 asserted claims for malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to $7 million. Based on Duke Energy Carolinas’ experience, it is expected that the ultimate resolution of most of these claims likely will be less than the amount claimed.
Duke Energy Carolinas has recognized asbestos-related reserves of $575 million at December 31, 2014 and $616 million at December 31, 2013. These reserves are classified in Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities and Other within Current Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. These reserves are based upon the minimum amount of the range of loss for current and future asbestos claims through 2033, are recorded on an undiscounted basis and incorporate anticipated inflation. In light of the uncertainties inherent in a longer-term forecast, management does not believe they can reasonably estimate the indemnity and medical costs that might be incurred after 2033 related to such potential claims. It is possible Duke Energy Carolinas may incur asbestos liabilities in excess of the recorded reserves.
Duke Energy Carolinas has third-party insurance to cover certain losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages above an aggregate self-insured retention of $476 million. Duke Energy Carolinas’ cumulative payments began to exceed the self-insurance retention in 2008. Future payments up to the policy limit will be reimbursed by the third-party insurance carrier. The insurance policy limit for potential future insurance recoveries for indemnification and medical cost claim payments is $864 million in excess of the self-insured retention. Receivables for insurance recoveries were $616 million at December 31, 2014 and $649 million at December 31, 2013. These amounts are classified in Other within Investments and Other Assets and Receivables on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Duke Energy Carolinas is not aware of any uncertainties regarding the legal sufficiency of insurance claims. Duke Energy Carolinas believes the insurance recovery asset is probable of recovery as the insurance carrier continues to have a strong financial strength rating.
Progress Energy
Synthetic Fuels Matters
Progress Energy and a number of its subsidiaries and affiliates are defendants in lawsuits arising out of a 1999 Asset Purchase Agreement. Parties to the Asset Purchase Agreement include U.S. Global, LLC (Global) and affiliates of Progress Energy.
In a case filed in the Circuit Court for Broward County, Florida, in March 2003 (the Florida Global Case), Global requested an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, as well as declaratory relief. In November 2009, the court ruled in favor of Global. In December 2009, Progress Energy made a $154 million payment which represented payment of the total judgment, including prejudgment interest, and a required premium equivalent to two years of interest, to the Broward County Clerk of Court bond account. Progress Energy continued to accrue interest related to this judgment.
On October 3, 2012, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeals reversed the lower court ruling. The court held that Global was entitled to approximately $90 million of the amount paid into the registry of the court. Progress Energy was entitled to a refund of the remainder of the funds. Progress Energy received cash and recorded a $63 million pretax gain for the refund in December 2012. The gain was recorded in Income from Discontinued Operations, net of tax in the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income.
On May 9, 2013, Global filed a Seventh Amended Complaint asserting a single count for breach of the Asset Purchase Agreement and seeking specific performance. The parties reached a settlement in this matter in May 2014, and the case has been dismissed. The amount of the settlement did not have a material effect on the results of operations, cash flows or financial position of Progress Energy. As a result of the settlement of the Florida Global Case, a second suit filed in the Superior Court for Wake County, North Carolina, Progress Synfuel Holdings, Inc. et al. v. U.S. Global, LLC, has been dismissed.

150


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida
Spent Nuclear Fuel Matters
On December 12, 2011, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida sued the United States in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The lawsuit claimed the Department of Energy breached a contract in failing to accept spent nuclear fuel under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1934)1982 and asserted damages for the cost of on-site storage. Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida asserted damages for the period January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2010. Claims for all periods prior to 2006 have been resolved. On March 24, 2014, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a judgment in favor of Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida on this matter, awarding amounts of $83 million and $21 million, respectively. The majority of the awards were recorded as a reduction to capital costs associated with construction of on-site storage facilities. Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida received payment of the award in September 2014. On October 16, 2014, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida filed a new action for costs incurred from 2011 through 2013.
Duke Energy Florida
Westinghouse Contract Litigation
On March 28, 2014 Duke Energy Florida filed a lawsuit against Westinghouse in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The lawsuit seeks recovery of $54 million in milestone payments in excess of work performed under the terminated EPC for Levy as well as a determination by the court of the amounts due to Westinghouse as a result of the termination of the EPC.
On March 31, 2014, Westinghouse filed a lawsuit against Duke Energy Florida in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania lawsuit alleged damages under the EPC in excess of $510 million for engineering and design work, costs to end supplier contracts and an alleged termination fee.
On June 9, 2014, the judge in the North Carolina case ruled that the litigation will proceed in the Western District of North Carolina. In November 2014, Westinghouse filed a Motion for Partial Judgment on the pleadings which was denied by the Magistrate Judge on February 20, 2015, subject to court approval. Trial is set for February 2016. It is not possible to predict the outcome of the litigation and whether Duke Energy Florida will incur any liability for terminating the EPC or to estimate the damages, if any, it might incur in connection with these matters. Ultimate resolution of these matters could have a material effect on the results of operations, financial position or cash flows of Duke Energy Florida. However, appropriate regulatory recovery will be pursued for the retail portion of any costs incurred in connection with such resolution.
Duke Energy Ohio
Antitrust Lawsuit
In January 2008, four plaintiffs, including individual, industrial and nonprofit customers, filed a lawsuit against Duke Energy Ohio in federal court in the Southern District of Ohio. Plaintiffs alleged Duke Energy Ohio conspired to provide inequitable and unfair price advantages for certain large business consumers by entering into non-public option agreements in exchange for their withdrawal of challenges to Duke Energy Ohio’s Rate Stabilization Plan implemented in early 2005. In March 2014, a federal judge certified this matter as a class action. The parties have agreed to mediation on March 31, 2015. Trial has been set to begin on July 27, 2015. It is not possible to predict whether Duke Energy Ohio will incur any liability or to estimate the damages, if any, that may be incurred in connection with this matter. Ultimate resolution of this matter could have a material effect on the results of operations, cash flows or financial position of Duke Energy Ohio.
Any liability related to the lawsuit attributable to the Disposal Group will not be transferred to Dynegy upon closing of the disposal of the Midwest generation business.
Asbestos-related Injuries and Damages Claims
Duke Energy Ohio has been named as a defendant or co-defendant in lawsuits related to asbestos exposure at its electric generating stations. The impact on Duke Energy Ohio’s results of operations, cash flows or financial position of these cases to date has not been material. Based on estimates under varying assumptions concerning uncertainties, such as, among others: (i) the number of contractors potentially exposed to asbestos during construction or maintenance of Duke Energy Ohio generating plants, (ii) the possible incidence of various illnesses among exposed workers, and (iii) the potential settlement costs without federal or other legislation that addresses asbestos tort actions, Duke Energy Ohio estimates that the range of reasonably possible exposure in existing and future suits over the foreseeable future is not material. This assessment may change as additional settlements occur, claims are made, and more case law is established.

151


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Duke Energy Indiana
Edwardsport IGCC
On December 11, 2012, Duke Energy Indiana filed an arbitration action against General Electric Company and Bechtel Corporation in connection with their work at the Edwardsport IGCC facility. Duke Energy Indiana is seeking damages equaling some or all of the additional costs incurred in the construction of the project not recovered at the IURC. The arbitration hearing concluded December 15, 2014. The parties will submit post hearing briefs. Duke Energy Indiana cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Other Litigation and Legal Proceedings
The Duke Energy Registrants are involved in other legal, tax and regulatory proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business, some of which involve significant amounts. The Duke Energy Registrants believe the final disposition of these proceedings will not have a material effect on their results of operations, cash flows or financial position.
The table below presents recorded reserves based on management’s best estimate of probable loss for legal matters discussed above, excluding asbestos related reserves. Reserves are classified on the Consolidated Balance Sheets in Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities and Accounts payable and Other within Current Liabilities. The reasonably possible range of loss for all non-asbestos related matters in excess of recorded reserves is not material.
  December 31,
(in millions)  
2014
 2013
Reserves for Legal Matters     
Duke Energy$323
 $204
Duke Energy Carolinas72
 
Progress Energy  93
 78
Duke Energy Progress  37
 10
Duke Energy Florida36
 43
OTHER COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
General
As part of their normal business, the Duke Energy Registrants are party to various financial guarantees, performance guarantees, and other contractual commitments to extend guarantees of credit and other assistance to various subsidiaries, investees, and other third parties. These guarantees involve elements of performance and credit risk, which are not fully recognized on the Consolidated Balance Sheets and have unlimited maximum potential payments. However, the Duke Energy Registrants do not believe these guarantees will have a material effect on their results of operations, cash flows or financial position.
Purchase Obligations
Purchased Power
Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida have ongoing purchased power contracts, including renewable energy contracts, with other utilities, wholesale marketers, co-generators, and qualified facilities. These purchased power contracts generally provide for capacity and energy payments. In addition, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida have various contracts to secure transmission rights.
The following table presents executory purchased power contracts, excluding contracts classified as leases. All contracts represent 100 percent of net plant output.
     Minimum Purchase Amount at December 31, 2014
(in millions)  Contract Expiration 2015
 2016
 2017
 2018
 2019
 Thereafter
 Total
Duke Energy Progress2019-2022 $59
 60
 $61
 $62
 $63
 $93
 $398
Duke Energy Florida2023-2043 244
 273
 291
 306
 322
 1,907
 3,343
Operating and Capital Lease Commitments
The Duke Energy Registrants lease office buildings, railcars, vehicles, computer equipment and other property and equipment with various terms and expiration dates. Additionally, Duke Energy Progress has a capital lease related to firm gas pipeline transportation capacity. Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida have entered into certain purchased power agreements, which are classified as leases. Consolidated capitalized lease obligations are classified as Long-Term Debt or Other within Current Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Amortization of assets recorded under capital leases is included in Depreciation and amortization and Fuel used in electric generation – regulated on the Consolidated Statements of Operations.

152


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

The following table presents rental expense for operating leases. These amounts are included in Operation, maintenance and other on the Consolidated Statements of Operations.
  Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)  2014
 2013
 2012
Duke Energy  $355
 $321
 $232
Duke Energy Carolinas  41
 39
 38
Progress Energy  257
 225
 232
Duke Energy Progress  161
 153
 164
Duke Energy Florida  96
 72
 68
Duke Energy Ohio  17
 14
 14
Duke Energy Indiana  21
 22
 20
The following table presents future minimum lease payments under operating leases, which at inception had a non-cancelable term of more than one year.
  December 31, 2014
(in millions)Duke Energy
 Duke Energy Carolinas
 Progress Energy
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 Duke Energy Ohio
 Duke Energy Indiana
2015$205
 $33
 $129
 $65
 $64
 $12
 $17
2016198
 29
 130
 66
 64
 11
 15
2017172
 26
 111
 65
 46
 9
 13
2018157
 20
 109
 64
 45
 7
 10
2019148
 17
 103
 58
 45
 6
 9
Thereafter938
 64
 709
 421
 288
 18
 9
Total$1,818
 $189
 $1,291
 $739
 $552
 $63
 $73
The following table presents future minimum lease payments under capital leases.
  December 31, 2014
(in millions)Duke Energy
 Duke Energy Carolinas
 Progress Energy
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 Duke Energy Ohio
 Duke Energy Indiana
2015$178
 $6
 $46
 $21
 $26
 $7
 $4
2016188
 6
 47
 21
 26
 7
 4
2017190
 7
 47
 21
 26
 3
 2
2018198
 7
 48
 22
 26
 4
 2
2019208
 8
 51
 25
 26
 2
 2
Thereafter1,771
 60
 678
 398
 280
 
 42
Minimum annual payments2,733
 94
 917
 508
 410
 23
 56
Less: amount representing interest(1,305) (67) (603) (361) (242) (3) (39)
Total$1,428
 $27
 $314
 $147
 $168
 $20
 $17

153


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

6. DEBT AND CREDIT FACILITIES
Summary of Debt and Related Terms
The following tables summarize outstanding debt.
  December 31, 2014
(in millions)  Weighted Average Interest Rate  
 Duke Energy
Duke Energy Carolinas
Progress Energy
Duke Energy Progress
Duke Energy Florida
Duke Energy Ohio
Duke Energy Indiana
Unsecured debt, maturing 2015 - 2073  4.92% $12,937
$1,155
$3,850
$
$150
$773
$742
Secured debt, maturing 2016 - 2037  2.50% 2,806
400
525
300
225


First mortgage bonds, maturing 2015 - 2044(a)
4.76% 19,180
6,161
9,800
5,475
4,325
900
2,319
Capital leases, maturing 2015 - 2051(b)
5.30% 1,428
27
314
146
168
20
16
Tax-exempt bonds, maturing 2015 - 2041(c)
2.13% 1,296
355
291
291

77
573
Notes payable and commercial paper(d)
0.70% 2,989






Money pool/intercompany borrowings     
300
835

84
516
221
Fair value hedge carrying value adjustment     8
8





Unamortized debt discount and premium, net(e)
   1,890
(15)(26)(11)(8)(29)(9)
Total debt  4.29% $42,534
$8,391
$15,589
$6,201
$4,944
$2,257
$3,862
Short-term notes payable and commercial paper     (2,514)





Short-term money pool borrowings    

(835)
(84)(491)(71)
Current maturities of long-term debt(f)
   (2,807)(507)(1,507)(945)(562)(157)(5)
Total long-term debt(f)
4.58% $37,213
$7,884
$13,247
$5,256
$4,298
$1,609
$3,786
(a)    Substantially all electric utility property is mortgaged under mortgage bond indentures.
(b)Duke Energy includes $129 million and $787 million of capital lease purchase accounting adjustments related to Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida, respectively, related to power purchase agreements that are not accounted for as capital leases in their respective financial statements because of grandfathering provisions in GAAP.
(c)Substantially all tax-exempt bonds are secured by first mortgage bonds or letters of credit.
(d)Includes $475 million that was classified as Long-Term Debt on the Consolidated Balance Sheets due to the existence of long-term credit facilities that back-stop these commercial paper balances, along with Duke Energy’s ability and intent to refinance these balances on a long-term basis. The weighted-average days to maturity was 27 days.
(e)Duke Energy includes $1,975 million in purchase accounting adjustments related to the merger with Progress Energy. See Note 2 for additional information.
(f)Refer to Note 17 for additional information on amounts from consolidated VIE’s.

154


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

  December 31, 2013
(in millions)  Weighted Average Interest Rate  
 Duke Energy
Duke Energy Carolinas
Progress Energy
Duke Energy Progress
Duke Energy Florida
Duke Energy Ohio
Duke Energy Indiana
Unsecured debt, maturing 2014 - 2073  5.18% $13,550
$1,157
$4,150
$
$150
$805
$744
Secured debt, maturing 2014 - 2037  2.69% 2,559
400
305
305



First mortgage bonds, maturing 2015 - 2043(a)
4.90% 17,831
6,161
8,450
4,125
4,325
900
2,319
Capital leases, maturing 2014 - 2051(b)
5.23% 1,516
30
327
148
179
27
20
Other debt, maturing 2027  4.77% 8




8

Tax-exempt bonds, maturing 2014 - 2041(c)
1.28% 2,356
395
910
669
241
479
573
Notes payable and commercial paper(d)
1.02% 1,289






Money pool/intercompany borrowings     
300
1,213
462
181
43
150
Fair value hedge carrying value adjustment     9
9





Unamortized debt discount and premium, net(e)
   1,977
(16)(27)(12)(9)(31)(10)
Total debt  4.52% $41,095
$8,436
$15,328
$5,697
$5,067
$2,231
$3,796
Short-term notes payable and commercial paper     (839)





Short-term money pool borrowings    

(1,213)(462)(181)(43)
Current maturities of long-term debt(f)
   (2,104)(47)(485)(174)(11)(47)(5)
Total long-term debt(f)
4.59% $38,152
$8,389
$13,630
$5,061
$4,875
$2,141
$3,791
(a)    Substantially all electric utility property is mortgaged under mortgage bond indentures.
(b)Duke Energy includes $144 million and $838 million of capital lease purchase accounting adjustments related to Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida, respectively, related to power purchase agreements that are not accounted for as capital leases in their respective financial statements because of grandfathering provisions in GAAP.
(c)Substantially all tax-exempt bonds are secured by first mortgage bonds or letters of credit.
(d)Includes $450 million that was classified as Long-Term Debt on the Consolidated Balance Sheets due to the existence of long-term credit facilities that back-stop these commercial paper balances, along with Duke Energy’s ability and intent to refinance these balances on a long-term basis. The weighted-average days to maturity was 49 days.
(e)Duke Energy includes $2,067 million in purchase accounting adjustments related to the merger with Progress Energy. See Note 2 for additional information.
(f)Refer to Note 17 for additional information on amounts from consolidated VIE’s.

Current Maturities of Long-Term Debt
The following table shows the significant components of Current maturities of Long-Term Debt on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. The Duke Energy Registrants currently anticipate satisfying these obligations with cash on hand and proceeds from additional borrowings.
(in millions)Maturity Date Interest Rate
 December 31, 2014
Unsecured Debt     
Duke Energy (Parent)April 2015 3.350% $450
First Mortgage Bonds     
Duke Energy OhioMarch 2015 0.375% 150
Duke Energy ProgressApril 2015 5.150% 300
Duke Energy CarolinasOctober 2015 5.300% 500
Duke Energy FloridaNovember 2015 0.650% 250
Duke Energy FloridaDecember 2015 5.100% 300
Duke Energy ProgressDecember 2015 5.250% 400
Tax-exempt Bonds     
Duke Energy ProgressJanuary 2015 0.108% 243
Other    214
Current maturities of long-term debt    $2,807

155


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Maturities and Call Options
The following table shows the annual maturities of long-term debt for the next five years and thereafter. Amounts presented exclude short-term notes payable and commercial paper and money pool borrowings for the Subsidiary Registrants.
  December 31, 2014
(in millions)
Duke Energy(a)

 Duke Energy Carolinas
 Progress Energy
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 Duke Energy Ohio
 Duke Energy Indiana
2015$2,793
 $507
 $1,507
 $945
 $562
 $157
 $5
20162,980
 756
 614
 302
 12
 57
 480
20172,452
 116
 940
 453
 487
 3
 3
20183,207
 1,505
 515
 3
 512
 28
 153
20192,810
 5
 1,418
 606
 12
 552
 62
Thereafter23,803
 5,502
 9,760
 3,892
 3,275
 969
 3,088
Total long-term debt, including current maturities$38,045

$8,391

$14,754

$6,201

$4,860

$1,766

$3,791
(a)Excludes $1,975 million in purchase accounting adjustments related to the merger with Progress Energy. See Note 2 for additional information.
The Duke Energy Registrants have the ability under certain debt facilities to call and repay the obligation prior to its scheduled maturity. Therefore, the actual timing of future cash repayments could be materially different than as presented above.
Short-Term Obligations Classified as Long-Term Debt
Tax-exempt bonds that may be put to the Duke Energy Registrants at the option of the holder and certain commercial paper issuances and money pool borrowings are classified as Long-Term Debt on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. These tax-exempt bonds, commercial paper issuances and money pool borrowings, which are short-term obligations by nature, are classified as long term due to Duke Energy’s intent and ability to utilize such borrowings as long-term financing. As Duke Energy’s Master Credit Facility and other bilateral letter of credit agreements have non-cancelable terms in excess of one year as of the balance sheet date, Duke Energy has the ability to refinance these short-term obligations on a long-term basis. The following tables show short-term obligations classified as long-term debt.
  December 31, 2014
(in millions)  Duke Energy
 Duke Energy Carolinas
 Duke Energy Ohio
 Duke Energy Indiana
Tax-exempt bonds  $347
 $35
 $27
 $285
Commercial paper  475
 300
 25
 150
Secured debt(a)
200
 
 
 
Total  $1,022

$335

$52

$435
  December 31, 2013
(in millions)  Duke Energy
 Duke Energy Carolinas
 Duke Energy Ohio
 Duke Energy Indiana
Tax exempt bonds  $471
 $75
 $111
 $285
Commercial paper  450
 300
 
 150
Secured debt(a)
200
 
 
 
Total  $1,121

$375

$111

$435
(a)Instrument has a term of less than one year with the right to extend the maturity date for additional one-year periods with a final maturity date no later than December 2026.
Summary of Significant Debt Issuances
The following tables summarize significant debt issuances (in millions).

156


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

     Year Ended December 31, 2014
Issuance DateMaturity Date Interest Rate
 Duke Energy (Parent)
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 Duke Energy
Unsecured Debt           
April 2014(a)
April 2024 3.750% 600
 
 
 600
April 2014(a)(b)
April 2017 0.613% 400
 
 
 400
June 2014(c)
May 2019 11.970% 
 
 
 108
June 2014(c)
May 2021 13.680% 
 
 
 110
Secured Debt          

March 2014(d)
March 2017 0.863% 
 
 225
 225
July 2014(e)
July 2036 5.340% 
 
 
 129
First Mortgage Bonds          

March 2014(f)
March 2044 4.375% 
 400
 
 400
March 2014(f)(g)
March 2017 0.435% 
 250
 
 250
November 2014(h)
December 2044 4.150% 
 500
 
 500
November 2014(g)(h)
November 2017 0.432% 
 200
 
 200
Total issuances    $1,000

$1,350

$225

$2,922
(a)Proceeds were used to redeem $402 million of tax-exempt bonds at Duke Energy Ohio, the repayment of outstanding commercial paper and for general corporate purposes. See Note 13 for additional information related to the redemption of Duke Energy Ohio's tax-exempt bonds.
(b)The debt is floating rate based on three-month London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) plus a fixed credit spread of 38 basis points.
(c)Proceeds were used to repay $196 million of debt for International Energy and for general corporate purposes.
(d)Relates to the securitization of accounts receivable at a subsidiary of Duke Energy Florida. Proceeds were used to repay short-term borrowings under the intercompany money pool borrowing arrangement and for general corporate purposes. See Note 17 for further details.
(e)Proceeds were used to fund a portion of Duke Energy's prior investment in the existing Wind Star renewables portfolio.
(f)Proceeds were used to repay short-term borrowings under the intercompany money pool borrowing arrangement and for general corporate purposes.
(g)The debt is floating rate based on three-month LIBOR plus a fixed credit spread of 20 basis points.
(h)Proceeds will be used to redeem $450 million of tax-exempt bonds, repay short-term borrowings under the intercompany money pool borrowing arrangement and for general corporate purposes.
        Year Ended December 31, 2013
Issuance Date  Maturity Date Interest Rate
 Duke Energy (Parent)
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Ohio
 Duke Energy Indiana
 Duke Energy
Unsecured Debt                   
January 2013(a)
January 2073 5.125% $500
 $
 $
 $
 $500
June 2013(b)
June 2018 2.100% 500
 
 
 
 500
August 2013(c)(d)
August 2023 11.000% ―   
 
 
 
 220
October 2013(e)
October 2023 3.950% 400
 
 
 
 400
Secured Debt                  
February 2013(f)(g)
December 2030 2.043% 
 
 
 
 203
February 2013(f)
June 2037 4.740% 
 
 
 
 220
April 2013(h)
April 2026 5.456% 
 
 
 
 230
December 2013(i)
December 2016 0.852% 
 300
 
 
 300
First Mortgage Bonds                

March 2013(j)
March 2043 4.100% 
 500
 
 
 500
July 2013(k)
July 2043 4.900% 
 
 
 350
 350
July 2013(k)(l)
July 2016 0.619% 
 
 
 150
 150
September 2013(m)
September 2023 3.800% 
 
 300
 
 300
September 2013(m)(n)
March 2015 0.400% 
 
 150
 
 150
Total issuances     $1,400
 $800
 $450
 $500
 $4,023
(a)Callable after January 2018 at par. Proceeds were used to redeem the $300 million 7.10% Cumulative Quarterly Income Preferred Securities (QUIPS) and to repay a portion of outstanding commercial paper and for general corporate purposes.

157


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

(b)Proceeds were used to repay $250 million of current maturities and for general corporate purposes, including the repayment of outstanding commercial paper.
(c)Proceeds were used to repay $200 million of current maturities. The maturity date included above applies to half of the instrument. The remaining half matures in August 2018.
(d)The debt is floating rate based on a consumer price index and an overnight funds rate in Brazil. The debt is denominated in Brazilian Real.
(e)Proceeds were used to repay commercial paper as well as for general corporate purposes.
(f)Represents the conversion of construction loans related to two renewable energy projects issued in December 2012 to term loans. No cash proceeds were received in conjunction with the conversion. The term loans have varying maturity dates. The maturity date presented represents the latest date for all components of the respective loans.
(g)The debt is floating rate. Duke Energy has entered into a pay fixed-receive floating interest rate swap for 95 percent of the loans.
(h)Represents the conversion of a $190 million bridge loan issued in conjunction with the acquisition of Ibener in December 2012. Duke Energy received incremental proceeds of $40 million upon conversion of the bridge loan. The debt is floating rate and is denominated in U.S. dollars. Duke Energy has entered into a pay fixed-receive floating interest rate swap for 75 percent of the loan.
(i)Relates to the securitization of accounts receivable at a subsidiary of Duke Energy Progress; the proceeds were used to repay short-term debt. See Note 17 for further details.
(j)Proceeds were used to repay notes payable to affiliated companies as well as for general corporate purposes.
(k)Proceeds were used to repay $400 million of current maturities.
(l)The debt is floating rate based on three-month LIBOR and a fixed credit spread of 35 basis points.
(m)Proceeds were used for general corporate purposes including the repayment of short-term notes payable, a portion of which was incurred to fund the retirement of $250 million of first mortgage bonds that matured in the first half of 2013.
(n)The debt is floating rate based on three-month LIBOR plus a fixed credit spread of 14 basis points.
Available Credit Facilities
At December 31, 2014, Duke Energy had a Master Credit Facility with a capacity of $6 billion through December 2018. In January 2015, Duke Energy amended the Master Credit Facility to increase its capacity to $7.5 billion through January 2020. The Duke Energy Registrants, excluding Progress Energy, each have borrowing capacity under the Master Credit Facility up to specified sublimits for each borrower. Duke Energy has the unilateral ability at any time to increase or decrease the borrowing sublimits of each borrower, subject to a maximum sublimit for each borrower. The amount available under the Master Credit Facility has been reduced to backstop the issuances of commercial paper, certain letters of credit and variable-rate demand tax-exempt bonds that may be put to the Duke Energy Registrants at the option of the holder. The table below includes the current borrowing sublimits and available capacity under the Master Credit Facility.
  December 31, 2014
(in millions)  Duke Energy
 Duke Energy (Parent)
 Duke Energy Carolinas
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 Duke Energy Ohio
 Duke Energy Indiana
Facility size(a)
$6,000
 $2,250
 $1,000
 $750
 $650
 $650
 $700
Reduction to backstop issuances                      
Commercial paper(b)
(2,021) (1,479) (300) 
 (29) (38) (175)
Outstanding letters of credit  (70) (62) (4) (2) (1) 
 (1)
Tax-exempt bonds  (116) 
 (35) 
 
 
 (81)
Available capacity  $3,793

$709

$661

$748

$620

$612

$443
(a)Represents the sublimit of each borrower.
(b)Duke Energy issued $475 million of commercial paper and loaned the proceeds through the money pool to Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana. The balances are classified as Long-Term Debt Payable to Affiliated Companies in the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
On February 20, 2015, Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and DEBS, a wholly owned subsidiary of Duke Energy, each entered into the Plea Agreements in connection with the investigation initiated by the USDOJ. Under the terms of the Plea Agreements, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress are required to each maintain $250 million of available capacity under the Master Credit Facility as security to meet their obligations under the Plea Agreements, in addition to certain other conditions set out in the Plea Agreements. The Plea Agreements are subject to court approval. See Note 5 for further details.
Other Debt Matters
In September 2013, Duke Energy filed a registration statement (Form S-3) with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Under this Form S-3, which is uncapped, the Duke Energy Registrants, excluding Progress Energy, may issue debt and other securities in the future at amounts, prices and with terms to be determined at the time of future offerings. The registration statement also allows for the issuance of common stock by Duke Energy.
Duke Energy has an effective Form S-3 with the SEC to sell up to $3 billion of variable denomination floating-rate demand notes, called PremierNotes. The Form S-3 states that no more than $1.5 billion of the notes will be outstanding at any particular time. The notes are offered on a continuous basis and bear interest at a floating rate per annum determined by the Duke Energy PremierNotes Committee, or its designee, on a weekly basis. The interest rate payable on notes held by an investor may vary based on the principal amount of the investment. The notes have no stated maturity date, are non-transferable and may be redeemed in whole or in part by Duke Energy or at the investor’s option at any time. The balance as of December 31, 2014 and 2013 was $968 million and $836 million, respectively. The notes are short-term debt obligations of Duke Energy and are reflected as Notes payable and commercial paper on Duke Energy’s Consolidated Balance Sheets.

158


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

At December 31, 2014 and 2013, $767 million and $811 million, respectively, of debt issued by Duke Energy Carolinas was guaranteed by Duke Energy.
Money Pool
The Subsidiary Registrants, excluding Progress Energy receive support for their short-term borrowing needs through participation with Duke Energy and certain of its subsidiaries in a money pool arrangement. Under this arrangement, those companies with short-term funds may provide short-term loans to affiliates participating in this arrangement. The money pool is structured such that the Subsidiary Registrants, excluding Progress Energy, separately manage their cash needs and working capital requirements. Accordingly, there is no net settlement of receivables and payables between money pool participants. Duke Energy (Parent), may loan funds to its participating subsidiaries, but may not borrow funds through the money pool. Accordingly, as the money pool activity is between Duke Energy and its wholly owned subsidiaries, all money pool balances are eliminated within Duke Energy’s Consolidated Balance Sheets.
Money pool receivable balances are reflected within Notes receivable from affiliated companies on the Subsidiary Registrants’ Consolidated Balance Sheets. Money pool payable balances are reflected within either Notes payable to affiliated companies or Long-Term Debt Payable to Affiliated Companies on the Subsidiary Registrants’ Consolidated Balance Sheets.
Restrictive Debt Covenants
The Duke Energy Registrants’ debt and credit agreements contain various financial and other covenants. The Master Credit Facility contains a covenant requiring the debt-to-total capitalization ratio not exceed 65 percent for each borrower. Failure to meet those covenants beyond applicable grace periods could result in accelerated due dates and/or termination of the agreements. As of December 31, 2014, each of the Duke Energy Registrants were in compliance with all covenants related to their significant debt agreements. In addition, some credit agreements may allow for acceleration of payments or termination of the agreements due to nonpayment, or acceleration of other significant indebtedness of the borrower or some of its subsidiaries. None of the significant debt or credit agreements contain material adverse change clauses.
Other Loans
During 2014 and 2013, Duke Energy and Duke Energy Progress had loans outstanding against the cash surrender value of life insurance policies it owns on the lives of its executives. The amounts outstanding were $603 million, including $44 million at Duke Energy Progress and $571 million, including $48 million at Duke Energy Progress as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively. The amounts outstanding were carried as a reduction of the related cash surrender value that is included in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
7. GUARANTEES AND INDEMNIFICATIONS
Duke Energy and Progress Energy have various financial and performance guarantees and indemnifications, which are issued in the normal course of business. As discussed below, these contracts include performance guarantees, stand-by letters of credit, debt guarantees, surety bonds and indemnifications. Duke Energy and Progress Energy enter into these arrangements to facilitate commercial transactions with third parties by enhancing the value of the transaction to the third party. At December 31, 2014, Duke Energy and Progress Energy do not believe conditions are likely for significant performance under these guarantees. To the extent liabilities are incurred as a result of the activities covered by the guarantees, such liabilities are included on the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets.
On January 2, 2007, Duke Energy completed the spin-off of its natural gas businesses to shareholders. Guarantees issued by Duke Energy or its affiliates, or assigned to Duke Energy prior to the spin-off, remained with Duke Energy subsequent to the spin-off. Guarantees issued by Spectra Energy Capital, LLC, formerly known as Duke Capital LLC, (Spectra Capital) or its affiliates prior to the spin-off remained with Spectra Capital subsequent to the spin-off, except for guarantees that were later assigned to Duke Energy. Duke Energy has indemnified Spectra Capital against any losses incurred under certain of the guarantee obligations that remain with Spectra Capital. At December 31, 2014, the maximum potential amount of future payments associated with these guarantees was $205 million, the majority of which expires by 2028.
Duke Energy has issued performance guarantees to customers and other third parties that guarantee the payment and performance of other parties, including certain non-wholly owned entities, as well as guarantees of debt of certain non-consolidated entities and less than wholly owned consolidated entities. If such entities were to default on payments or performance, Duke Energy would be required under the guarantees to make payments on the obligations of the less than wholly owned entity. The maximum potential amount of future payments required under these guarantees as of December 31, 2014, was $267 million. Of this amount, $15 million relates to guarantees issued on behalf of less than wholly owned consolidated entities, with the remainder related to guarantees issued on behalf of third parties and unconsolidated affiliates of Duke Energy. Of the guarantees noted above, $120 million of the guarantees expire between 2015 and 2033, with the remaining performance guarantees having no contractual expiration.
Duke Energy has guaranteed certain issuers of surety bonds, obligating itself to make payment upon the failure of a wholly owned and former non-wholly owned entity to honor its obligations to a third party. Under these arrangements, Duke Energy has payment obligations that are triggered by a draw by the third party or customer due to the failure of the wholly owned or former non-wholly owned entity to perform according to the terms of its underlying contract. At December 31, 2014, Duke Energy had guaranteed $44 million of outstanding surety bonds, most of which have no set expiration.
Duke Energy uses bank-issued stand-by letters of credit to secure the performance of wholly owned and non-wholly owned entities to a third party or customer. Under these arrangements, Duke Energy has payment obligations to the issuing bank which are triggered by a draw by the third party or customer due to the failure of the wholly owned or non-wholly owned entity to perform according to the terms of its underlying contract. At December 31, 2014, Duke Energy had issued a total of $452 million in letters of credit, which expire between 2015 and 2020. The unused amount under these letters of credit was $46 million.

159


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Duke Energy and Progress Energy have issued indemnifications for certain asset performance, legal, tax and environmental matters to third parties, including indemnifications made in connection with sales of businesses. At December 31, 2014, the estimated maximum exposure for these indemnifications was $107 million, the majority of which expires in 2017. Of this amount, $7 million has no contractual expiration. For certain matters for which Progress Energy receives timely notice, indemnity obligations may extend beyond the notice period. Certain indemnifications related to discontinued operations have no limitations as to time or maximum potential future payments.
The following table includes the liabilities recognized for the guarantees discussed above. These amounts are primarily recorded in Other within Deferred Credits and other Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. As current estimates change, additional losses related to guarantees and indemnifications to third parties, which could be material, may be recorded by the Duke Energy Registrants in the future.
  December 31,
  2014 2013
Duke Energy$28
 $24
Progress Energy13
 9
Duke Energy Florida7
 3
8. JOINT OWNERSHIP OF GENERATING AND TRANSMISSION FACILITIES
The Duke Energy Registrants hold ownership interests in certain jointly owned generating and transmission facilities. The Duke Energy Registrants are entitled to shares of the generating capacity and output of each unit equal to their respective ownership interests, except as outlined below. The Duke Energy Registrants pay their ownership share of additional construction costs, fuel inventory purchases and operating expenses, except in certain instances where agreements have been executed to limit certain joint owners’ maximum exposure to the additional costs. The Duke Energy Registrants share of revenues and operating costs of the jointly owned generating facilities is included within the corresponding line in the Consolidated Statements of Operations. Each participant in the jointly owned facilities must provide its own financing, except in certain instances where agreements have been executed to limit certain joint owners’ maximum exposure to the additional costs. 
The following table presents the share of jointly owned plant or facilities included on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. All facilities are operated by the Duke Energy Registrants unless otherwise noted.
 December 31, 2014
 Ownership Share
 Property, Plant and Equipment
 Accumulated Depreciation
 Construction Work in Progress
Duke Energy Carolinas 
      
Catawba Nuclear Station (Units 1 and 2)(a)(b)
19.25% $886
 $534
 $29
Duke Energy Progress 
  
  
  
Mayo Station(a)(c)
83.83% 1,111
 360
 10
Shearon Harris Nuclear Station(a)(c)
83.83% 3,872
 2,242
 208
Brunswick Nuclear Station(a)(c)
81.67% 2,673
 1,372
 290
Roxboro Station (Unit 4)(a)(c)
87.06% 954
 514
 24
Duke Energy Florida   
  
  
Crystal River Nuclear Station (Unit 3)(a)(d)
91.78% 
 
 
Intercession City Station (Unit P11)(a)
(e)
 24
 14
 
Duke Energy Ohio   
  
  
Miami Fort Station (Units 7 and 8)(f)(g)
64.0% 
 
 
J.M. Stuart Station(f)(h)(i)
39.0% 
 
 
Conesville Station (Unit 4)(f)(h)(i)
40.0% 
 
 
W.M. Zimmer Station(f)(h)
46.5% 
 
 
Killen Station(f)(g)(i)
33.0% 
 
 
Transmission facilities(a)(h)
Various
 96
 51
 1
Duke Energy Indiana 
  
  
  
Gibson Station (Unit 5)(a)(j)
50.05% 315
 170
 6
Vermillion(a)(k)
62.5% 154
 105
 
Transmission and local facilities(a)(j)
Various
 3,918
 1,633
 
International Energy 
  
  
  
Brazil - Canoas I and II(l)
47.2% 235
 78
 
(a)Included in Regulated Utilities segment.
(b)Jointly owned with North Carolina Municipal Power Agency Number 1, NCEMC and Piedmont Municipal Power Agency.

160


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

(c)Jointly owned with NCEMPA. Duke Energy Progress executed an agreement in September 2014 to purchase NCEMPA's ownership interest in these facilities. See Note 2 for further discussion.
(d)All costs associated with Crystal River Unit 3 are included within Regulatory assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets of Duke Energy, Progress Energy and Duke Energy Florida. See Note 4 for additional information. Co-owned with Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc., City of Ocala, Orlando Utilities Commission, City of Gainesville, City of Leesburg, Kissimmee Utility Authority, Utilities Commission of the City of New Smyrna Beach, City of Alachua and City of Bushnell (Florida Municipal Joint Owners). Duke Energy Florida is in the process of obtaining the remaining ownership interest from the Florida Municipal Joint Owners.
(e)Jointly owned with Georgia Power Company (GPC). GPC has exclusive rights to the output of the unit during the months of June through September and pays all fuel and water costs during this period. Duke Energy Florida pays all fuel and water costs during the remaining months. Other costs are allocated 66.67 percent to Duke Energy Florida and the remainder to GPC.
(f)All costs associated with these plants are included in Assets held for sale on the Consolidated Balance Sheets of Duke Energy and Duke Energy Ohio as part of the Disposal Group. See Note 2 for further discussion.
(g)Jointly owned with The Dayton Power and Light Company.
(h)Jointly owned with America Electric Power Generation Resources and The Dayton Power and Light Company. 
(i)Station is not operated by Duke Energy Ohio.
(j)Jointly owned with WVPA and Indiana Municipal Power Agency.
(k)Jointly owned with WVPA.
(l)Included in International Energy segment. Jointly owned with Companhia Brasileira de Aluminio.
9. ASSET RETIREMENT OBLIGATIONS
Asset retirement obligations recognized by Duke Energy Carolinas, Progress Energy and Duke Energy Progress relate primarily to decommissioning nuclear power facilities, closure of ash basins in North Carolina and South Carolina, asbestos removal and closure of landfills at fossil generation facilities. Asset retirement obligations recognized at Duke Energy Florida relate primarily to decommissioning nuclear power facilities, asbestos removal and closure of landfills at fossil generation facilities. Asset retirement obligations at Duke Energy Ohio relate primarily to the retirement of natural gas mains, asbestos removal and closure of landfills at fossil generation facilities. Asset retirement obligations at Duke Energy Indiana relate primarily to obligations associated with asbestos removal and closure of landfills at fossil generation facilities. Duke Energy also has asset retirement obligations related to the removal of renewable energy generation assets in addition to the above items. Certain of the Duke Energy Registrants’ assets have an indeterminate life, such as transmission and distribution facilities, and thus the fair value of the retirement obligation is not reasonably estimable. A liability for these asset retirement obligations will be recorded when a fair value is determinable.
The following table presents changes in the liability associated with asset retirement obligations.
(in millions)  Duke Energy
 Duke Energy Carolinas
 Progress Energy
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 Duke Energy Ohio
 Duke Energy Indiana
Balance at December 31, 2012(a)
$5,176
 $1,959
 $2,420
 $1,656
 $764
 $28
 $37
Acquisitions4
 
 
 
 
 
 
Accretion expense(b)
239
 122
 113
 80
 33
 2
 
Liabilities settled  (12) 
 (12) 
 (12) 
 
Revisions in estimates of cash flows(c)
(449) (487) 49
 1
 48
 (2) (7)
Balance at December 31, 2013(a)
4,958
 1,594
 2,570
 1,737
 833
 28
 30
Acquisitions  4
 
 
 
 
 
 
Accretion expense(b)
246
 113
 135
 97
 38
 2
 2
Liabilities settled(d)  
(68) 
 (68) 
 (68) 
 
Liabilities incurred in the current year(e)
3,500
 1,717
 1,783
 1,783
 
 
 
Revisions in estimates of cash flows(c)
(174) 4
 291
 288
 3
 (3) 
Balance at December 31, 2014$8,466

$3,428

$4,711

$3,905

$806

$27

$32
(a)Balances at December 31, 2013 and 2012, include $8 million and $7 million, respectively, reported in Other current liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets at Duke Energy, Progress Energy and Duke Energy Progress.
(b)Substantially all accretion expense for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013 relates to Duke Energy’s regulated electric operations and has been deferred in accordance with regulatory accounting treatment.
(c)For 2014, amounts for Duke Energy, Progress Energy and Duke Energy Progress primarily relate to Duke Energy Progress' site-specific nuclear decommissioning cost studies. Amounts at Duke Energy also include impacts from Duke Energy Progress' site-specific nuclear decommissioning cost studies on purchase accounting amounts. For 2013, amounts for Duke Energy, Duke Energy Carolinas, Progress Energy and Duke Energy Florida primarily relate to the site-specific nuclear decommissioning cost studies.
(d)Amounts relate to liability settlements for Crystal River Unit 3.
(e)Amounts primarily relate to asset retirement obligations recorded as a result of the Coal Ash Act and an agreement with the SCDHEC related to the W.S. Lee Steam Station.
The Duke Energy Registrants’ regulated operations accrue costs of removal for property that does not have an associated legal retirement obligation based on regulatory orders from state commissions. These costs of removal are recorded as a regulatory liability in accordance with regulatory accounting treatment. The Duke Energy Registrants do not accrue the estimated cost of removal for any nonregulated assets. See Note 4 for the estimated cost of removal for assets without an associated legal retirement obligation, which are included in Regulatory liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

161


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Ash Basins
As of December 31, 2014, as a result of the Coal Ash Act and the agreement with SCDHEC discussed in Note 5, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress have asset retirement obligations in the amount of $1,735 million and $1,792 million, respectively, related to closure of ash basins in North Carolina and South Carolina.
The asset retirement obligation amount is based upon estimated ash basin closure costs for each of Duke Energy's 32 ash basins located at 14 plants in North Carolina and an ash basin and ash fill area at a plant in South Carolina. The amount recorded represents the discounted cash flows for estimated ash basin closure costs based upon probability weightings of the potential closure methods as evaluated on a site by site basis. Actual costs to be incurred will be dependent upon factors that vary from site to site. The most significant factors are the method and timeframe of closure at the individual sites. Closure methods considered include removing the water from the basins and capping the ash with a synthetic barrier, excavating and relocating the ash to a lined structural fill or lined landfill, or recycling the ash for concrete or some other beneficial use. The ultimate method and timetable for closure will be in compliance with future standards set by the Coal Ash Management Commission established by the Coal Ash Act. The asset retirement obligation amounts will be adjusted as additional information is gained from the Coal Ash Management Commission on acceptable compliance approaches which may change management assumptions.
Asset retirement costs associated with the asset retirement obligations for operating plants and retired plants are included in Net property, plant and equipment, and Regulatory assets, respectively, on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Of the asset retirement obligations recorded, $896 million and $603 million were recorded in Net property, plant and equipment for Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress, respectively, and $839 million and $1,152 million were recorded in Regulatory assets for Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress, respectively. The asset retirement costs recorded for Duke Energy Progress are net of $37 million of Regulatory liabilities related to cost of removal. Cost recovery for these expenditures is believed to be probable and will be pursued through the normal ratemaking process with the NCUC, PSCSC and FERC.
In December 2014, the EPA signed the first regulation for the disposal of CCR. The federal regulation classifies CCR as nonhazardous waste. The regulation applies to all new and existing landfills, new and existing surface impoundments, structural fills and CCR piles. The law establishes requirements regarding landfill design, structural integrity design and assessment criteria for surface impoundments, groundwater monitoring and protection procedures and other operational and reporting procedures to ensure the safe disposal and management of CCR. Once the rule is effective in 2015, additional ARO amounts will be recorded at the Duke Energy Registrants. For more information, see Note 5.
Nuclear Decommissioning Costs
Use of the NDTF investments are restricted to nuclear decommissioning activities. The NDTF investments are managed and invested in accordance with applicable requirements of various regulatory bodies, including the NRC, FERC, NCUC, PSCSC, FPSC and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The fair value of assets legally restricted for purposes of settling asset retirement obligations associated with nuclear decommissioning are $5,182 million and $2,678 million for Duke Energy and Duke Energy Carolinas at December 31, 2014, respectively, and $4,769 million and $2,477 million for Duke Energy and Duke Energy Carolinas at December 31, 2013, respectively. The NDTF balances for Progress Energy, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida represent the fair value of assets legally restricted for purposes of settling asset retirement obligations associated with nuclear decommissioning. The NCUC, PSCSC and FPSC require updated cost estimates for decommissioning nuclear plants every five years.
The following table summarizes information about nuclear decommissioning cost studies.
(in millions)  Annual Funding Requirement
 
Decommissioning Costs(a)(b)(c)

 Year of Cost Study
Duke Energy Carolinas(d)  
$21
 $3,420
 2013
Duke Energy Progress(e)
14
 3,062
 2014
Duke Energy Florida  
 1,083
 2013
(a)Represents cost per the most recent site-specific nuclear decommissioning cost studies, including costs to decommission plant components not subject to radioactive contamination.
(b)Includes the Subsidiary Registrants' ownership interest in jointly owned reactors. Other joint owners are responsible for decommissioning costs related to their interest in the reactors.
(c)Amounts are in dollars of year of cost study.
(d)In the fourth quarter of 2014, Duke Energy Carolinas requested from the NCUC a reduction in the annual funding requirement to zero. Duke Energy Carolinas received approval from the NCUC in January 2015.
(e)Duke Energy Progress' site-specific cost nuclear decommissioning cost studies are expected to be filed with the NCUC and PSCSC by the second quarter of 2015. Duke Energy Progress will also complete a new funding study, which will be completed and filed with the NCUC and PSCSC in 2015.

162


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Nuclear Operating Licenses
Operating licenses for nuclear units are potentially subject to extension. The following table includes the current expiration of nuclear operating licenses.
Unit  Year of Expiration
Duke Energy Carolinas  
Catawba Unit 1  2043
Catawba Unit 2  2043
McGuire Unit 1  2041
McGuire Unit 2  2043
Oconee Unit 1  2033
Oconee Unit 2  2033
Oconee Unit 3  2034
Duke Energy Progress  
Brunswick Unit 1  2036
Brunswick Unit 2  2034
Harris  2046
Robinson  2030
Duke Energy Florida  
Crystal River Unit 3(a)
(a)Duke Energy Florida has requested the NRC terminate the operating license as Crystal River Unit 3 permanently ceased operation in February 2013. Refer to Note 4 for further information on decommissioning activity and transition to SAFSTOR.

163


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

10. PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT
The following tables summarize the property, plant and equipment.
 December 31, 2014
(in millions)Estimated Useful Life (Years) Duke Energy
 Duke Energy Carolinas
 Progress Energy
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 Duke Energy Ohio
 Duke Energy Indiana
Land    $1,459
 $403
 $704
 $380
 $324
 $114
 $108
Plant - Regulated      
   
   
   
   
   
   
Electric generation, distribution and transmission  2 - 138 82,206
 31,751
 33,672
 20,616
 13,056
 3,956
 11,911
Natural gas transmission and distribution  12 - 67 2,230
 
 
 
 
 2,230
 
Other buildings and improvements  9 - 100 1,445
 465
 607
 286
 318
 200
 173
Plant - Nonregulated       
   
   
   
   
   
   
Electric generation, distribution and transmission  1- 30 2,380
 
 
 
 
 
 
Other buildings and improvements  5 - 50 2,498
 
 
 
 
 
 
Nuclear fuel     2,865
 1,676
 1,190
 1,190
 
 
 
Equipment  3 - 34 1,762
 341
 506
 388
 118
 330
 166
Construction in process     4,519
 2,081
 1,215
 908
 307
 97
 481
Other  5 - 80 3,497
 655
 756
 439
 310
 214
 195
Total property, plant and equipment(a)(d)
  104,861
 37,372
 38,650
 24,207
 14,433
 7,141
 13,034
Total accumulated depreciation - regulated(b)(c)(d)
  (32,628) (12,700) (13,506) (9,021) (4,478) (2,213) (4,219)
Total accumulated depreciation - nonregulated(c)(d)
  (2,196) 
 
 
 
 
 
Generation facilities to be retired, net  9
 
 
 
 
 9
 
Total net property, plant and equipment    $70,046

$24,672

$25,144

$15,186

$9,955

$4,937
 $8,815
(a)Includes capitalized leases of $1,548 million, $40 million, $315 million, $146 million, $169 million, $98 million, and $30 million at Duke Energy, Duke Energy Carolinas, Progress Energy, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Florida, Duke Energy Ohio, and Duke Energy Indiana, respectively, primarily in regulated plant. The Progress Energy, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida amounts are net of $72 million, $5 million and $67 million, respectively, of accumulated amortization of capitalized leases.
(b)Includes $1,408 million, $847 million, $561 million and $561 million of accumulated amortization of nuclear fuel at Duke Energy, Duke Energy Carolinas, Progress Energy and Duke Energy Progress, respectively.
(c)Includes accumulated amortization of capitalized leases of $52 million, $8 million, $25 million and $6 million at Duke Energy, Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana, respectively.
(d)Includes gross property, plant and equipment cost of consolidated VIEs of $1,873 million and accumulated depreciation of consolidated VIEs of $257 million at Duke Energy.

164


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

 December 31, 2013
(in millions)Estimated Useful Life (Years) Duke Energy
 Duke Energy Carolinas
 Progress Energy
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 Duke Energy Ohio
 Duke Energy Indiana
Land    $1,481
 $397
 $705
 $383
 $321
 $137
 $105
Plant - Regulated      
   
   
   
   
   
   
Electric generation, distribution and transmission  2 - 125 78,272
 30,018
 31,792
 19,190
 12,601
 3,925
 11,594
Natural gas transmission and distribution  12 - 67 2,138
 
 
 
 
 2,138
 
Other buildings and improvements  2 - 100 1,397
 447
 610
 282
 315
 190
 159
Plant - Nonregulated       
   
   
   
   
   
   
Electric generation, distribution and transmission  2 - 100 6,267
 
 
 
 
 4,017
 
Other buildings and improvements  9 -100 2,512
 
 
 
 
 5
 
Nuclear fuel     2,458
 1,446
 1,012
 1,012
 
 
 
Equipment  1 - 33 1,557
 287
 621
 357
 94
 317
 146
Construction in process     3,595
 1,741
 873
 631
 238
 166
 307
Other  5 - 33 3,438
 570
 867
 418
 294
 248
 178
Total property, plant and equipment(a)(d)
  103,115
 34,906
 36,480
 22,273
 13,863
 11,143
 12,489
Total accumulated depreciation - regulated(b)(c)(d)
  (31,659) (11,894) (13,098) (8,623) (4,252) (2,160) (3,913)
Total accumulated depreciation - nonregulated(c)(d)
  (1,966) 
 
 
 
 (748) 
Total net property, plant and equipment    $69,490
 $23,012
 $23,382
 $13,650
 $9,611
 $8,235
 $8,576
(a)Includes capitalized leases of $1,606 million, $53 million, $328 million, $148 million, $180 million, $96 million, and $30 million at Duke Energy, Duke Energy Carolinas, Progress Energy, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Florida, Duke Energy Ohio, and Duke Energy Indiana, respectively, primarily in regulated plant. The Progress Energy, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida amounts are net of $60 million, an insignificant amount and $57 million, respectively, of accumulated amortization of capitalized leases.
(b)Includes $1,118 million, $681 million, $438 million and $438 million of accumulated amortization of nuclear fuel at Duke Energy, Duke Energy Carolinas, Progress Energy and Duke Energy Progress, respectively.
(c)Includes accumulated amortization of capitalized leases of $40 million, $4 million, $21 million and $5 million at Duke Energy, Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana, respectively.
(d)Includes gross property, plant and equipment cost of consolidated VIEs of $1,678 million and accumulated depreciation of consolidated VIEs of $175 million at Duke Energy.
The following table presents capitalized interest, which includes the debt component of AFUDC.
 Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2014
 2013
 2012
Duke Energy$75
 $89
 $176
Duke Energy Carolinas38
 41
 72
Progress Energy11
 19
 41
Duke Energy Progress10
 16
 23
Duke Energy Florida1
 3
 18
Duke Energy Ohio10
 11
 13
Duke Energy Indiana6
 9
 39

165


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

11. GOODWILL AND INTANGIBLE ASSETS
Goodwill
The following tables present goodwill by reportable operating segment for Duke Energy and Duke Energy Ohio. 
Duke Energy
(in millions)  Regulated Utilities
 International Energy
 Commercial Power
 Total
Balance at December 31, 2013           
Goodwill  $15,950
 $326
 $935
 $17,211
Accumulated impairment charges  
 
 (871) (871)
Balance at December 31, 2013, net of accumulated impairment charges  15,950
 326
 64
 16,340
Foreign exchange and other changes  
 (19) 
 (19)
Balance at December 31, 2014           
Goodwill  15,950
 307
 935
 17,192
Accumulated impairment charges  
 
 (871) (871)
Balance at December 31, 2014, net of accumulated impairment charges  $15,950
 $307
 $64
 $16,321
Duke Energy Ohio
(in millions)  
Regulated Utilities
 Commercial Power
 Total
Balance at December 31, 2013        
Goodwill  $1,136
 $1,188
 $2,324
Accumulated impairment charges  (216) (1,188) (1,404)
Balance at December 31, 2013, net of accumulated impairment charges  920
 
 920
Balance at December 31, 2014        
Goodwill  1,136
 1,188
 2,324
Accumulated impairment charges  (216) (1,188) (1,404)
Balance at December 31, 2014, net of accumulated impairment charges  
$920
 $
 $920
Progress Energy
Progress Energy's Goodwill is included in the Regulated Utilities operating segment and there are no accumulated impairment charges.
Impairment Testing
Duke Energy, Duke Energy Ohio and Progress Energy are required to perform an annual goodwill impairment test as of the same date each year and, accordingly, performs its annual impairment testing of goodwill as of August 31. Duke Energy, Duke Energy Ohio and Progress Energy update their test between annual tests if events or circumstances occur that would more likely than not reduce the fair value of a reporting unit below its carrying value. As the fair value of Duke Energy, Duke Energy Ohio and Progress Energy’s reporting units exceeded their respective carrying values at the date of the annual impairment analysis, no impairment charges were recorded in 2014.

166


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Intangible Assets
The following tables show the carrying amount and accumulated amortization of intangible assets within Other on the Consolidated Balance Sheets of the Duke Energy Registrants at December 31, 2014 and 2013.
  December 31, 2014
(in millions)  Duke Energy
 Duke Energy Carolinas
 Progress Energy
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 
Duke Energy Ohio (a)

 Duke Energy Indiana
Emission allowances  $23
 $1
 $7
 $3
 $4
 $
 $16
Renewable energy certificates  97
 25
 69
 69
 
 3
 
Gas, coal and power contracts  24
 
 
 
 
 
 24
Wind development rights  97
 
 
 
 
 
 
Other     76
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total gross carrying amounts  317
 26
 76
 72
 4
 3
 40
Accumulated amortization - gas, coal and power contracts  (15) 
 
 
 
 
 (15)
Accumulated amortization - wind development rights  (14) 
 
 
 
 
 
Accumulated amortization - other  (25) 
 
 
 
 
 
Total accumulated amortization  (54) 
 
 
 
 
 (15)
Total intangible assets, net  $263

$26

$76

$72

$4

$3

$25
(a)During 2014, Duke Energy Ohio reduced the carrying amount of OVEC to zero. A charge of $94 million is recorded in Impairment Charges on Duke Energy Ohio's Consolidated Statement of Operations. In addition, Duke Energy Ohio has emission allowances and renewable energy certificates that have been reclassified to Assets Held For Sale pending the sale of the Disposal Group. See Note 17 for further information.
  December 31, 2013
(in millions)  Duke Energy
 Duke Energy Carolinas
 Progress Energy
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 Duke Energy Ohio
 Duke Energy Indiana
Emission allowances  $63
 $1
 $21
 $3
 $18
 $20
 $21
Renewable energy certificates  82
 16
 64
 64
 
 2
 
Gas, coal and power contracts  180
 
 
 
 
 156
 24
Wind development rights  86
 
 
 
 
 
 
Other     76
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total gross carrying amounts  487
 17
 85
 67
 18
 178
 45
Accumulated amortization - gas, coal and power contracts  (73) 
 
 
 
 (60) (13)
Accumulated amortization - wind development rights  (12) 
 
 
 
 
 
Accumulated amortization - other  (24) 
 
 
 
 
 
Total accumulated amortization  (109) 
 
 
 
 (60) (13)
Total intangible assets, net  $378

$17

$85

$67

$18

$118

$32

167


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Amortization Expense
The following table presents amortization expense for gas, coal and power contracts, wind development rights and other intangible assets.
  December 31,
(in millions)2014
 2013
 2012
Duke Energy$6
 $13
 $14
Duke Energy Ohio2
 8
 12
Duke Energy Indiana1
 1
 1
The table below shows the expected amortization expense for the next five years for intangible assets as of December 31, 2014. The expected amortization expense includes estimates of emission allowances consumption and estimates of consumption of commodities such as gas and coal under existing contracts, as well as estimated amortization related to the wind development projects. The amortization amounts discussed below are estimates and actual amounts may differ from these estimates due to such factors as changes in consumption patterns, sales or impairments of emission allowances or other intangible assets, delays in the in-service dates of wind assets, additional intangible acquisitions and other events.
(in millions)2015
 2016
 2017
 2018
 2019
Duke Energy$11
 $8
 $7
 $7
 $7
Duke Energy Ohio2
 1
 1
 1
 1
Duke Energy Indiana5
 3
 2
 2
 2
12. INVESTMENTS IN UNCONSOLIDATED AFFILIATES
EQUITY METHOD INVESTMENTS
Investments in domestic and international affiliates that are not controlled by Duke Energy, but over which it has significant influence, are accounted for using the equity method. As of December 31, 2014 and 2013, the carrying amount of investments in affiliates with carrying amounts greater than zero approximated the amount of underlying equity in net assets.
The following table presents Duke Energy’s investments in unconsolidated affiliates accounted for under the equity method, as well as the respective equity in earnings, by segment.
  Years Ended December 31,
  2014 2013 2012
(in millions)Investments
 Equity in earnings
 Investments
 Equity in earnings
 Equity in earnings
Regulated Utilities$3
 $(3) $4
 $(1) $(5)
International Energy69
 120
 82
 110
 134
Commercial Power258
 10
 252
 7
 14
Other28
 3
 52
 6
 5
Total$358
 $130
 $390
 $122
 $148
During the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, Duke Energy received distributions from equity investments of $154 million, $144 million and $183 million, respectively, which are included in Other assets within Cash Flows from Operating Activities on the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows.
Significant investments in affiliates accounted for under the equity method are discussed below.
International Energy
Duke Energy owns a 25 percent indirect interest in NMC, which owns and operates a methanol and MTBE business in Jubail, Saudi Arabia.
Commercial Power
Investments accounted for under the equity method primarily consist of Duke Energy’s approximate 50 percent ownership interest in the five Catamount Sweetwater, LLC wind farm projects (Phase I-V), INDU Solar Holdings, LLC and DS Cornerstone, LLC. All of these entities own solar or wind power projects in the United States. Duke Energy also owns a 50 percent interest in Duke American Transmission Co., LLC, which builds, owns and operates electric transmission facilities in North America.
Other
On December 31, 2013, Duke Energy completed the sale of its 50 percent ownership interest in DukeNet, which owned and operated telecommunications businesses, to Time Warner Cable, Inc. After retiring existing DukeNet debt and payment of transaction expenses, Duke Energy received $215 million in cash proceeds and recorded a $105 million pretax gain in the fourth quarter of 2013.

168


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

13. RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
The Subsidiary Registrants engage in related party transactions, which are generally performed at cost and in accordance with the applicable state and federal commission regulations. Refer to the Consolidated Balance Sheets of the Subsidiary Registrants for balances due to or due from related parties. Material amounts related to transactions with related parties included in the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income are presented in the following table.
 Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2014
 2013
 2012
Duke Energy Carolinas     
Corporate governance and shared service expenses(a)
$851
 $927
 $1,112
Indemnification coverages(b)
21
 22
 21
JDA revenue(c)
133
 121
 18
JDA expense(c)
198
 116
 91
Progress Energy       
Corporate governance and shared services provided by Duke Energy(a)
$732
 $290
 $63
Corporate governance and shared services provided to Duke Energy(d)

 96
 47
Indemnification coverages(b)
33
 34
 17
JDA revenue(c)
198
 116
 91
JDA expense(c)
133
 121
 18
Duke Energy Progress     
Corporate governance and shared service expenses(a)
$386
 $266
 $254
Indemnification coverages(b)
17
 20
 8
JDA revenue(c)
198
 116
 91
JDA expense(c)
133
 121
 18
Duke Energy Florida     
Corporate governance and shared service expenses(a)
$346
 $182
 $186
Indemnification coverages(b)
16
 14
 8
Duke Energy Ohio     
Corporate governance and shared service expenses(a)
$316
 $347
 $358
Indemnification coverages(b)
13
 15
 15
Duke Energy Indiana     
Corporate governance and shared service expenses(a)
$384
 $422
 $419
Indemnification coverages(b)
11
 14
 8
(a)The Subsidiary Registrants are charged their proportionate share of corporate governance and other shared services costs, primarily related to human resources, employee benefits, legal and accounting fees, as well as other third-party costs. These amounts are recorded in Operation, maintenance and other on the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income.
(b)The Subsidiary Registrants incur expenses related to certain indemnification coverages through Bison, Duke Energy’s wholly owned captive insurance subsidiary. These expenses are recorded in Operation, maintenance and other on the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income.
(c)Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress participate in a JDA which allows the collective dispatch of power plants between the service territories to reduce customer rates. Revenues from the sale of power under the JDA are recorded in Operating Revenues on the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income. Expenses from the purchase of power under the JDA are recorded in Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power on the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income.
(d)In 2013 and 2012, Progress Energy Service Company (PESC), a consolidated subsidiary of Progress Energy, charged a proportionate share of corporate governance and other costs to consolidated affiliates of Duke Energy. Corporate governance and other shared costs were primarily related to human resources, employee benefits, legal and accounting fees, as well as other third-party costs. These charges were recorded as an offset to Operation, maintenance and other in the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income. Effective January 1, 2014, PESC was contributed to Duke Energy Corporate Services (DECS), a consolidated subsidiary of Duke Energy, and these costs were no longer charged out of Progress Energy. Progress Energy recorded a non-cash after-tax equity transfer related to the contribution of PESC to DECS in its Consolidated Statements of Changes in Common Stockholder's Equity.
In addition to the amounts presented above, the Subsidiary Registrants record the impact on net income of other affiliate transactions, including rental of office space, participation in a money pool arrangement, other operational transactions and their proportionate share of certain charged expenses. See Note 6 for more information regarding money pool. The net impact of these transactions was not material for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012 for the Subsidiary Registrants.

169


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

As discussed in Note 17, certain trade receivables have been sold by Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana to CRC, an affiliate formed by a subsidiary of Duke Energy. The proceeds obtained from the sales of receivables are largely cash but do include a subordinated note from CRC for a portion of the purchase price.
In January 2012, Duke Energy Ohio recorded a non-cash equity transfer of $28 million related to the sale of Vermillion to Duke Energy Indiana. Duke Energy Indiana recorded a non-cash after-tax equity transfer of $26 million for the purchase of Vermillion from Duke Energy Ohio. See Note 2 for further discussion.
Duke Energy Commercial Asset Management (DECAM) is a nonregulated, indirect subsidiary of Duke Energy Ohio that owns generating plants included in the Disposal Group discussed in Note 2. DECAM's business activities include the execution of commodity transactions, third-party vendor and supply contracts, and service contracts for certain of Duke Energy’s nonregulated entities. The commodity contracts DECAM enters are accounted for as undesignated contracts or NPNS. Consequently, mark-to-market impacts of intercompany contracts with, and sales of power to, nonregulated entities are included in (Loss) Income from discontinued operations in Duke Energy Ohio’s Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income. These amounts totaled net expense of $24 million and $6 million and net revenue of $24 million, for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively.
Because it is not a rated entity, DECAM receives credit support from Duke Energy or its nonregulated subsidiaries, not from the regulated utility operations of Duke Energy Ohio. DECAM meets its funding needs through an intercompany loan agreement from a subsidiary of Duke Energy. DECAM also has the ability to loan money to the subsidiary of Duke Energy. DECAM had an outstanding intercompany loan payable of $459 million and $43 million for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively, These amounts are recorded in Notes payable to affiliated companies on Duke Energy Ohio’s Consolidated Balance Sheets.
As discussed in Note 6, in April 2014, Duke Energy issued $1 billion of senior unsecured notes. Proceeds from the issuances of approximately $400 million were loaned to DECAM, and such funds were ultimately used to redeem $402 million of tax-exempt bonds at Duke Energy Ohio. This transaction substantially completed the restructuring of Duke Energy Ohio’s capital structure to reflect appropriate debt and equity ratios for its regulated operations. The restructuring was completed in the second quarter of 2014, and resulted in the transfer of all of Duke Energy Ohio’s nonregulated generation assets, excluding Beckjord, out of its regulated public utility subsidiary and into DECAM.
14. DERIVATIVES AND HEDGING
The Duke Energy Registrants use commodity and interest rate contracts to manage commodity price and interest rate risks. The primary use of energy commodity derivatives is to hedge the generation portfolio against changes in the prices of electricity and natural gas. Interest rate swaps are used to manage interest rate risk associated with borrowings.
All derivative instruments not identified as NPNS are recorded at fair value as assets or liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Cash collateral related to derivative instruments executed under master netting agreement is offset against the collateralized derivatives on the balance sheet.
Changes in the fair value of derivative agreements that either do not qualify for or have not been designated as hedges are reflected in current earnings or as regulatory assets or liabilities.
COMMODITY PRICE RISK
The Duke Energy Registrants are exposed to the impact of changes in the future prices of electricity, coal and natural gas. Exposure to commodity price risk is influenced by a number of factors including the term of contracts, the liquidity of markets, and delivery locations.
Fair Value and Cash Flow Hedges
At December 31, 2014, there were no open commodity derivative instruments designated as hedges.
Undesignated Contracts
Undesignated contracts may include contracts not designated as a hedge, contracts that do not qualify for hedge accounting, derivatives that do not or no longer qualify for the NPNS scope exception, and de-designated hedge contracts. These contracts expire as late as 2018.
Duke Energy Carolinas’ undesignated contracts are primarily associated with forward sales and purchases of electricity. Duke Energy Progress’ and Duke Energy Florida’s undesignated contracts are primarily associated with forward purchases of natural gas. Duke Energy Ohio’s undesignated contracts are primarily associated with forward sales and purchases of electricity, coal, and natural gas. Duke Energy Indiana’s undesignated contracts are primarily associated with forward purchases and sales of electricity and financial transmission rights.

170


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Volumes
The tables below show information relating to volumes of outstanding commodity derivatives. Amounts disclosed represent the notional volumes of commodity contracts excluding NPNS. Amounts disclosed represent the absolute value of notional amounts. The Duke Energy Registrants have netted contractual amounts where offsetting purchase and sale contracts exist with identical delivery locations and times of delivery. Where all commodity positions are perfectly offset, no quantities are shown.
 December 31, 2014
 Duke Energy
 Duke Energy Carolinas
 Progress Energy
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 Duke Energy Ohio
 Duke Energy Indiana
Electricity (gigawatt-hours)(a)
25,370
 
 
 
 
 19,141
 
Natural gas (millions of decatherms)676
 35
 328
 116
 212
 313
 
 December 31, 2013
 Duke Energy
 Duke Energy Carolinas
 Progress Energy
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 Duke Energy Ohio
 Duke Energy Indiana
Electricity (gigawatt-hours)(a)
71,466
 1,205
 925
 925
 
 69,362
 203
Natural gas (millions of decatherms)636
 
 363
 141
 222
 274
 
(a)Amounts at Duke Energy Ohio include intercompany positions that eliminate at Duke Energy.
INTEREST RATE RISK
The Duke Energy Registrants are exposed to changes in interest rates as a result of their issuance or anticipated issuance of variable-rate and fixed-rate debt and commercial paper. Interest rate risk is managed by limiting variable-rate exposures to a percentage of total debt and by monitoring changes in interest rates. To manage risk associated with changes in interest rates, the Duke Energy Registrants may enter into interest rate swaps, U.S. Treasury lock agreements, and other financial contracts. In anticipation of certain fixed-rate debt issuances, a series of forward starting interest rate swaps may be executed to lock in components of current market interest rates. These instruments are later terminated prior to or upon the issuance of the corresponding debt. Pretax gains or losses recognized from inception to termination of the hedges are amortized as a component of interest expense over the life of the debt.
Duke Energy has a combination foreign exchange, pay fixed-receive floating interest rate swap to fix the U.S. dollar equivalent payments on a floating-rate Chilean debt issue.
The following tables show notional amounts for derivatives related to interest rate risk.
 December 31, 2014 December 31, 2013
(in millions)
Duke
Energy

 
Duke
Energy Florida

 
Duke
Energy
Ohio

 
Duke
Energy

 
Duke
Energy
Ohio

Cash flow hedges(a)
$750
 $
 $
 $798
 $
Undesignated contracts277
 250
 27
 34
 27
Total notional amount$1,027
 250
 $27
 $832
 $27
(a)Duke Energy includes amounts related to consolidated VIEs of $541 million at December 31, 2014 and $584 million at December 31, 2013.


171


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

DUKE ENERGY
The following table shows the fair value of derivatives and the line items in the Consolidated Balance Sheets where they are reported. Although derivatives subject to master netting arrangements are netted on the Consolidated Balance Sheets, the fair values presented below are shown gross and cash collateral on the derivatives has not been netted against the fair values shown.
 December 31,
 2014 2013
(in millions)Asset
 Liability
 Asset
 Liability
Derivatives Designated as Hedging Instruments       
Commodity contracts       
Current liabilities: other$
 $
 $
 $1
Interest rate contracts       
Investments and other assets: other10
 
 27
 
Current liabilities: other
 13
 
 18
Deferred credits and other liabilities: other
 29
 
 4
Total Derivatives Designated as Hedging Instruments$10
 $42
 $27
 $23
Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments       
Commodity contracts       
Current assets: other$18
 $
 $201
 $158
Current assets: assets held for sale15
 
 
 
Investments and other assets: other3
 
 215
 131
Investments and other assets: assets held for sale15
 
 
 
Current liabilities: other1
 307
 13
 153
Current liabilities: assets held for sale174
 253
 
 
Deferred credits and other liabilities: other2
 91
 5
 166
Deferred credits and other liabilities: assets held for sale111
 208
 
 
Interest rate contracts       
Current assets: other2
 
 
 
Current liabilities: other
 1
 
 1
Deferred credits and other liabilities: other
 7
 
 4
Total Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments341
 867
 434
 613
Total Derivatives$351

$909
 $461
 $636
The tables below show the balance sheet location of derivative contracts subject to enforceable master netting agreements and include collateral posted to offset the net position. This disclosure is intended to enable users to evaluate the effect of netting arrangements on financial position. The amounts shown were calculated by counterparty. Accounts receivable or accounts payable may also be available to offset exposures in the event of bankruptcy. These amounts are not included in the tables below.
 Derivative Assets
 December 31, 2014 December 31, 2013
(in millions)
Current(a)

 
Non-Current(b)

 
Current(e)

 
Non-Current(f)

Gross amounts recognized$210
 $136
 $214
 $233
Gross amounts offset(153) (88) (179) (138)
Net amount subject to master netting57
 48
 35
 95
Amounts not subject to master netting
 5
 
 14
Net amounts recognized on the Consolidated Balance Sheet$57
 $53
 $35
 $109

172


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

 Derivative Liabilities
 December 31, 2014 December 31, 2013
(in millions)
Current(c)

 
Non-Current(d)

 
Current(g)

 
Non-Current(h)

Gross amounts recognized$573
 $319
 $322
 $299
Gross amounts offset(213) (173) (192) (155)
Net amounts subject to master netting360
 146
 130
 144
Amounts not subject to master netting1
 16
 4
 11
Net amounts recognized on the Consolidated Balance Sheet$361
 $162
 $134
 $155
(a)    Included in Other and Assets Held for Sale within Current Assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
(b)Included in Other and Assets held for Sale within Investments and Other Assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
(c)Included in Other and Liabilities Associated with Assets Held for Sale within Current Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
(d)Included in Other and Liabilities Associated with Assets Held for Sale within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
(e)Included in Other within Current Assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
(f)Included in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
(g)Included in Other within Current Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
(h)Included in Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
The following table shows the gains and losses recognized on cash flow hedges and the line items on the Consolidated Statements of Operations where such gains and losses are included when reclassified from AOCI. Amounts for interest rate contracts are reclassified to earnings as interest expense over the term of the related debt.
 Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2014
 2013
 2012
Pretax Gains (Losses) Recorded in AOCI     
Interest rate contracts$(39) $79
 $(23)
Commodity contracts
 1
 1
Total Pretax Gains (Losses) Recorded in AOCI$(39) $80
 $(22)
Location of Pretax Gains and (Losses) Reclassified from AOCI into Earnings     
Interest rate contracts     
Interest expense(7) (2) 2
There was no hedge ineffectiveness during the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, and no gains or losses were excluded from the assessment of hedge effectiveness during the same periods.
A $10 million pretax gain is expected to be recognized in earnings during the next 12 months as interest expense.

173


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

The following table shows the gains and losses during the year recognized on undesignated derivatives and the line items on the Consolidated Statements of Operations or the Consolidated Balance Sheets where the pretax gains and losses were reported. Amounts included in Regulatory Assets or Liabilities for commodity contracts are reclassified to earnings to match recovery through the fuel clause. Amounts included in Regulatory Assets or Liabilities for interest rate contracts are reclassified to earnings as interest expense over the term of the related debt.
 Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2014
 2013
 2012
Location of Pretax Gains and (Losses) Recognized in Earnings     
Commodity contracts     
Revenue: Regulated electric$
 $11
 $(23)
Other income and expenses
 
 (2)
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power-regulated(44) (200) (194)
Income (Loss) From Discontinued Operations(729) (57) 40
Interest rate contracts     
Interest expense(6) (18) (8)
Total Pretax (Losses) Gains Recognized in Earnings$(779) $(264) $(187)
Location of Pretax Gains and (Losses) Recognized as Regulatory Assets or Liabilities     
Commodity contracts     
Regulatory assets$(268) $10
 $(2)
Regulatory liabilities14
 15
 36
Interest rate contracts     
Regulatory assets
 55
 10
Regulatory liabilities2
 
 
Total Pretax Gains (Losses) Recognized as Regulatory Assets or Liabilities$(252) $80
 $44
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS
The following table shows the fair value of derivatives and the line items in the Consolidated Balance Sheets where they are reported. Although derivatives subject to master netting arrangements are netted on the Consolidated Balance Sheets, the fair values presented below are shown gross and cash collateral on the derivatives has not been netted against the fair values shown.
 December 31,
 2014 2013
(in millions)Asset
 Liability
 Asset
 Liability
Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments       
Commodity contracts       
Current liabilities: other$
 $14
 $
 $1
Deferred credits and other liabilities: other
 5
 
 1
Total Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments
 19
 
 2
Total Derivatives$
 $19
 $
 $2
The tables below show the balance sheet location of derivative contracts subject to enforceable master netting agreements and include collateral posted to offset the net position. This disclosure is intended to enable users to evaluate the effect of netting arrangements on financial position. The amounts shown were calculated by counterparty. Accounts receivable or accounts payable may also be available to offset exposures in the event of bankruptcy. These amounts are not included in the tables below.
Derivative Assets
December 31, 2014December 31, 2013
(in millions)
Current(a)

Non-Current(b)

Current(a)

Non-Current(b)

Gross amounts recognized$
$
$
$
Gross amounts offset



Net amount subject to master netting



Amounts not subject to master netting



Net amounts recognized on the Consolidated Balance Sheet$
$
$
$

174


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

 Derivative Liabilities
 December 31, 2014 December 31, 2013
(in millions)
Current(c)

 
Non-Current(d)

 
Current(c)

 
Non-Current(d)

Gross amounts recognized$14
 $5
 $
 $
Gross amounts offset
 
 
 
Net amount subject to master netting14
 5
 
 
Amounts not subject to master netting
 
 1
 1
Net amounts recognized on the Consolidated Balance Sheet$14
 $5
 $1
 $1
(a)Included in Other within Current Assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
(b)Included in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
(c)Included in Other within Current Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
(d)Included in Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
The following table shows the gains and losses during the year recognized on cash flow hedges and the line items on the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income where such gains and losses are included when reclassified from AOCI. Amounts for interest rate contracts are reclassified to earnings as interest expense over the term of the related debt.
 Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2014
 2013
 2012
Location of Pretax Gains and (Losses) Reclassified from AOCI into Earnings     
Interest rate contracts     
Interest expense$(3) $(3) $(3)
A $3 million pretax gain is expected to be recognized in earnings during the next 12 months as interest expense.
The following table shows the gains and losses during the year recognized on undesignated derivatives and the line items on the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income or the Consolidated Balance Sheets where the pretax gains and losses were reported. Amounts not included in Regulatory Assets or Liabilities for commodity contracts are reclassified to earnings to match recovery through the fuel clause. Amounts included in Regulatory Assets or Liabilities for interest rate contracts are reclassified to earnings as interest expense over the term of the related debt.
 Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2014
 2013
 2012
Location of Pretax Gains and (Losses) Recognized in Earnings     
Commodity contracts     
Revenue: Regulated electric$
 $(12) $(12)
Total Pretax (Losses) Gains Recognized in Earnings
 (12) (12)
Location of Pretax Gains and (Losses) Recognized as Regulatory Assets or Liabilities     
Commodity contracts     
Regulatory assets$(19) $
 $

175


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

PROGRESS ENERGY
The following table shows the fair value of derivatives and the line items in the Consolidated Balance Sheets where they are reported. Although derivatives subject to master netting arrangements are netted on the Consolidated Balance Sheets, the fair values presented below are shown gross and cash collateral on the derivatives has not been netted against the fair values shown.
 December 31,
 2014 2013
(in millions)Asset
 Liability
 Asset
 Liability
Derivatives Designated as Hedging Instruments       
Commodity contracts       
Current liabilities: other$
 $1
 $
 $1
Deferred credits and other liabilities: other
 
 
 4
Total Derivatives Designated as Hedging Instruments$
 $1
 $
 $5
Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments       
Commodity contracts       
Current assets: other$
 $
 $3
 $2
Investments and other assets: other
 
 2
 1
Current liabilities: other
 288
 11
 105
Deferred credits and other liabilities: other
 80
 4
 91
Interest rate contracts       
Current assets: other2
 
 
 
Deferred credits and other liabilities: other
 2
 
 
Total Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments2
 370
 20
 199
Total Derivatives$2
 $371
 $20
 $204
The tables below show the balance sheet location of derivative contracts subject to enforceable master netting agreements and include collateral posted to offset the net position. This disclosure is intended to enable users to evaluate the effect of netting arrangements on financial position. The amounts shown were calculated by counterparty. Accounts receivable or accounts payable may also be available to offset exposures in the event of bankruptcy. These amounts are not included in the tables below.
 Derivative Assets
 December 31, 2014 December 31, 2013
(in millions)
Current(a)

 
Non-Current(b)

 
Current(a)

 
Non-Current(b)

Gross amounts recognized$2
 $
 $15
 $5
Gross amounts offset(2) 
 (13) (4)
Net amounts recognized on the Consolidated Balance Sheet$
 $
 $2
 $1
 Derivative Liabilities
 December 31, 2014 December 31, 2013
(in millions)
Current(c)

 
Non-Current(d)

 
Current(c)

 
Non-Current(d)

Gross amounts recognized$289
 $82
 $107
 $93
Gross amounts offset(17) (8) (17) (10)
Net amounts subject to master netting272
 74
 90
 83
Amounts not subject to master netting
 
 
 4
Net amounts recognized on the Consolidated Balance Sheet$272
 $74
 $90
 $87
(a)    Included in Other within Current Assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
(b)Included in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
(c)Included in Other within Current Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
(d)Included in Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.

176


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

The following table shows the gains and losses during the year recognized on cash flow hedges and the line items on the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income or Consolidated Balance Sheet where such gains and losses are included when reclassified from AOCI. Amounts for interest rate contracts are reclassified to earnings as interest expense over the term of the related debt.
 Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2014
 2013
 2012
Pretax Gains (Losses) Recorded in AOCI     
Commodity contracts$
 $1
 $1
Interest rate contracts
 
 (11)
Total Pretax Gains (Losses) Recorded in AOCI$
 $1
 $(10)
Location of Pretax Gains and (Losses) Reclassified from AOCI into Earnings     
Interest rate contracts     
Interest expense(13) 
 (14)
Location of Pretax Gains and (Losses) Reclassified from AOCI to Regulatory Assets or Liabilities(a)
     
Interest rate contracts     
Regulatory assets
 $
 (159)
(a)    Effective with the merger, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida no longer designates interest rate derivatives for
regulated operations as cash flow hedges. As a result, the pretax losses on derivatives as of the date of the merger were reclassified from AOCI to regulatory assets.
There was no hedge ineffectiveness during the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, and no gains or losses have been excluded from the assessment of hedge effectiveness during the same periods.
A $13 million pretax loss is expected to be recognized in earnings during the next 12 months as interest expense.
The following table shows the gains and losses during the year recognized on undesignated derivatives and the line items on the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income or the Consolidated Balance Sheets where the pretax gains and losses were reported. Amounts included in Regulatory Assets or Liabilities for commodity contracts are reclassified to earnings to match recovery through the fuel clause. Amounts included in Regulatory Assets or Liabilities for interest rate contracts are reclassified to earnings as interest expense over the term of the related debt.
 Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2014
 2013
 2012
Location of Pretax Gains and (Losses) Recognized in Earnings     
Commodity contracts     
Operating revenues$
 $11
 $(11)
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power(44) (200) (454)
Other income and expenses, net
 
 7
Interest rate contracts     
Interest expense(4) (17) (8)
Total Pretax (Losses) Gains Recognized in Earnings$(48) $(206) $(466)
Location of Pretax Gains and (Losses) Recognized as Regulatory Assets or Liabilities     
Commodity contracts     
Regulatory assets$(233) $10
 $(171)
Regulatory liabilities2
 
 
Interest rate contracts     
Regulatory assets2
 18
 6
Total Pretax Gains (Losses) Recognized as Regulatory Assets or Liabilities$(229) $28
 $(165)

177


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS
The following table shows the fair value of derivatives and the line items in the Consolidated Balance Sheets where they are reported. Although derivatives subject to master netting arrangements are netted on the Consolidated Balance Sheets, the fair values presented below are shown gross and cash collateral on the derivatives has not been netted against the fair values shown. Substantially all derivatives not designated as hedging instruments receive regulatory accounting treatment.
 December 31,
 2014 2013
(in millions)Asset
 Liability
 Asset
 Liability
Derivatives Designated as Hedging Instruments       
Commodity contracts       
Current liabilities: other$
 $1
 $
 $1
Total Derivatives Designated as Hedging Instruments
 1
 
 1
Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments       
Commodity contracts       
Investments and other assets: other$
 $
 $2
 $1
Current liabilities: other
 108
 2
 40
Deferred credits and other liabilities: other
 23
 2
 29
Total Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments
 131
 6
 70
Total Derivatives$
 $132
 $6
 $71
The tables below show the balance sheet location of derivative contracts subject to enforceable master netting agreements and include collateral posted to offset the net position. This disclosure is intended to enable users to evaluate the effect of netting arrangements on financial position. The amounts shown were calculated by counterparty. Accounts receivable or accounts payable may also be available to offset exposures in the event of bankruptcy. These amounts are not included in the tables below.
 Derivative Assets
 December 31, 2014 December 31, 2013
(in millions)
Current(a)

 
Non-Current(b)

 
Current(a)

 
Non-Current(b)

Gross amounts recognized$
 $
 $3
 $3
Gross amounts offset
 
 (3) (3)
Net amounts recognized on the Consolidated Balance Sheet$
 $
 $
 $
 Derivative Liabilities
 December 31, 2014 December 31, 2013
(in millions)
Current(c)

 
Non-Current(d)

 
Current(c)

 
Non-Current(d)

Gross amounts recognized$109
 $23
 $41
 $30
Gross amounts offset
 
 (3) (3)
Net amounts recognized on the Consolidated Balance Sheet$109
 $23
 $38
 $27
(a)    Included in Other within Current Assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
(b)Included in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
(c)Included in Other within Current Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
(d)Included in Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
The following table shows the gains and losses during the year recognized on cash flow hedges and the line items on the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income or Consolidated Balance Sheets in which such gains and losses are included when reclassified from AOCI. Amounts for interest rate contracts are reclassified to earnings as interest expense over the term of the related debt.

178


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

 Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2014
 2013
 2012
Pretax Gains (Losses) Recorded in AOCI     
Interest rate contracts$
 $
 $(7)
Location of Pretax Gains and (Losses) Reclassified from AOCI into Earnings     
Interest rate contracts     
Interest expense
 
 (5)
Location of Pretax Gains and (Losses) Reclassified from AOCI to Regulatory Assets or Liabilities(a)
     
Interest rate contracts     
Regulatory assets
 $
 (117)
(a)Effective with the merger, Duke Energy Progress no longer designates interest rate derivatives for regulated operations as cash flow hedges. As a result, the pretax losses on derivatives as of the date of the merger were reclassified from AOCI to Regulatory assets.
There was no hedge ineffectiveness during the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, and no gains or losses have been excluded from the assessment of hedge effectiveness during the same periods.
The following table shows the gains and losses during the year recognized on undesignated derivatives and the line items on the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income or the Consolidated Balance Sheets where the pretax gains and losses were reported. Amounts included in Regulatory Assets or Liabilities for commodity contracts are reclassified to earnings to match recovery through the fuel clause. Amounts included in Regulatory Assets or Liabilities for interest rate contracts are reclassified to earnings as interest expense over the term of the related debt.
 Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2014
 2013
 2012
Location of Pretax Gains and (Losses) Recognized in Earnings     
Commodity contracts     
Operating revenues$
 $11
 $(11)
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power(15) (71) (115)
Interest rate contracts     
Interest expense
 (13) (6)
Total Pretax (Losses) Gains Recognized in Earnings$(15) $(73) $(132)
Location of Pretax Gains and (Losses) Recognized as Regulatory Assets or Liabilities     
Commodity contracts     
Regulatory assets$(82) $(6) $(55)
Interest rate contracts     
Regulatory assets
 13
 6
Total Pretax Gains (Losses) Recognized as Regulatory Assets or Liabilities$(82) $7
 $(49)

179


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA
The following table shows the fair value of derivatives and the line items in the Consolidated Balance Sheets where they are reported. Although derivatives subject to master netting arrangements are netted on the Consolidated Balance Sheets, the fair values presented below are shown gross and cash collateral on the derivatives has not been netted against the fair values shown.
 December 31,
 2014 2013
(in millions)Asset
 Liability
 Asset
 Liability
Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments           
Commodity contracts           
Current assets: other$
 $
 $3
 $2
Current liabilities: other
 180
 9
 64
Deferred credits and other liabilities: other
 57
 2
 63
Interest rate contracts       
Current assets: other2
 
 
 
Deferred credits and other liabilities: other
 2
 
 
Total Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments2
 239
 14
 129
Total Derivatives$2
 $239
 $14
 $129
The tables below show the balance sheet location of derivative contracts subject to enforceable master netting agreements and include collateral posted to offset the net position. This disclosure is intended to enable users to evaluate the effect of netting arrangements on financial position. The amounts shown were calculated by counterparty. Accounts receivable or accounts payable may also be available to offset exposures in the event of bankruptcy. These amounts are not included in the tables below.
  Derivative Assets
  December 31, 2014 December 31, 2013
(in millions)
Current(a)

 
Non-Current(b)

 
Current(a)

 
Non-Current(b)

Gross amounts recognized$2
 $
 $12
 $2
Gross amounts offset(2) 
 (10) (2)
Net amounts recognized on the Consolidated Balance Sheet$
 $
 $2
 $
  Derivative Liabilities
  December 31, 2014 December 31, 2013
(in millions)
Current(c)

 
Non-Current(d)

 
Current(c)

 
Non-Current(d)

Gross amounts recognized$180
 $59
 $66
 $63
Gross amounts offset(17) (8) (15) (7)
Net amounts recognized on the Consolidated Balance Sheet$163
 $51
 $51
 $56
(a)Included in Other within Current Assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
(b)Included in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
(c)Included in Other within Current Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
(d)Included in Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.

180


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

The following table shows the gains and losses during the year recognized on cash flow hedges and the line items on the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income or Consolidated Balance Sheets in which such gains and losses are included when reclassified from AOCI. Amounts for interest rate contracts are reclassified to earnings as interest expense over the term of the related debt.
  Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2014
 2013
 2012
Pretax Gains (Losses) Recorded in AOCI        
Commodity contracts$
 $1
 $1
Interest rate contracts
 
 (2)
Total Pretax Gains (Losses) Recorded in AOCI$
 $1
 $(1)
Location of Pretax Gains and (Losses) Reclassified from AOCI into Earnings        
Interest rate contracts     
Interest expense(2) 
 (2)
Location of Pretax Gains and (Losses) Reclassified from AOCI to Regulatory Assets(a)
        
Interest rate contracts        
Regulatory assets
 $
 (42)
(a)Effective with the merger, Duke Energy Florida no longer designates interest rate derivatives for regulated operations as cash flow hedges. As a result, the pretax losses on derivatives as of the date of the merger were reclassified from AOCI to Regulatory assets.
The following table shows the gains and losses during the year recognized on undesignated derivatives and the line items on the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income or the Consolidated Balance Sheets where the pretax gains and losses were reported. Amounts included in Regulatory Assets or Liabilities for commodity contracts are reclassified to earnings to match recovery through the fuel clause. Amounts included in Regulatory Assets or Liabilities for interest rate contracts are reclassified to earnings as interest expense over the term of the related debt.
  Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2014
 2013
 2012
Location of Pretax Gains and (Losses) Recognized in Earnings        
Commodity contracts        
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power$(29) $(129) $(339)
Interest rate contracts        
Interest expense(4) (5) (2)
Total Pretax (Losses) Gains Recognized in Earnings$(33) $(134) $(341)
Location of Pretax Gains and (Losses) Recognized as Regulatory Assets or Liabilities        
Commodity contracts        
Regulatory assets$(151) $16
 $(116)
Interest rate contracts     
Regulatory assets2
 5
 
Regulatory liabilities2
 
 
Total Pretax Gains (Losses) Recognized as Regulatory Assets or Liabilities$(147) $21
 $(116)

181


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

DUKE ENERGY OHIO
The following table shows the fair value of derivatives and the line items in the Consolidated Balance Sheets where they are reported. Although derivatives subject to master netting arrangements are netted on the Consolidated Balance Sheets, the fair values presented below are shown gross and cash collateral on the derivatives has not been netted against the fair values shown.
  December 31,
  2014 2013
(in millions)Asset
 Liability
 Asset
 Liability
Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments           
Commodity contracts           
Current assets: other$1
 $
 $186
 $163
Current assets: assets held for sale28
 4
 
 
Investments and other assets: other
 
 202
 130
Investments and other assets: assets held for sale26
 4
 
 
Current liabilities: other
 
 1
 36
Current liabilities: assets held for sale175
 252
 
 
Deferred credits and other liabilities: other
 
 2
 56
Deferred credits and other liabilities: assets held for sale111
 207
 
 
Interest rate contracts       
Current liabilities: other
 1
 
 1
Deferred credits and other liabilities: other
 5
 
 4
Total Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments341
 473
 391
 390
Total Derivatives$341
 $473
 $391
 $390
The tables below show the balance sheet location of derivative contracts subject to enforceable master netting agreements and include collateral posted to offset the net position. This disclosure is intended to enable users to evaluate the effect of netting arrangements on financial position. The amounts shown were calculated by counterparty. Accounts receivable or accounts payable may also be available to offset exposures in the event of bankruptcy. These amounts are not included in the tables below.
  Derivative Assets
  December 31, 2014 December 31, 2013
(in millions)
Current(a)

 
Non-Current(b)

 
Current(e)

 
Non-Current(f)

Gross amounts recognized$204
 $137
 $186
 $205
Gross amounts offset(179) (114) (165) (132)
Net amounts recognized on the Consolidated Balance Sheet$25
 $23
 $21
 $73
  Derivative Liabilities
  December 31, 2014 December 31, 2013
(in millions)
Current(c)

 
Non-Current(d)

 
Current(g)

 
Non-Current(h)

Gross amounts recognized$257
 $216
 $199
 $186
Gross amounts offset(222) (193) (173) (143)
Net amounts subject to master netting35
 23
 26
 43
Amounts not subject to master netting
 
 1
 4
Net amounts recognized on the Consolidated Balance Sheet$35
 $23
 $27
 $47
(a)    Included in Other and Assets Held for Sale within Current Assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
(b)Included in Other and Assets held for Sale within Investments and Other Assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
(c)Included in Other and Liabilities Associated with Assets Held for Sale within Current Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
(d)Included in Other and Liabilities Associated with Assets Held for Sale within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
(e)Included in Other within Current Assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
(f)Included in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
(g)Included in Other within Current Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
(h)Included in Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.

182


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

The following table shows the gains and losses during the year recognized on undesignated derivatives and the line items on the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income or the Consolidated Balance Sheets where the pretax gains and losses were reported. Amounts included in Regulatory Assets or Liabilities for commodity contracts are reclassified to earnings to match recovery through the fuel clause. Amounts included in Regulatory Assets or Liabilities for interest rate contracts are reclassified to earnings as interest expense over the term of the related debt.
  Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2014
 2013
 2012
Location of Pretax Gains and (Losses) Recognized in Earnings        
Commodity contracts        
Income (Loss) from discontinued operations(758) (56) 78
Interest rate contracts     
Interest expense(1) (1) (1)
Total Pretax (Losses) Gains Recognized in Earnings$(759) $(57) $77
Location of Pretax Gains and (Losses) Recognized as Regulatory Assets or Liabilities        
Commodity contracts        
Regulatory assets$1
 $
 $2
Regulatory liabilities5
 
 (1)
Interest rate contracts     
Regulatory assets(2) 4
 
Total Pretax Gains (Losses) Recognized as Regulatory Assets or Liabilities$4
 $4
 $1
DUKE ENERGY INDIANA
The following table shows the fair value of derivatives and the line items in the Consolidated Balance Sheets where they are reported. Although derivatives subject to master netting arrangements are netted on the Consolidated Balance Sheets, the fair values presented below are shown gross and cash collateral on the derivatives has not been netted against the fair values shown.
  December 31,
  2014 2013
(in millions)Asset
 Liability
 Asset
 Liability
Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments           
Commodity contracts           
Current Assets: Other$14
 $
 $12
 $
Total Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments14
 
 12
 
Total Derivatives$14
 $
 $12
 $
The tables below show the balance sheet location of derivative contracts subject to enforceable master netting agreements and include collateral posted to offset the net position. This disclosure is intended to enable users to evaluate the effect of netting arrangements on financial position. The amounts shown were calculated by counterparty. Accounts receivable or accounts payable may also be available to offset exposures in the event of bankruptcy. These amounts are not included in the tables below.
  Derivative Assets
  December 31, 2014 December 31, 2013
(in millions)
Current(a)

 
Non-Current(b)

 
Current(a)

 
Non-Current(b)

Gross amounts recognized$14
 $
 $12
 $
Gross amounts offset
 
 (1) 
Net amounts recognized on the Consolidated Balance Sheet$14
 $
 $11
 $

183


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Derivative Liabilities
December 31, 2014December 31, 2013
(in millions)
Current(c)

Non-Current(d)

Current(c)

Non-Current(d)

Gross amounts recognized$
$
$
$
Gross amounts offset



Net amount subject to master netting



Amounts not subject to master netting



Net amounts recognized on the Consolidated Balance Sheet$
$
$
$
(a)Included in Other within Current Assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
(b)Included in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
(c)Included in Other within Current Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
(d)Included in Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
The following table shows the gains and losses during the year recognized on cash flow hedges and the line items on the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income where such gains and losses are included when reclassified from AOCI. Amounts for interest rate contracts are reclassified to earnings as interest expense over the term of the related debt.
  Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2014
 2013
 2012
Location of Pretax Gains and (Losses) Reclassified from AOCI into Earnings        
Interest rate contracts     
Interest expense$
 $3
 $3
The following table shows the gains and losses during the year recognized on undesignated derivatives and the line items on the Consolidated Balance Sheets where the pretax gains and losses were reported. Amounts included in Regulatory Assets or Liabilities for commodity contracts are reclassified to earnings to match recovery through the fuel clause. Amounts included in Regulatory Assets or Liabilities for interest rate contracts are reclassified to earnings as interest expense over the term of the related debt.
  Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2014
 2013
 2012
Location of Pretax Gains and (Losses) Recognized in Earnings        
Commodity contracts        
Revenue: Regulated electric$
 $1
 $
Location of Pretax Gains and (Losses) Recognized as Regulatory Assets or Liabilities        
Commodity contracts        
Regulatory assets$(16) $
 $2
Regulatory liabilities9
 16
 35
Interest rate contracts     
Regulatory assets
 34
 4
Regulatory liabilities
 
 
Total Pretax Gains (Losses) Recognized as Regulatory Assets or Liabilities$(7) $50
 $41
CREDIT RISK
Certain derivative contracts contain contingent credit features. These features may include (i) material adverse change clauses or payment acceleration clauses that could result in immediate payments or (ii) the posting of letters of credit or termination of the derivative contract before maturity if specific events occur, such as a credit rating downgrade below investment grade.

184


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

The following tables show information with respect to derivative contracts that are in a net liability position and contain objective credit-risk related payment provisions.
  December 31, 2014
(in millions)Duke Energy
 Duke Energy Carolinas
 Progress Energy
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 Duke Energy Ohio
Aggregate fair value amounts of derivative instruments in a net liability position$845
 $19
 $370
 $131
 $239
 $456
Fair value of collateral already posted209
 
 23
 
 23
 186
Additional cash collateral or letters of credit in the event credit-risk-related contingent features were triggered407
 19
 347
 131
 216
 41
  December 31, 2013
(in millions)Duke Energy
 Progress Energy
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 Duke Energy Ohio
Aggregate fair value amounts of derivative instruments in a net liability position$525
 $168
 $60
 $108
 $355
Fair value of collateral already posted135
 10
 
 10
 125
Additional cash collateral or letters of credit in the event credit-risk-related contingent features were triggered205
 158
 60
 98
 47
The Duke Energy Registrants have elected to offset cash collateral and fair values of derivatives. For amounts to be netted, the derivative must be executed with the same counterparty under the same master netting agreement. Amounts disclosed below represent the receivables related to the right to reclaim cash collateral and payables related to the obligation to return cash collateral under master netting arrangements.
  December 31,
  2014 2013
(in millions)Receivables
 Payables
 Receivables
 Payables
Duke Energy           
Amounts offset against net derivative positions$145
 $
 $30
 $
Amounts not offset against net derivative positions64
 
 122
 
Progress Energy       
Amounts offset against net derivative positions23
 
 10
 
Duke Energy Florida       
Amounts offset against net derivative positions23
 
 10
 
Duke Energy Ohio       
Amounts offset against net derivative positions122
 
 19
 
Amounts not offset against net derivative positions64
 
 115
 
Duke Energy Indiana       
Amounts offset against net derivative positions
 
 
 1
Amounts not offset against net derivative positions
 
 1
 
15. INVESTMENTS IN DEBT AND EQUITY SECURITIES
The Duke Energy Registrants classify their investments in debt and equity securities as either trading or available-for-sale.
TRADING SECURITIES
Investments in debt and equity securities held in grantor trusts associated with certain deferred compensation plans and certain other investments are classified as trading securities. The fair value of these investments was $7 million as of December 31, 2014 and $18 million as of December 31, 2013.
AVAILABLE-FOR-SALE SECURITIES
All other investments in debt and equity securities are classified as available-for-sale securities.
Duke Energy’s available-for-sale securities are primarily comprised of investments held in (i) the NDTF at Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida, (ii) grantor trusts at Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Florida and Duke Energy Indiana related to OPEB plans, (iii) Duke Energy’s captive insurance investment portfolio, and (iv) Duke Energy’s foreign operations investment portfolio.

185


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Duke Energy holds corporate debt securities that were purchased using excess cash from its foreign operations. These investments are either classified as Cash and cash equivalents or Short-term investments on the Consolidated Balance Sheets based on maturity date and are available for current operations of Duke Energy’s foreign business. The fair value of these investments classified as Short-term investments was $44 million as of December 31, 2013.
Duke Energy classifies all other investments in debt and equity securities as long-term, unless otherwise noted.
Investment Trusts
The investments within the NDTF at Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida and the Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Florida and Duke Energy Indiana grantor trusts (Investment Trusts) are managed by independent investment managers with discretion to buy, sell, and invest pursuant to the objectives set forth by the trust agreements. The Duke Energy Registrants have limited oversight of the day-to-day management of these investments. As a result, the ability to hold investments in unrealized loss positions is outside the control of the Duke Energy Registrants. Accordingly, all unrealized losses associated with debt and equity securities within the Investment Trusts are considered other-than-temporary impairments and are recognized immediately. Pursuant to regulatory accounting, realized and unrealized gains and losses associated with investments within the Investment Trusts are deferred as a regulatory asset or liability. As a result, there is no immediate impact on earnings of the Duke Energy Registrants.
Other Available-for-Sale Securities
Unrealized gains and losses on all other available-for-sale securities are included in other comprehensive income until realized, unless it is determined the carrying value of an investment is other-than-temporarily impaired. If an other-than-temporary impairment exists, the unrealized loss is included in earnings based on the criteria discussed below.
The Duke Energy Registrants analyze all investment holdings each reporting period to determine whether a decline in fair value should be considered other-than-temporary. Criteria used to evaluate whether an impairment associated with equity securities is other-than-temporary includes, but is not limited to, (i) the length of time over which the market value has been lower than the cost basis of the investment, (ii) the percentage decline compared to the cost of the investment, and (iii) management’s intent and ability to retain its investment for a period of time sufficient to allow for any anticipated recovery in market value. If a decline in fair value is determined to be other-than-temporary, the investment is written down to its fair value through a charge to earnings.
If the entity does not have an intent to sell a debt security and it is not more likely than not management will be required to sell the debt security before the recovery of its cost basis, the impairment write-down to fair value would be recorded as a component of other comprehensive income, except for when it is determined a credit loss exists. In determining whether a credit loss exists, management considers, among other things, (i) the length of time and the extent to which the fair value has been less than the amortized cost basis, (ii) changes in the financial condition of the issuer of the security, or in the case of an asset backed security, the financial condition of the underlying loan obligors, (iii) consideration of underlying collateral and guarantees of amounts by government entities, (iv) ability of the issuer of the security to make scheduled interest or principal payments, and (v) any changes to the rating of the security by rating agencies. If a credit loss exists, the amount of impairment write-down to fair value is split between credit loss and other factors. The amount related to credit loss is recognized in earnings. The amount related to other factors is recognized in other comprehensive income. There were no credit losses as of December 31, 2014 and 2013. There were no other-than-temporary impairments for debt or equity securities as of December 31, 2014 and 2013.

186


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

DUKE ENERGY
The following table presents the estimated fair value of investments in available-for-sale securities.
 December 31, 2014 December 31, 2013
(in millions)  Gross Unrealized Holding Gains
 Gross Unrealized Holding Losses
 Estimated Fair Value
 Gross Unrealized Holding Gains
 Gross Unrealized Holding Losses
 Estimated Fair Value
NDTF                
   
Cash and cash equivalents  $
 $
 $136
 $
 $
 $110
Equity securities  1,926
 29
 3,650
 1,813
 10
 3,579
Corporate debt securities  14
 2
 454
 8
 6
 400
Municipal bonds  5
 
 184
 2
 6
 160
U.S. government bonds  19
 2
 978
 7
 12
 730
Other debt securities  1
 2
 147
 22
 2
 154
Total NDTF  1,965
 35
 5,549
 1,852
 36
 5,133
Other Investments    
   
   
   
   
   
Cash and cash equivalents  
 
 15
 
 
 21
Equity securities  34
 
 96
 29
 
 91
Corporate debt securities  1
 1
 58
 1
 1
 99
Municipal bonds  3
 1
 76
 2
 2
 79
U.S. government bonds  
 
 27
 
 
 17
Other debt securities  1
 1
 80
 
 8
 111
Total Other Investments(a)
39
 3
 352
 32
 11
 418
Total Investments  $2,004
 $38
 $5,901
 $1,884
 $47
 $5,551
(a)These amounts are recorded in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
The table below summarizes the maturity date for debt securities.
(in millions)December 31, 2014
Due in one year or less178
Due after one through five years571
Due after five through 10 years464
Due after 10 years791
Total2,004
Realized gains and losses, which were determined on a specific identification basis, from sales of available-for-sale securities were as follows.
 Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2014
 2013
 2012
Realized gains$271
 $209
 $117
Realized losses105
 65
 19


187


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS
The following table presents the estimated fair value of investments in available-for-sale securities.
  December 31, 2014  December 31, 2013
(in millions)Gross Unrealized Holding Gains
 Gross Unrealized Holding Losses
 Estimated Fair Value
 Gross Unrealized Holding Gains
 Gross Unrealized Holding Losses
 Estimated Fair Value
NDTF                   
Cash and cash equivalents  $
 $
 $51
 $
 $
 $42
Equity securities  1,102
 17
 2,162
 974
 6
 1,964
Corporate debt securities  8
 2
 316
 5
 5
 274
Municipal bonds  1
 
 62
 
 2
 54
U.S. government bonds  7
 1
 308
 3
 7
 354
Other debt securities  1
 2
 133
 22
 2
 146
Total NDTF  
1,119
 22
 3,032
 1,004
 22
 2,834
Other Investments    
   
   
   
   
   
Other debt securities  
 1
 3
 
 1
 3
Total Other Investments(a)

 1
 3
 
 1
 3
Total Investments  $1,119
 $23
 $3,035
 $1,004
 $23
 $2,837
(a)These amounts are recorded in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
The table below summarizes the maturity date for debt securities.
(in millions)December 31, 2014
Due in one year or less$1
Due after one through five years155
Due after five through 10 years257
Due after 10 years409
Total$822
Realized gains and losses, which were determined on a specific identification basis, from sales of available-for-sale securities were as follows.
 Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2014
 2013
 2012
Realized gains$109
 $115
 $89
Realized losses93
 12
 6

188


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

PROGRESS ENERGY
The following table presents the estimated fair value of investments in available-for-sale securities.
 December 31, 2014 December 31, 2013
(in millions)  Gross Unrealized Holding Gains
 Gross Unrealized Holding Losses
 Estimated Fair Value
 Gross Unrealized Holding Gains
 Gross Unrealized Holding Losses
 Estimated Fair Value
NDTF                   
Cash and cash equivalents  $
 $
 $85
 $
 $
 $68
Equity securities  824
 12
 1,488
 839
 4
 1,615
Corporate debt securities  6
 
 138
 3
 1
 126
Municipal bonds  4
 
 122
 2
 4
 106
U.S. government bonds  12
 1
 670
 4
 5
 376
Other debt securities  
 
 14
 
 
 8
Total NDTF  846
 13
 2,517
 848
 14
 2,299
Other Investments    
   
   
   
   
   
Cash and cash equivalents  
 
 15
 
 
 20
Municipal bonds  3
 
 43
 1
 
 39
Total Other Investments(a)
3
 
 58
 1
 
 59
Total Investments  $849
 $13
 $2,575
 $849
 $14
 $2,358
(a)These amounts are recorded in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
The table below summarizes the maturity date for debt securities.
(in millions)December 31, 2014
Due in one year or less$161
Due after one through five years350
Due after five through 10 years157
Due after 10 years319
Total$987
Realized gains and losses, which were determined on a specific identification basis, from sales of available-for-sale securities were as follows.
  Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2014
 2013
 2012
Realized gains$157
 $90
 $34
Realized losses11
 46
 18

189


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS
The following table presents the estimated fair value of investments in available-for-sale securities.
  December 31, 2014 December 31, 2013
(in millions)  Gross Unrealized Holding Gains
 Gross Unrealized Holding Losses
 Estimated Fair Value
 Gross Unrealized Holding Gains
 Gross Unrealized Holding Losses
 Estimated Fair Value
NDTF                   
Cash and cash equivalents  $
 $
 $50
 $
 $
 $48
Equity securities  612
 10
 1,171
 535
 3
 1,069
Corporate debt securities  5
 
 97
 3
 1
 80
Municipal bonds  4
 
 120
 2
 4
 104
U.S. government bonds  9
 1
 265
 4
 3
 232
Other debt securities  
 
 8
 
 
 5
Total NDTF  630
 11
 1,711
 544
 11
 1,538
Other Investments    
   
   
   
   
   
Cash and cash equivalents  
 
 
 
 
 2
Total Other Investments(a)

 
 
 
 
 2
Total Investments  $630
 $11
 $1,711
 $544
 $11
 $1,540
(a)These amounts are recorded in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
The table below summarizes the maturity date for debt securities.
(in millions)December 31, 2014
Due in one year or less$14
Due after one through five years140
Due after five through 10 years109
Due after 10 years227
Total$490
Realized gains and losses, which were determined on a specific identification basis, from sales of available-for-sale securities were as follows.
  Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2014
 2013
 2012
Realized gains$19
 $58
 $21
Realized losses5
 26
 8

190


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA
The following table presents the estimated fair value of investments in available-for-sale securities.
  December 31, 2014 December 31, 2013
(in millions)  Gross Unrealized Holding Gains
 Gross Unrealized Holding Losses
 Estimated Fair Value
 Gross Unrealized Holding Gains
 Gross Unrealized Holding Losses
 Estimated Fair Value
NDTF                   
Cash and cash equivalents  $
 $
 $35
 $
 $
 $20
Equity securities  212
 2
 317
 304
 1
 546
Corporate debt securities  1
 
 41
 
 
 46
Municipal bonds  
 
 2
 
 
 2
U.S. government bonds  3
 
 405
 
 2
 144
Other debt securities  
 
 6
 
 
 3
Total NDTF  216
 2
 806
 304
 3
 761
Other Investments    
   
   
   
   
   
Cash and cash equivalents  
 
 1
 
 
 3
Municipal bonds  3
 
 43
 1
 
 39
Total Other Investments(a)
3
 
 44
 1
 
 42
Total Investments  $219
 $2
 $850
 $305
 $3
 $803
(a)These amounts are recorded in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
The table below summarizes the maturity date for debt securities.
(in millions)December 31, 2014
Due in one year or less$147
Due after one through five years210
Due after five through 10 years48
Due after 10 years92
Total$497
Realized gains and losses, which were determined on a specific identification basis, from sales of available-for-sale securities were as follows.
 Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2014
 2013
 2012
Realized gains$138
 $32
 $13
Realized losses5
 20
 9
DUKE ENERGY INDIANA
The following table presents the estimated fair value of investments in available-for-sale securities.
  December 31, 2014 December 31, 2013
(in millions)  Gross Unrealized Holding Gains
 Gross Unrealized Holding Losses
 Estimated Fair Value
 Gross Unrealized Holding Gains
 Gross Unrealized Holding Losses
 Estimated Fair Value
Other Investments                   
Cash and cash equivalents  
$
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $1
Equity securities  28
 
 71
 24
 
 65
Municipal bonds  
 1
 30
 
 1
 28
Total Other Investments(a)
28
 1
 101
 24
 1
 94
Total Investments  $28
 $1
 $101
 $24
 $1
 $94
(a)These amounts are recorded in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

191


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

The table below summarizes the maturity date for debt securities.
(in millions)December 31, 2014
Due in one year or less$1
Due after one through five years17
Due after five through 10 years8
Due after 10 years4
Total$30
Realized gains and losses, which were determined on a specific identification basis, from sales of available-for-sale securities were insignificant for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012.
16. FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS
Fair value is the exchange price to sell an asset or transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. The fair value definition focuses on an exit price versus the acquisition cost. Fair value measurements use market data or assumptions market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability, including assumptions about risk and the risks inherent in the inputs to the valuation technique. These inputs may be readily observable, corroborated by market data, or generally unobservable. Valuation techniques maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize use of unobservable inputs. A midmarket pricing convention (the midpoint price between bid and ask prices) is permitted for use as a practical expedient.
Fair value measurements are classified in three levels based on the fair value hierarchy:
Level 1 – Unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that the reporting entity can access at the measurement date. An active market is one in which transactions for an asset or liability occur with sufficient frequency and volume to provide ongoing pricing information.
Level 2 – A fair value measurement utilizing inputs other than quoted prices included in Level 1 that are observable, either directly or indirectly, for an asset or liability. Inputs include (i) quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in active markets, (ii) quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in markets that are not active, (iii) and inputs other than quoted market prices that are observable for the asset or liability, such as interest rate curves and yield curves observable at commonly quoted intervals, volatilities and credit spreads. A Level 2 measurement cannot have more than an insignificant portion of its valuation based on unobservable inputs. Instruments in this category include non-exchange-traded derivatives, such as over-the-counter forwards, swaps and options; certain marketable debt securities; and financial instruments traded in less than active markets.
Level 3 – Any fair value measurement which includes unobservable inputs for more than an insignificant portion of the valuation. These inputs may be used with internally developed methodologies that result in management’s best estimate of fair value. Level 3 measurements may include longer-term instruments that extend into periods in which observable inputs are not available.
The fair value accounting guidance permits entities to elect to measure certain financial instruments that are not required to be accounted for at fair value, such as equity method investments or the company’s own debt, at fair value. The Duke Energy Registrants have not elected to record any of these items at fair value.
Transfers between levels represent assets or liabilities that were previously (i) categorized at a higher level for which the inputs to the estimate became less observable or (ii) classified at a lower level for which the inputs became more observable during the period. The Duke Energy Registrant’s policy is to recognize transfers between levels of the fair value hierarchy at the end of the period. There were no transfers between Levels 1 and 2 during the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012. Transfers out of Level 3 during the year ended December 31, 2014 are the result of forward commodity prices becoming observable due to the passage of time.
Valuation methods of the primary fair value measurements disclosed below are as follows.
Investments in equity securities
The majority of investments in equity securities are valued using Level 1 measurements. Investments in equity securities are typically valued at the closing price in the principal active market as of the last business day of the quarter. Principal active markets for equity prices include published exchanges such as NASDAQ and New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). Foreign equity prices are translated from their trading currency using the currency exchange rate in effect at the close of the principal active market. There was no after-hours market activity that was required to be reflected in the reported fair value measurements. Investments in equity securities that are Level 2 or 3 are typically ownership interests in commingled investment funds.
Investments in debt securities
Most investments in debt securities are valued using Level 2 measurements because the valuations use interest rate curves and credit spreads applied to the terms of the debt instrument (maturity and coupon interest rate) and consider the counterparty credit rating. If the market for a particular fixed income security is relatively inactive or illiquid, the measurement is Level 3.
Commodity derivatives

192


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Commodity derivatives with clearinghouses are classified as Level 1. Other commodity derivatives are primarily fair valued using internally developed discounted cash flow models which incorporate forward price, adjustments for liquidity (bid-ask spread) and credit or non-performance risk (after reflecting credit enhancements such as collateral), and are discounted to present value. Pricing inputs are derived from published exchange transaction prices and other observable data sources. In the absence of an active market, the last available price may be used. If forward price curves are not observable for the full term of the contract and the unobservable period had more than an insignificant impact on the valuation, the commodity derivative is classified as Level 3. In isolation, increases (decreases) in natural gas forward prices result in favorable (unfavorable) fair value adjustments for gas purchase contracts; and increases (decreases) in electricity forward prices result in unfavorable (favorable) fair value adjustments for electricity sales contracts. Duke Energy regularly evaluates and validates pricing inputs used to estimate fair value of gas commodity contracts by a market participant price verification procedure. This procedure provides a comparison of internal forward commodity curves to market participant generated curves.
Interest rate derivatives
Most over-the-counter interest rate contract derivatives are valued using financial models which utilize observable inputs for similar instruments and are classified as Level 2. Inputs include forward interest rate curves, notional amounts, interest rates and credit quality of the counterparties.
Goodwill and Long-Lived Assets and Assets Held for Sale
See Note 11 for a discussion of the valuation of goodwill and long-lived assets and Note 2 related to the assets and related liabilities of the Disposal Group classified as held for sale.
DUKE ENERGY
The following tables provide recorded balances for assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Derivative amounts in the table below exclude cash collateral which is disclosed in Note 14. See Note 15 for additional information related to investments by major security type.
  December 31, 2014
(in millions)Total Fair Value
 Level 1
 Level 2
 Level 3
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities$3,650
 $3,493
 $6
 $151
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund debt securities1,899
 648
 1,251
 
Other trading and available-for-sale equity securities96
 96
 
 
Other trading and available-for-sale debt securities263
 41
 217
 5
Derivative assets110
 49
 24
 37
Total assets6,018
 4,327
 1,498
 193
Derivative liabilities(668) (162) (468) (38)
Net assets$5,350
 $4,165
 $1,030
 $155
  December 31, 2013
(in millions)Total Fair Value
 Level 1
 Level 2
 Level 3
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities$3,579
 $3,495
 $57
 $27
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund debt securities1,553
 402
 1,100
 51
Other trading and available-for-sale equity securities102
 91
 11
 
Other trading and available-for-sale debt securities333
 36
 277
 20
Derivative assets145
 33
 70
 42
Total assets5,712
 4,057
 1,515
 140
Derivative liabilities(321) 11
 (303) (29)
Net assets$5,391
 $4,068
 $1,212
 $111

193


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

The following tables provide reconciliations of beginning and ending balances of assets and liabilities measured at fair value using Level 3 measurements. Amounts included in earnings for derivatives are primarily included in Operating Revenues.
  December 31, 2014
(in millions)  Investments
 Derivatives (net)
 Total
Balance at beginning of period$98
 $13
 $111
Total pretax realized or unrealized gains (losses) included in earnings
 (7) (7)
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:    

Purchases34
 50
 84
Sales(58) 
 (58)
Settlements
 (54) (54)
Transfers into Level 368
 6
 74
Total gains included on the Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory assets or liabilities14
 (9) 5
Balance at end of period$156
 $(1) $155
Pretax amounts included in the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income related to Level 3 measurements outstanding$
 $(14) $(14)
  December 31, 2013
(in millions)Investments
 Derivatives (net)
 Total
Balance at beginning of period$98
 $(85) $13
Total pretax realized or unrealized gains (losses) included in earnings
 (42) (42)
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:    

Purchases9
 21
 30
Sales(6) 
 (6)
Issuances
 11
 11
Settlements(9) 25
 16
Transfers into Level 3
 86
 86
Total gains included on the Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory assets or liabilities6
 (3) 3
Balance at end of period$98
 $13
 $111
  December 31, 2012
(in millions)Investments
 Derivatives (net)
 Total
Balance at beginning of period$124
 $(39) $85
Amounts acquired in Progress Energy Merger
 (30) (30)
Total pretax realized or unrealized gains (losses) included in earnings
 8
 8
Total pretax gains included in other comprehensive income13
 
 13
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:    

Purchases14
 22
 36
Sales(2) 
 (2)
Issuances
 (15) (15)
Settlements(55) (32) (87)
Total gains included on the Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory assets or liabilities4
 1
 5
Balance at end of period$98
 $(85) $13

194


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS
The following tables provide recorded balances for assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Derivative amounts in the table below exclude cash collateral, which is disclosed in Note 14. See Note 15 for additional information related to investments by major security type.
  December 31, 2014
(in millions)Total Fair Value
 Level 1
 Level 2
 Level 3
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities$2,162
 $2,005
 $6
 $151
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund debt securities870
 138
 732
 
Other trading and available-for-sale debt securities3
 
 
 3
Total assets3,035
 2,143

738

154
Derivative liabilities(19) 
 (19) 
Net assets$3,016
 $2,143

$719

$154
  December 31, 2013
(in millions)Total Fair Value
 Level 1
 Level 2
 Level 3
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities$1,964
 $1,879
 $58
 $27
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund debt securities870
 168
 651
 51
Other trading and available-for-sale debt securities3
 
 
 3
Total assets2,837
 2,047

709

81
Derivative liabilities(2) 
 
 (2)
Net assets$2,835
 $2,047

$709

$79
The following tables provide a reconciliation of beginning and ending balances of assets and liabilities measured at fair value using Level 3 measurements.
  December 31, 2014
(in millions)Investments
 Derivatives (net)
 Total
Balance at beginning of period$81
 $(2) $79
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:    

Purchases34
 
 34
Sales(43) 
 (43)
Settlements
 2
 2
Transfers into Level 368
 
 68
Total gains included on the Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory assets or liabilities14
 
 14
Balance at end of period$154

$

$154
  December 31, 2013
(in millions)Investments
 Derivatives (net)
 Total
Balance at beginning of period$72
 $(12) $60
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:    

Purchases9
 
 9
Issuances(6) 
 (6)
Settlements
 10
 10
Total gains included on the Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory assets or liabilities6
 
 6
Balance at end of period$81
 $(2) $79

195


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

  December 31, 2012
(in millions)Investments
 Derivatives (net)
 Total
Balance at beginning of period$65
 $
 $65
Total pretax gains included in other comprehensive income2
 
 2
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:    

Purchases14
 
 14
Sales
 (14) (14)
Issuances(2) 
 (2)
Settlements(11) 2
 (9)
Total gains included on the Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory assets or liabilities4
 
 4
Balance at end of period$72

$(12)
$60
PROGRESS ENERGY
The following tables provide recorded balances for assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis end on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Derivative amounts in the table below exclude cash collateral, which is disclosed in Note 14. See Note 15 for additional information related to investments by major security type.
  December 31, 2014
(in millions)Total Fair Value
 Level 1
 Level 2
 Level 3
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities$1,488
 $1,488
 $
 $
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund debt securities1,029
 510
 519
 
Other trading and available-for-sale debt securities58
 15
 43
 
Derivative assets4
 
 4
 
Total assets2,579

2,013

566


Derivative liabilities(373) 
 (373) 
Net assets$2,206

$2,013

$193

$
  December 31, 2013
(in millions)Total Fair Value
 Level 1
 Level 2
 Level 3
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities$1,615
 $1,615
 $
 $
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund debt securities677
 233
 444
 
Other trading and available-for-sale debt securities58
 19
 39
 
Derivative assets3
 
 3
 
Total assets2,353

1,867

486


Derivative liabilities(187) 
 (187) 
Net assets$2,166

$1,867

$299

$

196


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

The following table provides a reconciliation of beginning and ending balances of assets and liabilities measured at fair value using Level 3 measurements.
  Derivatives (net)
  Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2014
 2013
 2012
Balance at beginning of period$
 $(38) $(24)
Total pretax realized or unrealized gains included in earnings
 
 1
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:     
Issuances
 10
 (16)
Settlements
 
 4
Transfers into Level 3
 34
 
Total losses included on the Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory assets or liabilities
 (6) (3)
Balance at end of period$

$

$(38)
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS
The following tables provide recorded balances for assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Derivative amounts in the table below exclude cash collateral which is disclosed in Note 14. See Note 15 for additional information related to investments by major security type.
  December 31, 2014
(in millions)Total Fair Value
 Level 1
 Level 2
 Level 3
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities$1,171
 $1,171
 $
 $
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund debt securities and other540
 151
 389
 
Total assets1,711

1,322

389


Derivative liabilities(132) 
 (132) 
Net assets$1,579

$1,322

$257

$
  December 31, 2013
(in millions)Total Fair Value
 Level 1
 Level 2
 Level 3
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities$1,069
 $1,069
 $
 $
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund debt securities and other470
 137
 333
 
Other trading and available-for-sale debt securities and other3
 3
 
 
Derivative assets1
 
 1
 
Total assets1,543

1,209

334


Derivative liabilities(66) 
 (66) 
Net assets$1,477

$1,209

$268

$
The following table provides a reconciliation of beginning and ending balances of assets and liabilities measured at fair value using Level 3 measurements.
  Derivatives (net)
  Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2014
 2013
 2012
Balance at beginning of period$
 $(38) $(24)
Total pretax realized or unrealized gains included in earnings
 
 1
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:     
Issuances
 10
 (16)
Settlements
 
 4
Transfers into Level 3
 34
 
Total losses included on the Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory assets or liabilities
 (6) (3)
Balance at end of period$
 $
 $(38)

197


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA
The following tables provide recorded balances for assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Derivative amounts in the table below exclude cash collateral which is disclosed in Note 14. See Note 15 for additional information related to investments by major security type.
  December 31, 2014
(in millions)Total Fair Value
 Level 1
 Level 2
 Level 3
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities$317
 $317
 $
 $
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund debt securities and other489
 359
 130
 
Other trading and available-for-sale debt securities and other44
 
 44
 
Derivative assets4
 
 4
 
Total assets854

676

178


Derivative liabilities(241) 
 (241) 
Net assets (liabilities)$613

$676

$(63)
$
  December 31, 2013
(in millions)Total Fair Value
 Level 1
 Level 2
 Level 3
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities$546
 $546
 $
 $
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund debt securities and other214
 96
 118
 
Other trading and available-for-sale debt securities and other40
 2
 38
 
Derivative assets1
 
 1
 
Total assets801

644

157


Derivative liabilities(116) 
 (116) 
Net assets$685

$644

$41

$
DUKE ENERGY OHIO
The following tables provide recorded balances for assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Derivative amounts in the table below exclude cash collateral, which are disclosed in Note 14.
  December 31, 2014
(in millions)Total Fair Value
 Level 1
 Level 2
 Level 3
Derivative assets$49
 $20
 $9
 $20
Derivative liabilities(181) (117) (26) (38)
Net assets (liabilities)$(132)
$(97)
$(17)
$(18)
  December 31, 2013
(in millions)Total Fair Value
 Level 1
 Level 2
 Level 3
Derivative assets$96
 $50
 $21
 $25
Derivative liabilities(95) (1) (65) (29)
Net assets (liabilities)$1

$49

$(44)
$(4)

198


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

The following table provides a reconciliation of beginning and ending balances of assets and liabilities measured at fair value using Level 3 measurements.
  Derivatives (net)
  Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2014
 2013
 2012
Balance at beginning of period$(4) $(6) $(3)
Total pretax realized or unrealized gains included in earnings(9) (42) (3)
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:     
Purchases1
 1
 
Settlements(13) 
 1
Transfers into Level 36
 43
 
Total losses included on the Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory assets or liabilities1
 
 (1)
Balance at end of period$(18) $(4) $(6)
DUKE ENERGY INDIANA
The following tables provide recorded balances for assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Derivative amounts in the table below exclude cash collateral, which is disclosed in Note 14. See Note 15 for additional information related to investments by major security type.
  December 31, 2014
(in millions)Total Fair Value
 Level 1
 Level 2
 Level 3
Available-for-sale equity securities$71
 $71
 $
 $
Available-for-sale debt securities30
 
 30
 
Derivative assets14
 
 
 14
Net assets (liabilities)$115

$71

$30

$14
  December 31, 2013
(in millions)Total Fair Value
 Level 1
 Level 2
 Level 3
Available-for-sale equity securities$65
 $65
 $
 $
Available-for-sale debt securities29
 
 29
 
Derivative assets12
 
 
 12
Net assets (liabilities)$106

$65

$29

$12
The following table provides a reconciliation of beginning and ending balances of assets and liabilities measured at fair value using Level 3 measurements.
  Derivatives (net)
  Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2014
 2013
 2012
Balance at beginning of period$12
 $10
 $4
Total pretax realized or unrealized gains included in earnings3
 8
 36
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:     
Purchases49
 20
 
Issuances
 
 22
Settlements(41) (30) (52)
Total losses included on the Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory assets or liabilities(9) 4
 
Balance at end of period$14
 $12
 $10

199


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

QUANTITATIVE INFORMATION ABOUT UNOBSERVABLE INPUTS
The following table includes quantitative information about the Duke Energy Registrants' derivatives classified as Level 3.
 December 31, 2014
Investment Type
Fair Value
(in millions)
Valuation TechniqueUnobservable InputRange  
Duke Energy            
Natural gas contracts$(5)Discounted cash flowForward natural gas curves - price per Million British Thermal Unit (MMBtu)$2.12
-4.35
Financial transmission rights (FTRs)14
RTO auction pricingFTR price - per Megawatt-Hour (MWh)(1.92)-9.86
Electricity contracts(1)Discounted cash flowForward electricity curves - price per MWh25.16
-51.75
Commodity capacity option contracts2
Discounted cash flowForward capacity option curves  - price per MW day21.00
-109.00
Reserves(11)  Bid-ask spreads, implied volatility, probability of default   
Total Level 3 derivatives$(1)       
Duke Energy Ohio  
     
Electricity contracts$(6)Discounted cash flowForward electricity curves - price per MWh$25.25
-51.75
Natural gas contracts(5)Discounted cash flowForward natural gas curves - price per MMBtu2.12
-4.35
Reserves(7) Bid-ask spreads, implied volatility, probability of default   
Total Level 3 derivatives$(18)     
Duke Energy Indiana  
     
FTRs$14
RTO auction pricingFTR price - per MWh$(1.92)-9.86
  December 31, 2013
Investment Type
Fair Value
(in millions)
Valuation TechniqueUnobservable InputRange  
Duke Energy            
Natural gas contracts$(2)Discounted cash flowForward natural gas curves - price per MMBtu$3.07
-5.37
FERC mitigation power sale agreements(2)Discounted cash flowForward electricity curves - price per MWh25.79
-52.38
FTRs12
RTO auction pricingFTR price - per MWh(0.30)-13.80
Electricity contracts23
Discounted cash flowForward electricity curves - price per MWh20.77
-58.90
Commodity capacity option contracts4
Discounted cash flowForward capacity option curves  - price per MW day30.40
-165.10
Reserves(22)  Bid-ask spreads, implied volatility, probability of default  
    
Total Level 3 derivatives$13
      
    
Duke Energy Carolinas  
      
    
FERC mitigation power sale agreements$(2)Discounted cash flowForward electricity curves - price per MWh$25.79
-52.38
Duke Energy Ohio  
        
Electricity contracts$18
Discounted cash flowForward electricity curves - price per MWh$20.77
-58.90
Natural gas contracts(2)Discounted cash flowForward natural gas curves - price per MMBtu3.07
-5.37
Reserves(20)  Bid-ask spreads, implied volatility, probability of default    
Total Level 3 derivatives$(4)        
Duke Energy Indiana  
        
FTRs$12
RTO auction pricingFTR price - per MWh$(0.30)-13.80

200


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

OTHER FAIR VALUE DISCLOSURES
The fair value and book value of long-term debt, including current maturities, is summarized in the following table. Estimates determined are not necessarily indicative of amounts that could have been settled in current markets. Fair value of long-term debt uses Level 2 measurements.
  December 31, 2014 December 31, 2013
(in millions)Book Value
 Fair Value
 Book Value
 Fair Value
Duke Energy$40,020
 $44,566
 $40,256
 $42,592
Duke Energy Carolinas8,391
 9,626
 8,436
 9,123
Progress Energy14,754
 16,951
 14,115
 15,234
Duke Energy Progress6,201
 6,696
 5,235
 5,323
Duke Energy Florida4,860
 5,767
 4,886
 5,408
Duke Energy Ohio1,766
 1,970
 2,188
 2,237
Duke Energy Indiana3,791
 4,456
 3,796
 4,171
At both December 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, fair value of cash and cash equivalents, accounts and notes receivable, accounts payable, notes payable and commercial paper, and non-recourse notes payable of variable interest entities are not materially different from their carrying amounts because of the short-term nature of these instruments and/or because the stated rates approximate market rates.
17. VARIABLE INTEREST ENTITIES
A VIE is an entity that is evaluated for consolidation using more than a simple analysis of voting control. The analysis to determine whether an entity is a VIE considers contracts with an entity, credit support for an entity, the adequacy of the equity investment of an entity, and the relationship of voting power to the amount of equity invested in an entity. This analysis is performed either upon the creation of a legal entity or upon the occurrence of an event requiring reevaluation, such as a significant change in an entity’s assets or activities. A qualitative analysis of control determines the party that consolidates a VIE. This assessment is based on (i) what party has the power to direct the most significant activities of the VIE that impact its economic performance, and (ii) what party has rights to receive benefits or is obligated to absorb losses that are significant to the VIE. The analysis of the party that consolidates a VIE is a continual reassessment.
No financial support was provided to any of the consolidated VIEs during the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, or is expected to be provided in the future, that was not previously contractually required.

201


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

CONSOLIDATED VIEs
The following tables summarize the impact of VIEs consolidated by Duke Energy and the Subsidiary Registrants on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
  December 31, 2014
 Duke Energy
 Duke Energy Carolinas
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
        
(in millions)  DERF
 
DEPR(c)

 
DEFR(c)

 CRC
 Renewables
 Other
 Total
ASSETS    
   
   
   
   
   
   
Current Assets    
   
   
   
   
   
   
Restricted receivables of variable interest entities (net of allowance for doubtful accounts)$647
 $436
 $305
 $547
 $20
 $18
 $1,973
Other   
 
 
 
 68
 6
 74
Investments and Other Assets    
   
   
   
   
   
   
Other  
 
 
 
 25
 25
 50
Property, Plant and Equipment    
   
   
   
   
   
   
Property, plant and equipment, cost(a)

 
 
 
 1,855
 18
 1,873
Accumulated depreciation and amortization  
 
 
 
 (250) (5) (255)
Regulatory Assets and Deferred Debits    
   
   
   
   
   
   
Other  
 
 
 
 34
 2
 36
Total assets  $647
 $436
 $305
 $547
 $1,752
 $64
 $3,751
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY    
   
   
   
   
   
   
Current Liabilities    
   
   
   
   
   
   
Accounts payable  
 
 
 
 3
 
 3
Taxes accrued  
 
 
 
 6
 
 6
Current maturities of long-term debt  
 
 
 
 68
 16
 84
Other   
 
 
 
 16
 5
 21
Long-Term Debt(b)
400
 300
 225
 325
 967
 17
 2,234
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities    
   
   
   
   
     
Deferred income taxes
 
 
 
 283
 
 283
Asset retirement obligations
 
 
 
 29
 
 29
Other   
 
 
 
 34
 4
 38
Total liabilities   $400
 $300
 $225
 $325
 $1,406
 $42
 $2,698
Net assets of consolidated variable interest entities  $247
 $136
 $80
 $222
 $346
 $22
 $1,053
(a)Restricted as collateral for non-recourse debt of VIEs.
(b)Non-recourse to the general assets of the applicable registrant.
(c)The amount for Progress Energy is equal to the amount for Duke Energy Progress Receivables Company, LLC (DEPR) and Duke Energy Florida Receivables Company, LLC (DEFR).

202


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

  December 31, 2013
 Duke Energy
 Duke Energy Carolinas
 Duke Energy Progress
        
(in millions)  DERF
 
DEPR(c)

 CRC
 Renewables
 Other
 Total
ASSETS    
   
   
   
   
   
Current Assets    
   
   
   
   
   
Restricted receivables of variable interest entities (net of allowance for doubtful accounts) $673
 $416
 $595
 $18
 $17
 $1,719
Other  
 
 
 89
 12
 101
Investments and Other Assets    
   
   
   
   
   
Other  
 
 
 29
 51
 80
Property, Plant and Equipment    
   
   
   
   
   
Property, plant and equipment, cost(a)

 
 
 1,662
 18
 1,680
Accumulated depreciation and amortization  
 
 
 (170) (5) (175)
Regulatory Assets and Deferred Debits    
   
   
   
   
   
Other   1
 1
 
 34
 
 36
Total assets   $674
 $417
 $595
 $1,662
 $93
 $3,441
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY    
   
   
   
   
   
Current Liabilities    
   
   
   
   
   
Accounts payable   
 
 
 2
 
 2
Taxes accrued   
 
 
 10
 
 10
Current maturities of long-term debt  
 
 
 66
 14
 80
Other   
 
 
 17
 10
 27
Long-Term Debt(b)
400
 300
 325
 907
 34
 1,966
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities    
   
   
   
 
   
Deferred income taxes   
 
 
 290
 
 290
Asset retirement obligations   
 
 
 26
 
 26
Other  1
 
 
 17
 13
 31
Total liabilities   $401
 $300
 $325
 $1,335
 $71
 $2,432
Net assets of consolidated variable interest entities  $273
 $117
 $270
 $327
 $22
 $1,009
(a)Restricted as collateral for non-recourse debt of VIEs.
(b)Non-recourse to the general assets of the applicable registrant.
(c)The amount Progress Energy is equal to the amount for DEPR.

The obligations of these VIEs are non-recourse to Duke Energy, Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida. These entities have no requirement to provide liquidity to, purchase assets of, or guarantee performance of these VIEs unless noted in the following paragraphs.
DERF / DEPR / DEFR
Duke Energy Receivables Finance Company, LLC (DERF), DEPR, and DEFR are bankruptcy remote, special purpose subsidiaries of Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress, and Duke Energy Florida, respectively. On a daily basis, DERF, DEPR, and DEFR buy certain accounts receivable arising from the sale of electricity and/or related services from their parent companies. DERF, DEPR, and DEFR are wholly owned limited liability companies with separate legal existence from their parents, and their assets are not generally available to creditors of their parent companies. DERF, DEPR, and DEFR borrow amounts under credit facilities to buy the receivables. Borrowing availability is limited to the amount of qualified receivables sold, which is generally expected to be in excess of the credit facilities. The credit facilities are reflected on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as Long-Term Debt. The secured credit facilities were not structured to meet the criteria for sale accounting treatment under the accounting guidance for transfers and servicing of financial assets.
The most significant activity that impacts the economic performance of DERF, DEPR, and DEFR are the decisions made to manage delinquent receivables. Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress, and Duke Energy Florida consolidate DERF, DEPR, and DEFR, respectively, as they make those decisions.

203


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

The following table outlines amounts and expiration dates of the credit facilities.
 DERF
DEPR
DEFR
Credit facility amount (in millions)$400
$300
$225
Expiration dateOctober 2016
December 2016
March 2017
CRC
On a revolving basis, CRC buys certain accounts receivable arising from the sale of electricity and/or related services from Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana. Receivables sold are securitized by CRC through a credit facility managed by two unrelated third parties. The proceeds Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana receive from the sale of receivables to CRC are typically 75 percent cash and 25 percent in the form of a subordinated note from CRC. The subordinated note is a retained interest in the receivables sold. Cash collections from the receivables are the sole source of funds to satisfy the related debt obligation. Depending on experience with collections, additional equity infusions to CRC may be required by Duke Energy to maintain a minimum equity balance of $3 million. There were no infusions to CRC during the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013. Borrowing availability is limited to the amount of qualified receivables sold, which is generally expected to be in excess of the credit facility. The credit facility expires in November 2016 and is reflected on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as Long-Term Debt.
CRC is considered a VIE because (i) equity capitalization is insufficient to support its operations, (ii) power to direct the most significant activities that impact economic performance of the entity are not performed by the equity holder, Cinergy, and (iii) deficiencies in net worth of CRC are not funded by Cinergy, but by Duke Energy. The most significant activity of CRC relates to the decisions made with respect to the management of delinquent receivables. Duke Energy consolidates CRC as it makes these decisions. Neither Duke Energy Ohio nor Duke Energy Indiana consolidate CRC.
Renewables
Certain of Duke Energy’s renewable energy facilities are VIEs due to long-term fixed price power purchase agreements. These fixed price agreements effectively transfer commodity price risk to the buyer of the power. Certain other of Duke Energy’s renewable energy facilities are VIEs due to Duke Energy issuing guarantees for debt service and operations and maintenance reserves in support of debt financings. For certain VIEs, assets are restricted and cannot be pledged as collateral or sold to third parties without prior approval of debt holders. The most significant activities that impact the economic performance of these renewable energy facilities were decisions associated with siting, negotiating purchase power agreements, engineering, procurement and construction, and decisions associated with ongoing operations and maintenance-related activities. Duke Energy consolidates the entities as it makes all of these decisions.
NON-CONSOLIDATED VIEs
The tables below show VIEs not consolidated and how these entities impact the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
  December 31, 2014
  Duke Energy      
(in millions)Renewables
 Other
 Total
 
Duke Energy
Ohio

 
Duke Energy
Indiana

Receivables$
 $
 $
 $91
 $113
Investments in equity method unconsolidated affiliates150
 38
 188
 
 
Investments and other assets
 4
 4
 
 
Total assets(a)
$150
 $42
 $192
 $91
 $113
Other current liabilities
 3
 3
 
 
Deferred credits and other liabilities
 14
 14
 
 
Total liabilities$
 $17
 $17
 $
 $
Net assets (liabilities)$150
 $25
 $175
 $91
 $113
(a)Duke Energy Ohio recorded a pretax impairment charge of $94 million related to OVEC.

204


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

  December 31, 2013
  Duke Energy     
(in millions)Renewables
 Other
 Total
 Duke Energy Ohio
 Duke Energy Indiana
Receivables$
 $
 $
 $114
 $143
Investments in equity method unconsolidated affiliates153
 60
 213
 
 
Intangibles
 96
 96
 96
 
Investments and other assets
 4
 4
 
 
Total assets$153
 $160
 $313
 $210
 $143
Other current liabilities
 3
 3
 
 
Deferred credits and other liabilities
 15
 15
 
 
Total liabilities$
 $18
 $18
 $
 $
Net assets$153
 $142
 $295
 $210
 $143
The Duke Energy Registrants are not aware of any situations where the maximum exposure to loss significantly exceeds the carrying values shown above except for the power purchase agreement with OVEC, which is discussed below, and various guarantees, some of which are reflected in the table above as Deferred credits and other liabilities. For more information on various guarantees, refer to Note 7, "Guarantees and Indemnifications."
Renewables
Duke Energy has investments in various renewable energy project entities. Some of these entities are VIEs due to long-term fixed price power purchase agreements. These fixed price agreements effectively transfer commodity price risk to the buyer of the power. Duke Energy does not consolidate these VIEs because power to direct and control key activities is shared jointly by Duke Energy and other owners.
Other
At December 31, 2013, the most significant of the Other non-consolidated VIEs was Duke Energy Ohio’s 9 percent ownership interest in OVEC. Through its ownership interest in OVEC, Duke Energy Ohio has a contractual arrangement to buy power from OVEC’s power plants through June 2040. The initial carrying value of this contract was recorded as an intangible asset when Duke Energy acquired Cinergy in April 2006. Proceeds from the sale of power by OVEC to its power purchase agreement counterparties are designed to be sufficient to meet its operating expenses, fixed costs, debt amortization and interest expense, as well as earn a return on equity. Accordingly, the value of this contract is subject to variability due to fluctuations in power prices and changes in OVEC’s costs of business, including costs associated with its 2,256 MW of coal-fired generation capacity. Proposed environmental rulemaking could increase the costs of OVEC, which would be passed through to Duke Energy Ohio. In 2014, Duke Energy recorded a $94 million impairment related to OVEC.
CRC
See discussion under Consolidated VIEs for additional information related to CRC.
Amounts included in Receivables in the above table for Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana reflect their retained interest in receivables sold to CRC. These subordinated notes held by Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana are stated at fair value. Carrying values of retained interests are determined by allocating carrying value of the receivables between assets sold and interests retained based on relative fair value. The allocated bases of the subordinated notes are not materially different than their face value because (i) the receivables generally turnover in less than two months, (ii) credit losses are reasonably predictable due to the broad customer base and lack of significant concentration, and (iii) the equity in CRC is subordinate to all retained interests and thus would absorb losses first. The hypothetical effect on fair value of the retained interests assuming both a 10 percent and a 20 percent unfavorable variation in credit losses or discount rates is not material due to the short turnover of receivables and historically low credit loss history. Interest accrues to Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana on the retained interests using the acceptable yield method. This method generally approximates the stated rate on the notes since the allocated basis and the face value are nearly equivalent. An impairment charge is recorded against the carrying value of both retained interests and purchased beneficial interest whenever it is determined that an other-than-temporary impairment has occurred.

205


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Key assumptions used in estimating fair value are detailed in the following table.
  Duke Energy Ohio Duke Energy Indiana
  2014
 2013
 2014
 2013
Anticipated credit loss ratio0.6% 0.6% 0.3% 0.3%
Discount rate1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2%
Receivable turnover rate12.8% 12.8% 10.5% 10.3%
The following table shows the gross and net receivables sold.
  Duke Energy Ohio Duke Energy Indiana
(in millions)2014
 2013
 2014
 2013
Receivables sold$273
 $290
 $310
 $340
Less: Retained interests91
 114
 113
 143
Net receivables sold$182
 $176
 $197
 $197
The following table shows sales and cash flows related to receivables sold.
  Duke Energy Ohio Duke Energy Indiana
  Years Ended December 31, Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2014
 2013
 2012
 2014
 2013
 2012
Sales                 
Receivables sold$2,246
 $2,251
 $2,154
 $2,913
 $2,985
 $2,773
Loss recognized on sale11
 12
 13
 11
 11
 12
Cash Flows                
Cash proceeds from receivables sold2,261
 2,220
 2,172
 2,932
 2,944
 2,784
Collection fees received1
 1
 1
 1
 1
 1
Return received on retained interests4
 5
 5
 6
 6
 7
Cash flows from the sales of receivables are reflected within Operating Activities on Duke Energy Ohio’s and Duke Energy Indiana’s Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows.
Collection fees received in connection with servicing transferred accounts receivable are included in Operation, maintenance and other on Duke Energy Ohio’s and Duke Energy Indiana’s Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income. The loss recognized on sales of receivables is calculated monthly by multiplying receivables sold during the month by the required discount. The required discount is derived monthly utilizing a three-year weighted average formula that considers charge-off history, late charge history and turnover history on the sold receivables, as well as a component for the time value of money. The discount rate, or component for the time value of money, is the prior month-end LIBOR plus a fixed rate of 1.00 percent.
18. COMMON STOCK
Basic Earnings Per Share (EPS) is computed by dividing net income attributable to Duke Energy common shareholders, adjusted for distributed and undistributed earnings allocated to participating securities, by the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding during the period. Diluted EPS is computed by dividing net income attributable to Duke Energy common shareholders, as adjusted for distributed and undistributed earnings allocated to participating securities, by the diluted weighted-average number of common shares outstanding during the period. Diluted EPS reflects the potential dilution that could occur if securities or other agreements to issue common stock, such as stock options, phantom shares and stock-based performance unit awards were exercised or settled. Duke Energy’s participating securities are restricted stock units that are entitled to dividends declared on Duke Energy common shares during the restricted stock units’ vesting period.

206


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

On July 2, 2012, just prior to the close of the merger with Progress Energy, Duke Energy executed a one-for-three reverse stock split. All earnings per share amounts included in this 10-K are presented as if the one-for-three reverse stock split had been effective January 1, 2012. The following table presents Duke Energy’s basic and diluted EPS calculations and reconciles the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding to the diluted weighted-average number of common shares outstanding.
 Years Ended December 31,
(in millions, except per share amounts)2014
 2013
 2012
Income from continuing operations attributable to Duke Energy common shareholders excluding impact of participating securities2,446
 2,565
 1,588
Weighted-average shares outstanding - basic707
 706
 574
Stock options, performance and restricted shares
 
 1
Weighted-average shares outstanding - diluted707
 706
 575
Earnings per share from continuing operations attributable to Duke Energy common shareholders     
Basic$3.46
 3.64
 2.77
Diluted$3.46
 3.63
 2.77
Potentially dilutive items excluded from the calculation(a)
2
 2
 1
Dividends declared per common share$3.15
 3.09
 3.03
(a)Stock options and performance and unvested stock awards were not included in the dilutive securities calculation because either the option exercise prices were greater than the average market price of the common shares during those periods, or performance measures related to the awards had not yet been met.
19. SEVERANCE
In conjunction with the merger with Progress Energy, in November 2011 Duke Energy and Progress Energy offered a voluntary severance plan to certain eligible employees. Approximately 1,100 employees from Duke Energy and Progress Energy requested severance during the voluntary window, which closed on November 30, 2011. As this was a voluntary severance plan, all severance benefits offered under this plan are considered special termination benefits under U.S. GAAP. Special termination benefits are measured upon employee acceptance and recorded immediately absent any significant retention period. If a significant retention period exists, the cost of the special termination benefits are recorded ratably over the retention period. Most plan participants have separated from the company as of December 31, 2014. The amount of severance expense associated with this voluntary plan, and other severance expense for involuntary terminations related to the merger, was not material for the year ended December 31, 2014.
Amounts included in the table below represent direct and allocated severance and related expense recorded by the Duke Energy Registrants, and are in Operation, maintenance and other within Operating Expenses on the Consolidated Statements of Operations.
  Year Ended December 31,
(in millions)  
2013
 2012
Duke Energy(a)
$34
 $201
Duke Energy Carolinas  8
 63
Progress Energy   19
 82
Duke Energy Progress  14
 55
Duke Energy Florida  5
 27
Duke Energy Ohio  2
 21
Duke Energy Indiana  2
 18
(a)Includes $5 million and $14 million of accelerated stock award expense and $2 million and $19 million of COBRA and health care reimbursement expenses for 2013 and 2012, respectively.
In conjunction with the retirement of Crystal River Unit 3, severance benefits have been made available to certain eligible impacted unionized and non-unionized employees, to the extent that those employees do not find job opportunities at other locations. Approximately 600 employees worked at Crystal River Unit 3. For the year ended December 31, 2013, Duke Energy Florida deferred $26 million of severance costs as a regulatory asset. Duke Energy Florida did not defer severance costs as a regulatory asset for the year ended December 31, 2014. Severance costs expected to be accrued over the remaining retention period for employees identified to have a significant retention period is not material. However, these employees maintain the ability to accept job opportunities at other Duke Energy locations, which would result in severance not being paid. If a significant amount of these individuals redeploy within Duke Energy, the final severance benefits paid under the plan may be less than what has been accrued to date. Refer to Note 4 for further discussion regarding Crystal River Unit 3.
During 2014, in conjunction with the disposition of the nonregulated Midwest Generation business, severance benefits have been made available to certain eligible non-unionized employees, to the extent those employees do not find other job opportunities. Approximately 50 employees are expected to receive benefits. Duke Energy Ohio recorded severance expense of $6 million and included in (Loss) Income from Discontinued Operations, net of tax in the Duke Energy Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income for the year ended December 31, 2014. For further information related to the Midwest Generation Exit, see Note 2, "Acquisitions, Dispositions and Sales of Other Assets."

207


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Amounts included in the table below represent the severance liability for past and ongoing severance plans. Amounts for Subsidiary Registrants do not include allocated expense or associated cash payments. Amounts for Duke Energy Indiana are not material.
(in millions)Balance at December 31, 2013
 Provision / Adjustments
 Cash Reductions
 Balance at December 31, 2014
Duke Energy$64
 $5
 $(41) 28
Duke Energy Carolinas5
 2
 (5) 2
Progress Energy44
 (10) (16) 18
Duke Energy Progress11
 
 (10) 1
Duke Energy Florida24
 (1) (6) 17
Duke Energy Ohio2
 5
 (1) 6
As part of Duke Energy Carolinas’ 2011 rate case, the NCUC approved the recovery of $101 million of previously recorded expenses related to a prior year Voluntary Opportunity Plan. This amount was recorded as a reduction to Operation, maintenance, and other within Operating Expenses on the Consolidated Statements of Operations and recognized as a Regulatory asset on the Consolidated Balance Sheets in 2012.
20. STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION
Duke Energy’s 2010 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the 2010 Plan) reserved 25 million shares of common stock for awards to employees and outside directors. Duke Energy has historically issued new shares upon exercising or vesting of share-based awards. However, Duke Energy may use a combination of new share issuances and open market repurchases for share-based awards that are exercised or become vested in the future. Duke Energy has not determined with certainty the amount of such new share issuances or open market repurchases.
The 2010 Plan allows for a maximum of 6.25 million shares of common stock to be issued under various stock-based awards other than options and stock appreciation rights.
In connection with the acquisition of Progress Energy in July 2012, Duke Energy assumed Progress Energy’s 2007 Equity Incentive Plan (EIP). Stock-based awards granted under the Progress Energy EIP and held by Progress Energy employees were generally converted into outstanding Duke Energy stock-based compensation awards. The estimated fair value of these awards allocated to the purchase price was $62 million. Refer to Note 2 for further information regarding the merger transaction.
The following table summarizes the total expense recognized by each of the Duke Energy Registrants, net of tax, for stock-based compensation.
  Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2014
 2013
 2012
Duke Energy$38
 $52
 $48
Duke Energy Carolinas12
 13
 12
Progress Energy14
 23
 25
Duke Energy Progress9
 14
 16
Duke Energy Florida5
 9
 9
Duke Energy Ohio5
 4
 4
Duke Energy Indiana3
 4
 4
Pretax stock-based compensation costs, the tax benefit associated with stock-based compensation expense, and stock-based compensation costs capitalized are included in the following table.
  Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2014
 2013
 2012
Restricted stock unit awards$39
 $49
 $43
Performance awards22
 34
 33
Stock options
 2
 2
Pretax stock-based compensation cost$61
 $85
 $78
Tax benefit associated with stock-based compensation expense$23
 $33
 $30
Stock-based compensation costs capitalized4
 3
 2

208


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

STOCK OPTIONS
The following table summarizes information about stock options outstanding.
  Options
(in thousands)

 Weighted-Average Exercise Price (per share)
 Weighted-Average Remaining Life 
Aggregate Intrinsic Value
(in millions)

Outstanding at December 31, 2013793
 $61
      
Exercised  (420) 59
      
Outstanding at December 31, 2014373
 64
 6 years, 10 months $7
Exercisable at December 31, 201453
 46
 1 year 2
Options expected to vest  320
 67
 7 years, 10 months 5
The exercise price of each option granted cannot be less than the market price of Duke Energy’s common stock on the date of grant and the maximum option term is 10 years. The vesting periods range from immediate to three years. Options granted in 2013 and 2012 were expensed immediately; therefore, there is no future compensation cost associated with these options.
The following table summarizes additional information related to stock options exercised and granted.
  Years Ended December 31,
 2014
 2013
 2012
Intrinsic value of options exercised (in millions)$6
 $26
 $17
Tax benefit related to options exercised (in millions)2
 10
 7
Cash received from options exercised (in millions)25
 9
 21
Stock options granted (in thousands)
 310
 340
RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AWARDS
Restricted stock unit awards issued and outstanding generally vest over periods from immediate to 3 years. Fair value amounts are based on the market price of Duke Energy's common stock at the grant date. The following table includes information related to restricted stock unit awards.
  Years Ended December 31,
  2014
 2013
 2012
Shares awarded (in thousands)  557
 612
 443
Fair value (in millions)$40
 $42
 $28
The following table summarizes information about restricted stock unit awards outstanding.
  
Shares
(in thousands)

 
Weighted-Average
Grant Date Fair Value
(Per Share)

Outstanding at December 31, 20131,400
 $66
Granted557
 71
Vested(832) 62
Forfeited(45) 68
Outstanding at December 31, 20141,080
 69
Restricted stock unit awards expected to vest1,057
 69
The total grant date fair value of shares vested during the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012 was $52 million, $50 million and $34 million, respectively. At December 31, 2014, Duke Energy had $18 million of unrecognized compensation cost, which is expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of one year, ten months.
PERFORMANCE AWARDS
Stock-based awards issued and outstanding generally vest over three years if performance targets are met.
Certain performance awards granted in 2014, 2013 and 2012 contain market conditions based on the total shareholder return (TSR) of Duke Energy stock relative to a predefined peer group (relative TSR). These awards are valued using a path-dependent model that incorporates expected relative TSR into the fair value determination of Duke Energy’s performance-based share awards. The model uses three-year historical volatilities and correlations for all companies in the predefined peer group, including Duke Energy, to simulate Duke Energy’s relative TSR as of the end of the performance period. For each simulation, Duke Energy’s relative TSR associated with the simulated stock price at the end of the performance period plus expected dividends within the period results in a value per share for the award portfolio. The average of these simulations is the expected portfolio value per share. Actual life to date results of Duke Energy’s relative TSR for each grant is incorporated within the model.

209


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Other performance awards not containing market conditions were awarded in 2012. The performance goal for these awards is Duke Energy’s return on equity over a three-year period. Awards are measured at grant date price.
The following table includes information related to performance awards.
  Years Ended December 31,
  2014
 2013
 2012
Shares awarded (in thousands)542
 633
 352
Fair value (in millions)$19
 $28
 $19
The following table summarizes information about stock-based performance awards outstanding at the maximum level.
  
Shares
(in thousands)

 
Weighted-Average
Grant Date Fair Value
(per share)

Outstanding at December 31, 20131,822
 $46
Granted542
 34
Vested(524) 52
Forfeited(213) 37
Outstanding at December 31, 20141,627
 42
Stock-based performance awards expected to vest1,418
 42
The total grant date fair value of shares vested during the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012 was $27 million, $42 million and $56 million, respectively. At December 31, 2014, Duke Energy had $21 million of unrecognized compensation cost, which is expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of one year, nine months.
The grant date fair value of performance awards granted in 2014 was determined based on a risk-fee interest rate of 0.7 percent, which reflects the yield on three-year Treasury bonds as of the grant date, and an expected volatility of 13.5 percent based on Duke Energy's historical volatility over three years using daily stock prices.
21. EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS
DEFINED BENEFIT RETIREMENT PLANS
Duke Energy maintains, and the Subsidiary Registrants participate in, qualified, non-contributory defined benefit retirement plans. The plans cover most U.S. employees using a cash balance formula. Under a cash balance formula, a plan participant accumulates a retirement benefit consisting of pay credits based upon a percentage of current eligible earnings based on age and/or years of service and interest credits. Certain employees are covered under plans that use a final average earnings formula. Under these average earnings formulas, a plan participant accumulates a retirement benefit equal to the sum of percentages of their (i) highest three-year or four-year average earnings, (ii) highest three-year or four-year average earnings in excess of covered compensation per year of participation (maximum of 35 years), and/or (iii) highest three or four-year average earnings times years of participation in excess of 35 years. Duke Energy also maintains, and the Subsidiary Registrants participate in, non-qualified, non-contributory defined benefit retirement plans which cover certain executives. As of January 1, 2014, the qualified and non-qualified non-contributory defined benefit plans are closed to new and rehired non-union and certain unionized employees.
Duke Energy uses a December 31 measurement date for its defined benefit retirement plan assets and obligations.
Net periodic benefit costs disclosed in the tables below represent the cost of the respective benefit plan for the periods presented. However, portions of the net periodic benefit costs disclosed in the tables below have been capitalized as a component of property, plant and equipment. Amounts presented in the tables below for the Subsidiary Registrants represent the amounts of pension and other post-retirement benefit cost allocated by Duke Energy for employees of the Subsidiary Registrants. Additionally, the Subsidiary Registrants are allocated their proportionate share of pension and post-retirement benefit cost for employees of Duke Energy’s shared services affiliate that provide support to the Subsidiary Registrants. These allocated amounts are included in the governance and shared service costs discussed in Note 13.

210


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Duke Energy’s policy is to fund amounts on an actuarial basis to provide assets sufficient to meet benefit payments to be paid to plan participants. The following table includes information related to the Duke Energy Registrants’ contributions to its U.S. qualified defined benefit pension plans.
(in millions)  Duke Energy
 Duke Energy Carolinas
 Progress Energy
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 Duke Energy Ohio
 Duke Energy Indiana
Anticipated Contributions:  
  
   
   
   
   
   
   
2015$302
 $91
 $83
 $42
 $40
 $8
 $19
Contributions Made:  
  
   
   
   
   
   
   
2014$
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
2013250
 
 250
 63
 133
 
 
2012304
 
 346
 141
 128
 
 
QUALIFIED PENSION PLANS
Components of Net Periodic Pension Costs
  Year Ended December 31, 2014
(in millions)  Duke Energy
 Duke Energy Carolinas
 Progress Energy
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 Duke Energy Ohio
 Duke Energy Indiana
Service cost  $135
 $41
 $40
 $21
 $20
 $4
 $9
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation  344
 85
 112
 54
 57
 20
 29
Expected return on plan assets  (511) (132) (173) (85) (85) (27) (41)
Amortization of actuarial loss  150
 36
 68
 32
 32
 4
 13
Amortization of prior service credit   (15) (8) (3) (2) (1) 
 
Other  8
 2
 3
 1
 1
 
 1
Net periodic pension costs$111
 $24
 $47
 $21
 $24
 $1
 $11
  Year Ended December 31, 2013
(in millions)  Duke Energy
 Duke Energy Carolinas
 Progress Energy
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 Duke Energy Ohio
 Duke Energy Indiana
Service cost  $167
 $49
 $60
 $22
 $30
 $6
 $11
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation  320
 80
 116
 50
 53
 21
 28
Expected return on plan assets  (549) (148) (199) (94) (87) (31) (46)
Amortization of actuarial loss  244
 60
 101
 46
 49
 13
 24
Amortization of prior service (credit) cost   (11) (6) (4) (1) (2) 
 1
Other  7
 2
 2
 1
 1
 
 1
Net periodic pension costs$178
 $37
 $76
 $24
 $44
 $9
 $19
  Year Ended December 31, 2012
(in millions)  Duke Energy
 Duke Energy Carolinas
 Progress Energy
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 Duke Energy Ohio
 Duke Energy Indiana
Service cost  $122
 $35
 $63
 $25
 $30
 $6
 $9
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation  307
 90
 127
 58
 56
 31
 30
Expected return on plan assets  (472) (146) (188) (96) (81) (45) (46)
Amortization of actuarial loss  144
 45
 93
 37
 48
 10
 15
Amortization of prior service cost (credit)  10
 1
 9
 8
 (1) 1
 1
Other  6
 2
 2
 1
 1
 
 
Net periodic pension costs$117
 $27
 $106
 $33
 $53
 $3
 $9

211


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Amounts Recognized in Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income and Regulatory Assets
  Year Ended December 31, 2014
(in millions)  Duke Energy
 Duke Energy Carolinas
 Progress Energy
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 Duke Energy Ohio
 Duke Energy Indiana
Regulatory assets, net increase (decrease)$112
 $30
 $(73) $(17) $11
 $17
 $4
Accumulated other comprehensive (income) loss    
   
   
   
   
   
   
Deferred income tax expense$(10) 
 (2) 
 
 
 
Actuarial losses arising during the year  29
 
 
 
 
 
 
Prior year service credit arising during the year  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Amortization of prior year actuarial losses  (9) 
 
 
 
 
 
Reclassification of actuarial losses to regulatory assets  (1) 
 
 
 
 
 
Net amount recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income  $9
 $
 $(2) $
 $
 $
 $
  Year Ended December 31, 2013
(in millions)  Duke Energy
 Duke Energy Carolinas
 Progress Energy
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 Duke Energy Ohio
 Duke Energy Indiana
Regulatory assets, net decrease$(788) $(205) $(253) $(109) $(146) $(96) $(99)
Accumulated other comprehensive (income) loss    
   
   
   
   
   
   
Deferred income tax benefit   $18
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
Actuarial gains arising during the year  (33) 
 (2) 
 
 
 
Prior year service credit arising during the year  (1) 
 
 
 
 
 
Amortization of prior year actuarial losses  (15) 
 (3) 
 
 
 
Reclassification of actuarial losses to regulatory assets  3
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net amount recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income  $(28) $
 $(5) $
 $
 $
 $
Reconciliation of Funded Status to Net Amount Recognized
  Year Ended December 31, 2014
(in millions)  Duke Energy
 Duke Energy Carolinas
 Progress Energy
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 Duke Energy Ohio
 Duke Energy Indiana
Change in Projected Benefit Obligation  
  
                  
Obligation at prior measurement date  $7,510
 $1,875
 $2,739
 $1,172
 $1,233
 $442
 $632
Service cost  135
 41
 40
 21
 20
 4
 9
Interest cost  344
 85
 112
 54
 57
 20
 29
Actuarial loss(a)
618
 132
 211
 98
 105
 41
 41
Transfers  
 37
 (375) (61) (9) (6) 
Plan amendments  (4) (1) 
 
 
 (1) 
Benefits paid  (496) (116) (170) (97) (71) (31) (38)
Obligation at measurement date  $8,107
 $2,053
 $2,557
 $1,187
 $1,335
 $469
 $673
Accumulated Benefit Obligation at measurement date  
$7,966
 $2,052
 $2,519
 $1,187
 $1,297
 $459
 $645
Change in Fair Value of Plan Assets  
  
   
   
   
   
   
   
Plan assets at prior measurement date  
$8,142
 $2,162
 $2,944
 $1,330
 $1,299
 $448
 $654
Actual return on plan assets  852
 217
 300
 149
 144
 45
 65
Benefits paid  (496) (116) (170) (97) (71) (31) (38)
Transfers  
 37
 (352) (61) (9) (6) 
Plan assets at measurement date  $8,498
 $2,300
 $2,722
 $1,321
 $1,363
 $456
 $681
Funded status of plan  $391
 $247
 $165
 $134
 $28
 $(13) $8

212


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

(a)Includes an increase in benefit obligation of $180 million as a result of changes in Duke Energy's mortality assumptions.
  Year Ended December 31, 2013
(in millions)  Duke Energy
 Duke Energy Carolinas
 Progress Energy
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 Duke Energy Ohio
 Duke Energy Indiana
Change in Projected Benefit Obligation  
                    
Obligation at prior measurement date  8,030
 2,028
 2,868
 1,264
 1,309
 527
 684
Service cost  167
 49
 60
 22
 30
 6
 11
Interest cost  320
 80
 116
 50
 53
 21
 28
Actuarial gains(399) (73) (118) (26) (75) (71) (56)
Transfers  
 (26) (7) (45) (17) (2) (2)
Plan amendments  (41) (13) (19) (8) (7) 
 
Benefits paid  (567) (170) (161) (85) (60) (39) (33)
Obligation at measurement date  7,510
 1,875
 2,739
 1,172
 1,233
 442
 632
Accumulated Benefit Obligation at measurement date  
7,361
 1,875
 2,698
 1,172
 1,192
 429
 608
Change in Fair Value of Plan Assets  
  
   
   
   
   
   
   
Plan assets at prior measurement date  
7,754
 2,151
 2,647
 1,289
 1,150
 446
 627
Actual return on plan assets  705
 207
 215
 108
 93
 43
 62
Benefits paid  (567) (170) (161) (85) (60) (39) (33)
Transfers  
 (26) (7) (45) (17) (2) (2)
Employer contributions  250
 
 250
 63
 133
 
 
Plan assets at measurement date  $8,142
 $2,162
 $2,944
 $1,330
 $1,299
 $448
 $654
Funded status of plan  $632
 $287
 $205
 $158
 $66
 $6
 $22
Amounts Recognized in the Consolidated Balance Sheets
  December 31, 2014
(in millions)  Duke Energy
 Duke Energy Carolinas
 Progress Energy
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 Duke Energy Ohio
 Duke Energy Indiana
Prefunded pension(a)
$441
 $247
 $165
 $134
 $28
 $
 $8
Non-current pension liability(b)
$50
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $13
 $
Net asset recognized  $391
 $247
 $165
 $134
 $28
 $(13) $8
Regulatory assets  $1,711
 $407
 $753
 $346
 $406
 $65
 $151
Accumulated other comprehensive (income) loss    
   
   
   
   
   
   
Deferred income tax asset  $(51) $
 $(11) $
 $
 $
 $
Prior service credit  (5) 
 
 
 
 
 
Net actuarial loss  140
 
 21
 
 
 
 
Net amounts recognized in accumulated other comprehensive loss(c)
$84
 $
 $10
 $
 $
 $
 $
Amounts to be recognized in net periodic pension expense in the next year    
   
   
   
   
   
   
Unrecognized net actuarial loss  $166
 $39
 $65
 $34
 $31
 $6
 $14
Unrecognized prior service credit  
(15) (8) (3) (2) (1) 
 

213


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

  December 31, 2013
(in millions)  Duke Energy
 Duke Energy Carolinas
 Progress Energy
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 Duke Energy Ohio
 Duke Energy Indiana
Prefunded pension(a)
$632
 $287
 $230
 $158
 $66
 $2
 $75
Non-current pension liability(b)
$
 $
 $25
 $
 $
 $(4) $53
Net asset recognized  $632
 $287
 $205
 $158
 $66
 $6
 $22
Regulatory assets  $1,599
 $377
 $826
 $363
 $395
 $48
 $147
Accumulated other comprehensive (income) loss    
   
   
   
   
   
   
Deferred income tax asset  $(41) $
 $(9) $
 $
 $
 $
Prior service credit  (5) 
 
 
 
 
 
Net actuarial loss  121
 
 21
 
 
 
 
Net amounts recognized in accumulated other comprehensive loss(c)
$75
 $
 $12
 $
 $
 $
 $
(a)Included in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
(b)Included in Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
(c)Excludes accumulated other comprehensive income of $22 million and $16 million as of 2014 and 2013, respectively, net of tax, associated with a Brazilian retirement plan.
Information for Plans with Accumulated Benefit Obligation in Excess of Plan Assets
  December 31, 2014
(in millions)  Duke Energy
 Duke Energy Ohio
Projected benefit obligation  $702
 $315
Accumulated benefit obligation  672
 306
Fair value of plan assets  652
 302
As of December 31, 2013, none of the qualified pension plans had an accumulated benefit obligation in excess of plan assets.
Assumptions Used for Pension Benefits Accounting
The discount rate used to determine the current year pension obligation and following year’s pension expense is based on a bond selection-settlement portfolio approach. This approach develops a discount rate by selecting a portfolio of high quality corporate bonds that generate sufficient cash flow to provide for projected benefit payments of the plan. The selected bond portfolio is derived from a universe of non-callable corporate bonds rated Aa quality or higher. After the bond portfolio is selected, a single interest rate is determined that equates the present value of the plan’s projected benefit payments discounted at this report. Based uponrate with the market value of the bonds selected.
The average remaining service period of active covered employees is nine years for Duke Energy, Duke Energy Carolinas, Progress Energy, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Florida, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana.
The following tables present the assumptions or range of assumptions used for pension benefit accounting.
   December 31,
   2014 2013 
2012(a)
Benefit Obligations               
Discount rate     4.10%   4.70%   4.10%
Salary increase   4.00%-4.40% 4.00%-4.40% 4.00%-4.30%
Net Periodic Benefit Cost               
Discount rate     4.70%   4.10% 4.60%-5.10%
Salary increase  
 4.00%-4.40% 4.00%-4.30% 4.00%-4.40%
Expected long-term rate of return on plan assets     6.75%   7.75% 8.00%-8.25%
(a)For Progress Energy plans, the assumptions used in 2012 to determine net periodic pension costs reflect remeasurement as of July 1, 2012, due to the merger between Duke Energy and Progress Energy.

214


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Expected Benefit Payments
(in millions)  Duke Energy
Duke Energy Carolinas
Progress Energy
Duke Energy Progress
Duke Energy Florida
Duke Energy Ohio
Duke Energy Indiana
Years ending December 31,                
2015$584
$175
$150
$80
$67
$34
$45
2016604
184
158
85
70
35
46
2017616
195
161
86
73
34
45
2018625
200
165
87
76
34
46
2019626
194
168
88
78
34
46
2020 - 2024  3,107
924
868
437
420
168
229
NON-QUALIFIED PENSION PLANS
Components of Net Periodic Pension Costs
  Year Ended December 31, 2014
(in millions)  Duke Energy
Duke Energy Carolinas
Progress Energy
Duke Energy Progress
Duke Energy Florida
Duke Energy Ohio
Duke Energy Indiana
Service cost  $3
$
$1
$1
$
$
$
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation  14
1
5
1
2


Amortization of actuarial loss  3

2




Amortization of prior service credit  (1)
(1)



Net periodic pension costs  $19
$1
$7
$2
$2
$
$
  Year Ended December 31, 2013
(in millions)  Duke Energy
Duke Energy Carolinas
Progress Energy
Duke Energy Progress
Duke Energy Florida
Duke Energy Ohio
Duke Energy Indiana
Service cost  $3
$
$1
$1
$
$
$
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation  13
1
7
1
1


Amortization of actuarial loss  5

3
1
1


Amortization of prior service credit  (1)
(1)



Net periodic pension costs  $20
$1
$10
$3
$2
$
$
  Year Ended December 31, 2012
(in millions)  Duke Energy
Duke Energy Carolinas
Progress Energy
Duke Energy Progress
Duke Energy Florida
Duke Energy Ohio
Duke Energy Indiana
Service cost  $2
$
$2
$1
$
$
$
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation  12
1
8
1
2


Amortization of actuarial loss  4

5
1



Amortization of prior service cost (credit)  1

(1)



Net periodic pension costs  $19
$1
$14
$3
$2
$
$

215


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Amounts Recognized in Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income and Regulatory Assets and Liabilities
  Year Ended December 31, 2014
(in millions)  Duke Energy
Duke Energy Carolinas
Progress Energy
Duke Energy Progress
Duke Energy Florida
Duke Energy Ohio
Duke Energy Indiana
Regulatory assets, net increase   $44
$1
$14
$4
$19
$1
$2
Regulatory liabilities, net decrease  $(7)$
$
$
$
$
$
Accumulated other comprehensive (income) loss    
  
  
  
  
  
  
Deferred income tax benefit   $4
$
$5
$
$
$
$
Actuarial gains arising during the year  (9)
(11)



Net amount recognized in accumulated other comprehensive loss (income)   $(5)$
$(6)$
$
$
$
  Year Ended December 31, 2013
(in millions)  Duke Energy
Duke Energy Carolinas
Progress Energy
Duke Energy Progress
Duke Energy Florida
Duke Energy Ohio
Duke Energy Indiana
Regulatory assets, net (decrease) increase   $(14)$1
$(16)$(4)$(3)$
$(2)
Regulatory liabilities, net increase  $5
$
$
$
$
$
$
Accumulated other comprehensive (income) loss    
  
  
  
  
  
  
Deferred income tax benefit   $
$
$1
$
$
$
$
Actuarial losses (gains) arising during the year  2

(5)



Prior year service credit arising during the year  (1)





Net amount recognized in accumulated other comprehensive loss (income)   $1
$
$(4)$
$
$
$
Reconciliation of Funded Status to Net Amount Recognized
  Year Ended December 31, 2014
(in millions)  Duke Energy
Duke Energy Carolinas
Progress Energy
Duke Energy Progress
Duke Energy Florida
Duke Energy Ohio
Duke Energy Indiana
Change in Projected Benefit Obligation  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Obligation at prior measurement date  $304
$15
$140
$34
$39
$3
$5
Service cost  3

1
1



Interest cost  14
1
5
1
2


Actuarial losses(a)  
43
2
11
2
20
1
1
Settlements  






Plan amendments  






Transfers  

(32)
4


Benefits paid  (27)(2)(9)(3)(4)
(1)
Obligation at measurement date  $337
$16
$116
$35
$61
$4
$5
Accumulated Benefit Obligation at measurement date  
$333
$15
$116
$35
$61
$4
$5
Change in Fair Value of Plan Assets  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Plan assets at prior measurement date  







Benefits paid  (27)(2)(9)(3)(4)
(1)
Employer contributions  27
2
9
3
4

1
Plan assets at measurement date  $
$
$
$
$
$
$
(a)Includes an increase in benefit obligation of $21 million as a result of changes in Duke Energy's mortality assumptions.

216


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

  Year Ended December 31, 2013
(in millions)  Duke Energy
Duke Energy Carolinas
Progress Energy
Duke Energy Progress
Duke Energy Florida
Duke Energy Ohio
Duke Energy Indiana
Change in Projected Benefit Obligation  
    
  
  
  
  
  
Obligation at prior measurement date  $335
$16
$176
$38
$45
$4
$5
Service cost  3

1
1



Interest cost  13
1
7
1
1


Actuarial (gains) losses  (15)1
(11)(3)(3)(1)
Settlements  (5)





Plan amendments  (1)





Transfers  

(21)



Benefits paid  (26)(3)(12)(3)(4)

Obligation at measurement date  $304
$15
$140
$34
$39
$3
$5
Accumulated Benefit Obligation at measurement date  $302
$15
$140
$34
$39
$3
$5
Change in Fair Value of Plan Assets    
  
  
  
  
  
  
Plan assets at prior measurement date  






Benefits paid  (26)(3)(12)(3)(4)

Employer contributions  26
3
12
3
4


Plan assets at measurement date  $
$
$
$
$
$
$
Amounts Recognized in the Consolidated Balance Sheets
  December 31, 2014
(in millions)  Duke Energy
Duke Energy Carolinas
Progress Energy
Duke Energy Progress
Duke Energy Florida
Duke Energy Ohio
Duke Energy Indiana
Current pension liability(a)
$27
$2
$8
$3
$4
$
$
Non-current pension liability(b)
310
14
108
32
57
4
5
Total accrued pension liability  $337
$16
$116
$35
$61
$4
$5
Regulatory assets  $89
$5
$32
$7
$25
$1
$2
Regulatory liabilities  $
$
$
$
$
$
$
Accumulated other comprehensive (income) loss    
  
  
  
  
  
  
Deferred income tax asset  4

$2




Prior service credit  (1)





Net actuarial gain  (8)
(4)



Net amounts recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income$(5)$
$(2)$
$
$
$
Amounts to be recognized in net periodic pension expense in the next year    
  
  
  
  
  
  
Unrecognized net actuarial loss  $6

$2
$1
2


Unrecognized prior service credit  
(1)






217


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

  December 31, 2013
(in millions)  Duke Energy
Duke Energy Carolinas
Progress Energy
Duke Energy Progress
Duke Energy Florida
Duke Energy Ohio
Duke Energy Indiana
Current pension liability(a)
$30
$2
$11
$2
$3
$
$
Non-current pension liability(b)
274
13
129
32
36
3
5
Total accrued pension liability  $304
$15
$140
$34
$39
$3
$5
Regulatory assets  $45
$4
$18
$3
$6
$
$
Regulatory liabilities  $7
$
$
$
$
$
$
Accumulated other comprehensive (income) loss    
  
  
  
  
  
  
Deferred income tax asset  $
$
$(3)$
$
$
$
Prior service credit  (1)





Net actuarial loss  1

7




Net amounts recognized in accumulated other comprehensive loss  $
$
$4
$
$
$
$
(a)Included in Other within Current Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
(b)Included in Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
Information for Plans with Accumulated Benefit Obligation in Excess of Plan Assets
  December 31, 2014
(in millions)  Duke Energy
Duke Energy Carolinas
Progress Energy
Duke Energy Progress
Duke Energy Florida
Duke Energy Ohio
Duke Energy Indiana
Projected benefit obligation  $337
$16
$116
$35
$61
$4
$5
Accumulated benefit obligation  333
15
116
35
61
4
5
  December 31, 2013
(in millions)  Duke Energy
Duke Energy Carolinas
Progress Energy
Duke Energy Progress
Duke Energy Florida
Duke Energy Ohio
Duke Energy Indiana
Projected benefit obligation  $304
$15
$140
$34
$39
$3
$5
Accumulated benefit obligation  302
15
140
34
39
3
5
Assumptions Used for Pension Benefits Accounting
The discount rate used to determine the current year pension obligation and following year’s pension expense is based on a bond selection-settlement portfolio approach. This approach develops a discount rate by selecting a portfolio of high quality corporate bonds that evaluation, PEC’s Chief Executive Officergenerate sufficient cash flow to provide for projected benefit payments of the plan. The selected bond portfolio is derived from a universe of non-callable corporate bonds rated Aa quality or higher. After the bond portfolio is selected, a single interest rate is determined that equates the present value of the plan’s projected benefit payments discounted at this rate with the market value of the bonds selected.
The average remaining service period of active covered employees is 13 years for Duke Energy and ChiefProgress Energy, nine years for Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana, 12 years for Duke Energy Progress and 17 years for Duke Energy Florida.
The following tables present the assumptions used for pension benefit accounting.
   December 31,
   2014
 2013
 
2012(a)
Benefit Obligations  
   
   
     
Discount rate   4.10% 4.70%   4.10%
Salary increase    4.40% 4.40%   4.30%
Net Periodic Benefit Cost  
   
   
     
Discount rate   4.70% 4.10% 4.60%-5.10%
Salary increase  
 4.40% 4.30%   4.40%
(a)For Progress Energy plans, the assumptions used in 2012 to determine net periodic pension costs reflect remeasurement as of July 1, 2012, due to the merger between Duke Energy and Progress Energy.

218


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Officer concludedStatements – (Continued)

Expected Benefit Payments
(in millions)  Duke Energy
Duke Energy Carolinas
Progress Energy
Duke Energy Progress
Duke Energy Florida
Duke Energy Ohio
Duke Energy Indiana
Years ending December 31,                
2015$28
$2
$8
$3
$4
$
$
201627
2
8
3
4


201727
2
8
3
4


201824
2
8
3
4


201924
2
8
3
4


2020 - 2024  116
6
38
13
19
2
2
Other Post-Retirement Benefit Plans
Duke Energy provides, and the Subsidiary Registrants participate in, some health care and life insurance benefits for retired employees on a contributory and non-contributory basis. Employees are eligible for these benefits if they have met age and service requirements at retirement, as defined in the plans. The health care benefits include medical, dental, and prescription drug coverage and are subject to certain limitations, such as deductibles and co-payments.
Duke Energy did not make any pre-funding contributions to its other post-retirement benefit plans during the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 or 2012.
Components of Net Periodic Other Post-Retirement Benefit Costs
  Year Ended December 31, 2014
(in millions)  Duke Energy
 Duke Energy Carolinas
 Progress Energy
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 Duke Energy Ohio
 Duke Energy Indiana
Service cost  $10
 $2
 $4
 $1
 $3
 $
 $1
Interest cost on accumulated post-retirement benefit obligation  49
 12
 22
 11
 12
 2
 5
Expected return on plan assets  (13) (9) 
 
 
 
 (1)
Amortization of actuarial loss (gain)  39
 3
 42
 31
 10
 (2) 
Amortization of prior service credit  (125) (11) (95) (73) (21) 
 
Net periodic post-retirement benefit costs$(40) $(3) $(27) $(30) $4
 $
 $5
  Year Ended December 31, 2013
(in millions)  Duke Energy
 Duke Energy Carolinas
 Progress Energy
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 Duke Energy Ohio
 Duke Energy Indiana
Service cost  $24
 $2
 $18
 $9
 $7
 $1
 $1
Interest cost on accumulated post-retirement benefit obligation  68
 13
 41
 22
 16
 2
 5
Expected return on plan assets  (14) (11) 
 
 
 (1) (1)
Amortization of actuarial loss (gain)  52
 3
 57
 34
 16
 (1) 1
Amortization of prior service credit  (41) (7) (30) (20) (6) (1) 
Net periodic post-retirement benefit costs$89
 $
 $86
 $45
 $33
 $
 $6

219


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

  Year Ended December 31, 2012
(in millions)  Duke Energy
 Duke Energy Carolinas
 Progress Energy
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 Duke Energy Ohio
 Duke Energy Indiana
Service cost  $16
 $2
 $17
 $8
 $7
 $1
 $1
Interest cost on accumulated post-retirement benefit obligation  56
 15
 43
 23
 18
 3
 6
Expected return on plan assets  (17) (10) (2) 
 (2) (1) (1)
Amortization of actuarial loss (gain)  14
 3
 35
 20
 12
 (2) 
Amortization of prior service credit  (8) (5) 
 
 
 (1) 
Amortization of net transition liability  10
 7
 4
 
 3
 
 
Special termination benefit cost  9
 1
 5
 2
 1
 
 
Net periodic post-retirement benefit costs$80
 $13
 $102
 $53
 $39
 $
 $6
Amounts Recognized in Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income and Regulatory Assets and Liabilities
  Year Ended December 31, 2014
(in millions)  Duke Energy
 Duke Energy Carolinas
 Progress Energy
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 Duke Energy Ohio
 Duke Energy Indiana
Regulatory assets, net increase (decrease)$162
 $34
 $129
 $97
 $(4) $
 $(7)
Regulatory liabilities, net increase (decrease)  $249
 $76
 $122
 $61
 $61
 $(2) $14
Accumulated other comprehensive (income) loss    
   
     
   
   
   
Deferred income tax benefit   $1
 $
 $1
 $
 $
 $
 $
Actuarial losses (gains) arising during the year  1
 
 (2) 
 
 
 
Prior year service credit arising during the year  (6) 
 
 
 
 
 
Amortization of prior year prior service credit  2
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net amount recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income  $(2) $
 $(1) $
 $
 $
 $
  Year Ended December 31, 2013
(in millions)  Duke Energy
 Duke Energy Carolinas
 Progress Energy
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 Duke Energy Ohio
 Duke Energy Indiana
Regulatory assets, net (decrease) increase   $(683) $(51) $(634) $(388) $(166) $
 $(6)
Regulatory liabilities, net increase (decrease)  $30
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $3
 $9
Accumulated other comprehensive (income) loss    
   
     
   
   
   
Deferred income tax benefit   $2
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
Actuarial gains arising during the year  (4) 
 
 
 
 
 
Prior year service credit arising during the year  (3) 
 
 
 
 
 
Amortization of prior year actuarial loss  1
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net amount recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income  $(4) $
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $

220


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Reconciliation of Funded Status to Accrued Other Post-Retirement Benefit Costs
  Year Ended December 31, 2014
(in millions)  Duke Energy
 Duke Energy Carolinas
 Progress Energy
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 Duke Energy Ohio
 Duke Energy Indiana
Change in Projected Benefit Obligation  
  
                  
Accumulated post-retirement benefit obligation at prior measurement date  $1,106
 $265
 $533
 $233
 $253
 $42
 $118
Service cost  10
 2
 4
 1
 3
 
 1
Interest cost  49
 12
 22
 11
 12
 2
 5
Plan participants' contributions  25
 10
 8
 4
 4
 
 2
Actuarial gains(a)
(87) (35) (19) (21) 
 
 (20)
Transfers  
 1
 (48) (2) 
 (1) 
Plan amendments  (85) (4) (77) 
 (78) (1) 
Benefits paid  (103) (31) (44) (19) (24) (3) (10)
Accrued retiree drug subsidy  1
 
 
 
 
 
 
Accumulated post-retirement benefit obligation at measurement date  $916
 $220
 $379
 $207
 $170
 $39
 $96
Change in Fair Value of Plan Assets  
  
   
   
   
   
   
   
Plan assets at prior measurement date  
$214
 $143
 
 
 
 $8
 $18
Actual return on plan assets  18
 12
 
 
 
 
 2
Benefits paid  (103) (31) (44) (19) (24) (3) (10)
Transfers
 (1) 
 
 
 
 
Employer contributions  73
 12
 36
 14
 20
 3
 11
Plan participants' contributions  25
 10
 8
 4
 4
 
 2
Plan assets at measurement date  $227
 $145
 $
 $(1) $
 $8
 $23
(a)Includes an increase in benefit obligation of $7 million as a result of changes in Duke Energy's mortality assumptions.
  Year Ended December 31, 2013
(in millions)  Duke Energy
 Duke Energy Carolinas
 Progress Energy
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 Duke Energy Ohio
 Duke Energy Indiana
Change in Projected Benefit Obligation  
                    
Accumulated post-retirement benefit obligation at prior measurement date  $1,794
 $316
 $1,128
 $612
 $413
 $48
 $136
Service cost  24
 2
 18
 9
 7
 1
 1
Interest cost  68
 13
 41
 22
 16
 2
 5
Plan participants' contributions  47
 15
 14
 6
 7
 3
 3
Actuarial gains  (227) (32) (156) (73) (70) (6) (12)
Transfers  
 
 (1) (8) 
 
 
Plan amendments  (476) (16) (455) (311) (91) 
 (3)
Benefits paid  (132) (36) (60) (26) (31) (6) (14)
Accrued retiree drug subsidy  8
 3
 4
 2
 2
 
 2
Accumulated post-retirement benefit obligation at measurement date  $1,106
 $265
 $533
 $233
 $253
 $42
 $118
Change in Fair Value of Plan Assets  
  
   
   
   
   
   
   
Plan assets at prior measurement date  $198
 $134
 $
 $
 $
 $7
 $17
Actual return on plan assets  18
 13
 
 
 
 2
 2
Benefits paid  (132) (36) (60) (26) (31) (6) (14)
Transfers
 (1) 
 
 
 
 
Employer contributions  83
 18
 46
 20
 24
 2
 10
Plan participants' contributions  47
 15
 14
 6
 7
 3
 3
Plan assets at measurement date  $214
 $143
 $
 $
 $
 $8
 $18

221


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Amounts Recognized in the Consolidated Balance Sheets
  December 31, 2014
(in millions)  Duke Energy
 Duke Energy Carolinas
 Progress Energy
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 Duke Energy Ohio
 Duke Energy Indiana
Current post-retirement liability(a)
$35
 $
 $29
 $16
 $14
 $2
 $
Non-current post-retirement liability(b)
654
 75
 350
 192
 156
 29
 73
Total accrued post-retirement liability  $689
 $75
 $379
 $208
 $170
 $31
 $73
Regulatory assets  $
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $64
Regulatory liabilities  $380
 $76
 $122
 $61
 $61
 $19
 $91
Accumulated other comprehensive (income) loss    
   
   
   
   
   
   
Deferred income tax liability  $5
 $
 $1
 $
 $
 $
 $
Prior service credit  (9) 
 
 
 
 
 
Net actuarial gain  (5) 
 (2) 
 
 
 
Net amounts recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income  $(9) $
 $(1) $
 $
 $
 $
Amounts to be recognized in net periodic pension expense in the next year    
   
   
   
   
   
   
Unrecognized net actuarial loss (gain)  $16
 $(1) $28
 $18
 $10
 $(2) $
Unrecognized prior service credit(140) (14) (103) (68) (35) 
 
  December 31, 2013
(in millions)  Duke Energy
 Duke Energy Carolinas
 Progress Energy
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 Duke Energy Ohio
 Duke Energy Indiana
Current post-retirement liability(a)
$39
 $
 $36
 $17
 $16
 $2
 $
Non-current post-retirement liability(b)
853
 122
 497
 216
 237
 32
 100
Total accrued post-retirement liability  $892
 $122
 $533
 $233
 $253
 $34
 $100
Regulatory assets  $(162) $(34) $(129) $(97) $4
 $
 $71
Regulatory liabilities  $131
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $21
 $77
Accumulated other comprehensive (income) loss    
   
   
   
   
   
   
Deferred income tax liability  $4
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
Prior service credit  (5) 
 
 
 
 
 
Net actuarial gain  (6) 
 
 
 
 
 
Net amounts recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income  $(7) $
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
(a)Included in Other within Current Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. 
(b)Included in Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
Assumptions Used for Other Post-Retirement Benefits Accounting
The discount rate used to determine the current year other post-retirement benefits obligation and following year’s other post-retirement benefits expense is based on a bond selection-settlement portfolio approach. This approach develops a discount rate by selecting a portfolio of high quality corporate bonds that generate sufficient cash flow to provide for projected benefit payments of the plan. The selected bond portfolio is derived from a universe of non-callable corporate bonds rated Aa quality or higher. After the bond portfolio is selected, a single interest rate is determined that equates present value of the plan’s projected benefit payments discounted at this rate with the market value of the bonds selected.

222


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

The following tables present the assumptions used for other post-retirement benefits accounting.
   December 31,
   2014
 2013
 
2012(a)
Benefit Obligations  
   
   
     
Discount rate   4.10% 4.70%   4.10%
Net Periodic Benefit Cost  
   
   
     
Discount rate   4.70% 4.10% 4.60%-5.10%
Expected long-term rate of return on plan assets   6.75% 7.75% 5.00%-8.00%
Assumed tax rate   35% 35%   35%
(a)For Progress Energy plans, the assumptions used in 2012 to determine net periodic post-retirement benefit costs reflect remeasurement as of July 1, 2012, due to the merger between Duke Energy and Progress Energy.
Assumed Health Care Cost Trend Rate
  December 31,
  2014
 2013
Health care cost trend rate assumed for next year  6.75% 8.50%
Rate to which the cost trend is assumed to decline (the ultimate trend rate)  4.75% 5.00%
Year that rate reaches ultimate trend  2023
 2021
Sensitivity to Changes in Assumed Health Care Cost Trend Rates
  Year Ended December 31, 2014
(in millions)  Duke Energy
Duke Energy Carolinas
Progress Energy
Duke Energy Progress
Duke Energy Florida
Duke Energy Ohio
Duke Energy Indiana
1-Percentage Point Increase  
          
    
Effect on total service and interest costs  $2
$1
$1
$
$1
$
$
Effect on post-retirement benefit obligation  36
9
15
8
7
2
4
1-Percentage Point Decrease  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Effect on total service and interest costs  (2)(1)(1)
(1)

Effect on post-retirement benefit obligation  (31)(8)(13)(7)(6)(1)(3)
Expected Benefit Payments
(in millions)Duke Energy
Duke Energy Carolinas
Progress Energy
Duke Energy Progress
Duke Energy Florida
Duke Energy Ohio
Duke Energy Indiana
Years ending December 31,            
  
2015$77
$17
$30
$16
$14
$4
$10
201677
18
30
16
14
4
10
201776
18
29
15
14
3
9
201874
19
29
15
14
3
9
201973
19
29
15
13
3
8
2020 - 2024332
84
132
70
61
15
35
PLAN ASSETS
Description and Allocations
Duke Energy Master Retirement Trust
Assets for both the qualified pension and other post-retirement benefits are maintained in the Duke Energy Master Retirement Trust. Approximately 98 percent of the Duke Energy Master Retirement Trust assets were allocated to qualified pension plans and approximately 2 percent were allocated to other post-retirement plans, as of December 31, 2014 and 2013. The investment objective of the Duke Energy Master Retirement Trust is to achieve reasonable returns, subject to a prudent level of portfolio risk, for the purpose of enhancing the security of benefits for plan participants.

223


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

The asset allocation targets were set after considering the investment objective and the risk profile. Equity securities are held for their higher expected return. Debt securities are primarily held to hedge qualified pension plan liability. Hedge funds, real estate and other global securities are held for diversification. Investments within asset classes are to be diversified to achieve broad market participation and reduce the impact of individual managers or investments.
In 2013, Duke Energy adopted a de-risking investment strategy for the Duke Energy Master Retirement Trust. As the funded status of the qualified pension plans increases, the targeted allocation to return seeking assets will be reduced and the targeted allocation to fixed-income assets will be increased to better manage Duke Energy’s qualified pension liability and reduced funded status volatility. Duke Energy regularly reviews its disclosureactual asset allocation and periodically rebalances its investments to the targeted allocation when considered appropriate.
The Duke Energy Retirement Master Trust is authorized to engage in the lending of certain plan assets. Securities lending is an investment management enhancement that utilizes certain existing securities of the Duke Energy Retirement Master Trust to earn additional income. Securities lending involves the loaning of securities to approved parties. In return for the loaned securities, the Duke Energy Retirement Master Trust receives collateral in the form of cash as a safeguard against possible default of any borrower on the return of the loan under terms that permit the Duke Energy Retirement Master Trust to sell the securities. The Master Trust mitigates credit risk associated with securities lending arrangements by monitoring the fair value of the securities loaned, with additional collateral obtained or refunded as necessary. The fair value of securities on loan was approximately $383 million and $43 million at December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively. Cash obtained as collateral exceeded the fair value of the securities loaned at December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively. Securities lending income earned by the Master Trust was immaterial for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively.
Qualified pension and other post-retirement benefits for the Subsidiary Registrants are derived from the Duke Energy Master Retirement Trust, as such, each are allocated their proportionate share of the assets discussed below.
The following table includes the target asset allocations by asset class at December 31, 2014 and the actual asset allocations for the Duke Energy Master Retirement Trust.
     Actual Allocation at December 31,
  Target Allocation
 2014
 2013
U.S. equity securities  10% 10% 10%
Non-U.S. equity securities  8% 8% 8%
Global equity securities  10% 10% 10%
Global private equity securities  3% 3% 3%
Debt securities  63% 63% 63%
Hedge funds  2% 3% 3%
Real estate and cash  2% 1% 1%
Other global securities  2% 2% 2%
Total  100% 100% 100%
VEBA I
Duke Energy also invests other post-retirement assets in the Duke Energy Corporation Employee Benefits Trust (VEBA I). The investment objective of VEBA I is to achieve sufficient returns, subject to a prudent level of portfolio risk, for the purpose of promoting the security of plan benefits for participants. VEBA I is passively managed. 
The following table presents target and actual asset allocations for VEBA I at December 31, 2014.
     Actual Allocation at December 31,
  Target Allocation
 2014
 2013
U.S. equity securities  30% 29% 29%
Debt securities  45% 28% 29%
Cash  25% 43% 42%
Total  100% 100% 100%
Fair Value Measurements
Duke Energy classifies recurring and non-recurring fair value measurements based on the fair value hierarchy as discussed in Note 16.
Valuation methods of the primary fair value measurements disclosed above are as follows:

224


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Investments in equity securities
Investments in equity securities, other than those accounted for as equity and cost method investments, are typically valued at the closing price in the principal active market as of the last business day of the reporting period. Principal active markets for equity prices include published exchanges such as NASDAQ and NYSE. Foreign equity prices are translated from their trading currency using the currency exchange rate in effect at the close of the principal active market. Prices have not been adjusted to reflect after-hours market activity. The majority of investments in equity securities are valued using Level 1 measurements. When (i) the Duke Energy Registrants lack the ability to redeem investments valued on a net asset value per share basis in the near future or (ii) net asset value per share is not available at the measurement date, the fair value measurement of the investment is categorized as Level 3.
Investments in debt securities
Most debt investments are valued based on a calculation using interest rate curves and credit spreads applied to the terms of the debt instrument (maturity and coupon interest rate) and consider the counterparty credit rating. Most debt valuations are Level 2 measurements. If the market for a particular fixed income security is relatively inactive or illiquid, the measurement is Level 3. U.S. Treasury debt is typically Level 2.
Investments in short-term investment funds
Investments in short-term investment funds are valued at the net asset value of units held at year end. Investments in short-term investment funds with published prices are valued as Level 1. Investments in short-term investment funds with unpublished prices are valued as Level 2.
Investments in real estate limited partnerships
Investments in real estate limited partnerships are valued by the trustee at each valuation date (monthly). As part of the trustee’s valuation process, properties are externally appraised generally on an annual basis, conducted by reputable, independent appraisal firms, and signed by appraisers that are members of the Appraisal Institute, with the professional designation MAI. Fair value is defined as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. There are three valuation techniques that can be used to value investments in real estate assets: the market, income or cost approach. The appropriateness of each valuation technique depends on the type of asset or business being valued. In addition, the trustee may cause additional appraisals to be performed as warranted by specific asset or market conditions. Property valuations and the salient valuation-sensitive assumptions of each direct investment property are reviewed by the trustee quarterly and values are adjusted if there has been a significant change in circumstances related to the investment property since the last valuation. Value adjustments for interim capital expenditures are only recognized to the extent that the valuation process acknowledges a corresponding increase in fair value. An independent firm is hired to review and approve quarterly direct real estate valuations. Key inputs and assumptions used to determine fair value includes among others, rental revenue and expense amounts and related revenue and expense growth rates, terminal capitalization rates and discount rates. Development investments are valued using cost incurred to date as a primary input until substantive progress is achieved in terms of mitigating construction and leasing risk at which point a discounted cash flow approach is more heavily weighted. Key inputs and assumptions in addition to those noted above used to determine the fair value of development investments include construction costs, and the status of construction completion and leasing. Investments in real estate limited partnerships are valued as Level 3.

Duke Energy Master Retirement Trust
The following tables provide the fair value measurement amounts for the Duke Energy Master Retirement Trust qualified pension and other post-retirement assets.
  December 31, 2014
(in millions)  Total Fair Value  
 Level 1
 Level 2
 Level 3
Equity securities  $2,346
 $1,625
 $721
 $
Corporate debt securities  4,349
 
 4,348
 1
Short-term investment funds  333
 171
 162
 
Partnership interests  298
 
 
 298
Hedge funds  146
 
 146
 
Real estate limited partnerships  104
 
 
 104
U.S. government securities  917
 
 916
 1
Guaranteed investment contracts  32
 
 
 32
Governments bonds - foreign  44
 
 44
 
Cash  30
 30
 
 
Government and commercial mortgage backed securities  9
 
 9
 
Net pending transactions and other investments  10
 (10) 20
 
Total assets(a)
$8,618
 $1,816
 $6,366
 $436
(a)Duke Energy Carolinas, Progress Energy, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Florida, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana were allocated approximately 28 percent, 31 percent, 15 percent, 16 percent, 5 percent and 8 percent, respectively, of the Duke Energy Master Retirement Trust assets at December 31, 2014. Accordingly, all Level 1, 2 and 3 amounts included in the table above are allocable to the Subsidiary Registrants using these percentages.

225


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

  December 31, 2013
(in millions)  Total Fair Value  
 Level 1
 Level 2
 Level 3
Equity securities  $2,877
 $1,801
 $1,022
 $54
Corporate debt securities  2,604
 
 2,601
 3
Short-term investment funds  1,158
 254
 904
 
Partnership interests  307
 
 
 307
Hedge funds  164
 
 111
 53
Real estate limited partnerships  95
 
 
 95
U.S. government securities  927
 
 927
 
Guarantees investment contracts  33
 
 
 33
Governments bonds - foreign  19
 
 18
 1
Cash  58
 58
 
 
Asset backed securities  7
 
 7
 
Net pending transactions and other investments  12
 7
 5
 
Total assets(a)
$8,261
 $2,120
 $5,595
 $546
(a)Duke Energy Carolinas, Progress Energy, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Florida, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana were allocated approximately 28 percent, 35 percent, 16 percent, 16 percent, 5 percent and 8 percent, respectively, of the Duke Energy Master Retirement Trust assets at December 31, 2013. Accordingly, all Level 1, 2 and 3 amounts included in the table above are allocable to the Subsidiary Registrants using these percentages.
The following table provides a reconciliation of beginning and ending balances of assets of master trusts measured at fair value on a recurring basis where the determination of fair value includes significant unobservable inputs (Level 3).
(in millions)  2014
 2013
Balance at January 1  $546
 $352
Combination of trust assets(a)

 288
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements    
   
Purchases  17
 25
Sales  (164) (152)
Total gains (losses) and other, net  37
 33
Balance at December 31  $436
 $546
(a)As of January 1, 2013, assets previously held in the Progress Energy Master Retirement Trust were transferred into the Duke Energy Master Retirement Trust.
VEBA I
The following tables provide the fair value measurement amounts for VEBA I other post-retirement assets.
  December 31, 2014
(in millions)  Total Fair Value
 Level 1
 Level 2
 Level 3
Cash and cash equivalents  $21
 
 $21
 
Equity securities  14
 
 14
 
Debt securities  13
 
 13
 
Total assets  $48
 
 $48
 
  December 31, 2013
(in millions)  Total Fair Value
 Level 1
 Level 2
 Level 3
Cash and cash equivalents  $21
 
 $21
 
Equity securities  15
 
 15
 
Debt securities  15
 
 15
 
Total assets  $51
 
 $51
 

226


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

EMPLOYEE SAVINGS PLANS
Duke Energy sponsors, and the Subsidiary Registrants participate in, employee savings plans that cover substantially all U.S. employees. Most employees participate in a matching contribution formula where Duke Energy provides a matching contribution generally equal to 100 percent of employee before-tax and Roth 401(k) contributions, and, as applicable, after-tax contributions, of up to 6 percent of eligible pay per pay period. Dividends on Duke Energy shares held by the savings plans are charged to retained earnings when declared and shares held in the plans are considered outstanding in the calculation of basic and diluted earnings per share.
As of January 1, 2014, for new and rehired non-union and certain unionized employees who are not eligible to participate in Duke Energy’s defined benefit plans, an additional employer contribution of 4 percent of eligible pay per pay period, which is subject to a three-year vesting schedule, is provided to the employee’s savings plan account.
The following table includes pretax employer matching contributions made by Duke Energy and expensed by the Subsidiary Registrants.
(in millions)  Duke Energy
 Duke Energy Carolinas
 Progress Energy
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 Duke Energy Ohio
 Duke Energy Indiana
Years ended December 31,                      
2014(a)
$143
 $47
 $43
 $30
 $14
 $3
 $7
2013134
 45
 45
 25
 14
 3
 7
2012107
 37
 45
 24
 15
 4
 6
(a)For 2014, amounts include the additional employer contribution of 4 percent of eligible pay per pay period for employees not eligible to participate in a defined benefit plan.
22. INCOME TAXES
Income Tax Expense
Components of Income Tax Expense
  Year Ended December 31, 2014
(in millions)  
Duke Energy
Duke
Energy
Carolinas

Progress Energy
Duke
Energy
Progress

Duke
Energy
Florida

Duke
Energy
Ohio

Duke
Energy
Indiana

Current income taxes                
Federal  $
$161
$(466)$(184)$(53)$(73)$(112)
State  56
51
(8)14
1
3
1
Foreign  144






Total current income taxes  200
212
(474)(170)(52)(70)(111)
Deferred income taxes                
Federal  1,517
407
938
436
350
113
294
State  35
(25)84
25
52
1
15
Foreign  (67)





Total deferred income taxes(a)(b)
1,485
382
1,022
461
402
114
309
Investment tax credit amortization  (16)(6)(8)(6)(1)(1)(1)
Income tax expense from continuing operations  1,669
588
540
285
349
43
197
Tax benefit from discontinued operations  (295)
(4)

(300)
Total income tax expense included in Consolidated Statements of Operations  $1,374
$588
$536
$285
$349
$(257)$197
(a)There were no benefits of net operating loss (NOL) carryforwards.
(b)Includes utilization of NOL and tax credit carryforwards of $1,544 million at Duke Energy, $345 million at Duke Energy Carolinas, $530 million at Progress Energy, $291 million at Duke Energy Progress, $64 million at Duke Energy Florida, $56 million at Duke Energy Ohio and $141 million at Duke Energy Indiana.

227


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

  Year Ended December 31, 2013
(in millions)  
Duke Energy
Duke
Energy
Carolinas

Progress Energy
Duke
Energy
Progress

Duke
Energy
Florida

Duke
Energy
Ohio

Duke
Energy
Indiana

Current income taxes                
Federal  $(141)$49
$(221)$(70)$(143)$(24)$(88)
State  (40)11
(37)(10)(13)(4)7
Foreign  151






Total current income taxes  (30)60
(258)(80)(156)(28)(81)
Deferred income taxes                
Federal  1,092
464
555
316
326
65
276
State  144
75
84
59
44
6
29
Foreign  14






Total deferred income taxes(a)
1,250
539
639
375
370
71
305
Investment tax credit amortization  (15)(5)(8)(7)(1)
(1)
Income tax expense from continuing operations  1,205
594
373
288
213
43
223
Tax expense from discontinued operations  29

(26)

32

Total income tax expense included in Consolidated Statements of Operations  $1,234
$594
$347
$288
$213
$75
$223
(a)Includes benefits of NOL carryforwards of $808 million at Duke Energy, $458 million at Progress Energy, $64 million at Duke Energy Progress, $301 million at Duke Energy Florida and $179 million at Duke Energy Indiana.
  Year Ended December 31, 2012
(in millions)  
Duke Energy
Duke
Energy
Carolinas

Progress Energy
Duke
Energy
Progress

Duke
Energy
Florida

Duke
Energy
Ohio

Duke
Energy
Indiana

Current income taxes                
Federal  $(108)$(1)$(88)$(48)$6
$(8)$(27)
State  29
(25)2
(6)
5
27
Foreign  133






Total current income taxes  54
(26)(86)(54)6
(3)
Deferred income taxes                
Federal  491
408
226
162
121
40
(47)
State  71
77
40
9
21
(2)(25)
Foreign  20






Total deferred income taxes(a)
582
485
266
171
142
38
(72)
Investment tax credit amortization  (13)(6)(8)(7)(1)(2)(1)
Income tax expense (benefit) from continuing operations  623
453
172
110
147
33
(73)
Tax benefit from discontinued operations  107

29


65

Total income tax expense (benefit) included in Consolidated Statements of Operations  $730
$453
$201
$110
$147
$98
$(73)
(a)Includes benefits of NOL carryforwards of $1,062 million at Duke Energy, $245 million at Duke Energy Carolinas, $357 million at Progress Energy, $257 million at Duke Energy Progress, $25 million at Duke Energy Florida, $34 million at Duke Energy Ohio and $205 million at Duke Energy Indiana.
Duke Energy Income from Continuing Operations before Income Taxes
  Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2014 2013 2012
Domestic$3,600
 $3,183
 $1,600
Foreign534
 612
 634
Income from continuing operations before income taxes$4,134
 $3,795
 $2,234

228


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Statutory Rate Reconciliation
The following tables present a reconciliation of income tax expense at the U.S. federal statutory tax rate to the actual tax expense from continuing operations.
  Year Ended December 31, 2014
(in millions)Duke Energy
Duke
Energy
Carolinas

Progress Energy
Duke
Energy
Progress

Duke
Energy
Florida

Duke
Energy
Ohio

Duke
Energy
Indiana

Income tax expense, computed at the statutory rate of 35 percent$1,447
$581
$497
$263
$314
$39
$195
State income tax, net of federal income tax effect59
17
49
25
34
3
10
Tax differential on foreign earnings(a)
(110)





AFUDC equity income(47)(32)(9)(9)
(1)(5)
Renewable energy production tax credits(67)





International tax dividend373






Other items, net14
22
3
6
1
2
(3)
Income tax expense from continuing operations$1,669
$588
$540
$285
$349
$43
$197
Effective tax rate40.4%35.4%38.0%37.9%38.9%38.9%35.5%
(a)Includes a $57 million benefit as a result of the merger of two Chilean subsidiaries and a change in income tax rates in various countries primarily relating to Peru.
During the fourth quarter of 2014, Duke Energy declared a taxable dividend of foreign earnings in the form of notes payable that will result in the repatriation of approximately $2.7 billion of cash held and expected to be generated by International Energy over a period of up to 8 years. As a result of the decision to repatriate all cumulative historical undistributed foreign earnings, during the fourth quarter of 2014, Duke Energy recorded U.S. income tax expense of approximately $373 million. Duke Energy’s intention is to indefinitely reinvest prospective undistributed earnings generated by Duke Energy's foreign subsidiaries, and accordingly U.S. deferred taxes will not be provided for those earnings.
  Year Ended December 31, 2013
(in millions)Duke Energy
Duke
Energy
Carolinas

Progress Energy
Duke
Energy
Progress

Duke
Energy
Florida

Duke
Energy
Ohio

Duke
Energy
Indiana

Income tax expense, computed at the statutory rate of 35 percent$1,328
$549
$361
$276
$188
$39
$203
State income tax, net of federal income tax effect66
56
31
31
20
2
23
Tax differential on foreign earnings(49)





AFUDC equity income(55)(32)(18)(15)(3)
(5)
Renewable energy production tax credits(62)





Other items, net(23)21
(1)(4)8
2
2
Income tax expense (benefit) from continuing operations$1,205
$594
$373
$288
$213
$43
$223
Effective tax rate31.8%37.8%36.2%36.5%39.6%39.1%38.4%
  Year Ended December 31, 2012
(in millions)Duke Energy
Duke
Energy
Carolinas

Progress Energy
Duke
Energy
Progress

Duke
Energy
Florida

Duke
Energy
Ohio

Duke
Energy
Indiana

Income tax expense, computed at the statutory rate of 35 percent$782
$461
$185
$134
$145
$27
$(43)
State income tax, net of federal income tax effect65
34
33
1
14
2
1
Tax differential on foreign earnings(69)





AFUDC equity income(101)(54)(37)(24)(13)(2)(26)
Renewable energy production tax credits(25)





Other items, net(29)12
(9)(1)1
6
(5)
Income tax expense from continuing operations$623
$453
$172
$110
$147
$33
$(73)
Effective tax rate27.9%34.3%32.7%28.7%35.7%42.9%59.5%

229


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Valuation allowances have been established for certain foreign and state NOL carryforwards and state income tax credits that reduce deferred tax assets to an amount that will be realized on a more-likely-than-not basis. The net change in the total valuation allowance is included in Tax differential on foreign earnings and State income tax, net of federal income tax effect in the above tables.
DEFERRED TAXES
Net Deferred Income Tax Liability Components
  December 31, 2014
(in millions)  Duke Energy
Duke
Energy
Carolinas

Progress Energy
Duke
Energy
Progress

Duke
Energy
Florida

Duke
Energy
Ohio

Duke
Energy
Indiana

Deferred credits and other liabilities  $188
$53
$108
$28
$78
$(8)$12
Capital lease obligations  63
10




2
Pension, postretirement and other employee benefits  546
4
188
96
93
17
43
Progress Energy merger purchase accounting adjustments(a)
1,124






Tax credits and NOL carryforwards  3,540
157
980
91
252
38
260
Investments and other assets




14

Other  
12

55

35
11
Valuation allowance  (184)
(13)(1)


Total deferred income tax assets  5,277
236
1,263
269
423
96
328
Investments and other assets  (1,625)(1,051)(427)(232)(245)
(4)
Accelerated depreciation rates  (11,715)(4,046)(3,284)(2,030)(1,252)(1,660)(1,603)
Regulatory assets and deferred debits  (3,694)(953)(1,602)(809)(792)(141)(106)
Other(44)
(151)
(246)

Total deferred income tax liabilities  (17,078)(6,050)(5,464)(3,071)(2,535)(1,801)(1,713)
Net deferred income tax liabilities  $(11,801)$(5,814)$(4,201)$(2,802)$(2,112)$(1,705)$(1,385)
(a)Primarily related to capital lease obligations and debt fair value adjustments.
On July 23, 2013, HB 998 was signed into law. HB 998 reduces the North Carolina corporate income tax rate from a statutory 6.9 percent to 6.0 percent in January 2014 with a further reduction to 5.0 percent in January 2015. Duke Energy recorded a net reduction of approximately $145 million to its North Carolina deferred tax liability in the third quarter of 2013. The significant majority of this deferred tax liability reduction was offset by recording a regulatory liability pending NCUC determination of the disposition of the amounts related to Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress. The impact of HB 998 did not have a significant impact on the financial position, results of operation, or cash flows of Duke Energy, Duke Energy Carolinas, Progress Energy or Duke Energy Progress.
The following table presents the expiration of tax credits and NOL carryforwards.
  December 31, 2014
(in millions)  
Amount
 Expiration Year
Investment tax credits  $581
 2029  2034
Alternative minimum tax credits  1,093
 Indefinite
Federal NOL carryforwards  749
 2030  2033
State NOL carryforwards and credits(a)
162
 2015  2034
Foreign NOL carryforwards(b)
117
 2015  2033
Foreign Tax Credits838
 2024    
Total tax credits and NOL carryforwards  $3,540
         
(a)A valuation allowance of $79 million has been recorded on the state Net Operating Loss carryforwards, as presented in the Net Deferred Income Tax Liability Components table.
(b)A valuation allowance of $105 million has been recorded on the foreign Net Operating Loss carryforwards, as presented in the Net Deferred Income Tax Liability Components table.

230


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

  December 31, 2013
(in millions)  Duke Energy
Duke
Energy
Carolinas

Progress Energy
Duke
Energy
Progress

Duke
Energy
Florida

Duke
Energy
Ohio

Duke
Energy
Indiana

Deferred credits and other liabilities  $245
$56
$136
$9
$96
$(13)$9
Capital lease obligations  59
11




(2)
Pension, postretirement and other employee benefits  649
18
341
119
145
23
54
Progress Energy merger purchase accounting adjustments(a)
1,184






Tax credits and NOL carryforwards  4,307
488
1,965
396
365
165
521
Other  265
15
116
39
43
20
14
Valuation allowance  (192)
(40)(1)


Total deferred income tax assets  6,517
588
2,518
562
649
195
596
Investments and other assets  (1,396)(999)(209)(160)(49)(17)(7)
Accelerated depreciation rates  (12,615)(4,400)(3,663)(2,528)(1,160)(1,937)(1,591)
Regulatory assets and deferred debits  (3,185)(609)(1,389)(202)(1,159)(168)(117)
Total deferred income tax liabilities  (17,196)(6,008)(5,261)(2,890)(2,368)(2,122)(1,715)
Net deferred income tax liabilities  $(10,679)$(5,420)$(2,743)$(2,328)$(1,719)$(1,927)$(1,119)
(a)Primarily related to capital lease obligations and debt fair value adjustments.
Classification of Deferred Tax Assets (Liabilities) in the Consolidated Balance Sheets
  December 31, 2014
(in millions)Duke Energy
Duke
Energy
Carolinas

Progress Energy
Duke
Energy Progress

Duke
Energy Florida

Duke
Energy
Ohio

Duke
Energy
Indiana

Current Assets: Other$1,593
$3
$558
$106
$340
$60
$206
Investments and Other Assets: Other29






Current Liabilities: Other
(5)




Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities: Other(13,423)(5,812)(4,759)(2,908)(2,452)(1,765)(1,591)
Net deferred income tax liabilities$(11,801)$(5,814)$(4,201)$(2,802)$(2,112)$(1,705)$(1,385)
  December 31, 2013
(in millions)Duke Energy
Duke
Energy
Carolinas

Progress Energy
Duke
Energy Progress

Duke
Energy Florida

Duke
Energy
Ohio

Duke
Energy
Indiana

Current Assets: Other$1,373
$286
$540
$229
$110
$85
$52
Investments and Other Assets: Other45






Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities: Other(12,097)(5,706)(3,283)(2,557)(1,829)(2,012)(1,171)
Net deferred income tax liabilities$(10,679)$(5,420)$(2,743)$(2,328)$(1,719)$(1,927)$(1,119)

231


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

UNRECOGNIZED TAX BENEFITS
The following tables present changes to unrecognized tax benefits.
  Year Ended December 31, 2014
(in millions)Duke Energy
Duke
Energy
Carolinas

Progress Energy
Duke
Energy
Progress

Duke
Energy
Florida

Duke
Energy
Indiana

Unrecognized tax benefits — January 1$230
$171
$32
$22
$8
$1
Unrecognized tax benefits increases (decreases)      
Gross increases — tax positions in prior periods

1
1


Gross decreases — tax positions in prior periods(2)




Decreases due to settlements(15)(11)(1)


Total changes(17)(11)
1


Unrecognized tax benefits — December 31$213
$160
$32
$23
$8
$1
  Year Ended December 31, 2013
(in millions)Duke Energy
Duke
Energy
Carolinas

Progress Energy
Duke
Energy Progress

Duke
Energy Florida

Duke
Energy
Ohio

Duke
Energy
Indiana

Unrecognized tax benefits — January 1$540
$271
$131
$67
$44
$36
$32
Unrecognized tax benefits (decreases) increases       
Gross decreases — tax positions in prior periods(231)(100)(86)(45)(37)(36)(31)
Decreases due to settlements(66)





Reduction due to lapse of statute of limitations(13)
(13)
1


Total changes(310)(100)(99)(45)(36)(36)(31)
Unrecognized tax benefits — December 31$230
$171
$32
$22
$8
$
$1
  Year Ended December 31, 2012
(in millions)Duke Energy
Duke
Energy
Carolinas

Progress Energy
Duke
Energy Progress

Duke
Energy Florida

Duke
Energy
Ohio

Duke
Energy
Indiana

Unrecognized tax benefits — January 1$385
$260
$173
$73
$80
$32
$24
Acquisitions128






Unrecognized tax benefits increases (decreases)       
Gross increases — tax positions in prior periods29
12
23
10
12
2
6
Gross decreases — tax positions in prior periods(4)
(72)(19)(52)

Gross increases — current period tax positions28
15
8
4
4
4
4
Gross decreases — current period tax positions(9)(5)(1)(1)
(2)(2)
Decreases due to settlements(13)(11)




Reduction due to lapse of statute of limitations(4)





Total changes155
11
(42)(6)(36)4
8
Unrecognized tax benefits — December 31$540
$271
$131
$67
$44
$36
$32

232


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

The following table includes additional information regarding the Duke Energy Registrants' unrecognized tax benefits. It is reasonably possible that Duke Energy and Progress Energy will reflect an approximate $28 million reduction, Duke Energy Progress will reflect an approximate $17 million reduction, and Duke Energy Florida will reflect an approximate $7 million reduction in unrecognized tax benefits within the next 12 months due to the expected lapse of the statute of limitations. All other Duke Energy Registrants do not anticipate a material increase or decrease in unrecognized tax benefits within the next 12 months.
  December 31, 2014
(in millions)  
Duke
Energy

Duke
Energy
Carolinas

Progress Energy
Duke
Energy Progress

Duke
 Energy Florida

Duke
Energy
Indiana

Amount that if recognized, would affect the
  effective tax rate or regulatory liability(a)
$121
$112
$3
$2
$2
$2
Amount that if recognized, would be recorded as a component
  of discontinued operations  
8





(a)Duke Energy, Duke Energy Carolinas, Progress Energy, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Florida and Duke Energy Indiana are unable to estimate the specific amounts that would affect the effective tax rate versus the regulatory liability.
OTHER TAX MATTERS
The following tables include interest recognized in the Consolidated Statements of Operations and the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
  Year Ended December 31, 2014
(in millions)Duke Energy
Duke Energy Carolinas
Progress Energy
Duke Energy Progress
Duke Energy Florida
Duke Energy Ohio
Duke Energy Indiana
Net interest income recognized related to income taxes$6
$
$3
$
$1
$4
$4
Net interest expense recognized related to income taxes
1

1



Interest receivable related to income taxes





2
Interest payable related to income taxes13
13
5
3
5


  Year Ended December 31, 2013
(in millions)Duke Energy
Duke Energy Carolinas
Progress Energy
Duke Energy Progress
Duke Energy Florida
Duke Energy Ohio
Duke Energy Indiana
Net interest income recognized related to income taxes$2
$2
6
7

4
$1
Interest payable related to income taxes27
8
10
2
7


  Year Ended December 31, 2012
(in millions)Duke Energy
Duke Energy Carolinas
Progress Energy
Duke Energy Progress
Duke Energy Florida
Duke Energy Ohio
Duke Energy Indiana
Net interest income recognized related to income taxes$10
$9
$
$
$

2
Net interest expense recognized related to income taxes

2

2


Interest receivable related to income taxes
7





Interest payable related to income taxes7

17
8
9
3
1
Duke Energy and its subsidiaries are no longer subject to U.S. federal examination for years before 2008. The years 2008 through 2011 are in Appeals. The IRS is currently auditing the federal income tax returns for years 2012 and 2013. With few exceptions, Duke Energy and its subsidiaries are no longer subject to state, local or non-U.S. income tax examinations by tax authorities for years before 2004.

233


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

23. OTHER INCOME AND EXPENSES, NET
The components of Other income and expenses, net on the Consolidated Statements of Operations are as follows.
  Year Ended December 31, 2014
(in millions)  Duke Energy
 Duke Energy Carolinas
 Progress Energy
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 Duke Energy Ohio
 Duke Energy Indiana
Interest income  $57
 $4
 $3
 $
 $2
 $8
 $6
Foreign exchange gains  3
 
 
 
 
 
 
AFUDC equity  135
 91
 26
 25
 
 4
 14
Deferred returns  89
 71
 17
 17
 
 
 
Other income (expense)  67
 6
 31
 9
 18
 (2) 2
Other income and expense, net  $351
 $172
 $77
 $51
 $20
 $10
 $22
  Year Ended December 31, 2013
(in millions)  Duke Energy
 Duke Energy Carolinas
 Progress Energy
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 Duke Energy Ohio
 Duke Energy Indiana
Interest income  $26
 $1
 $7
 $1
 $3
 $5
 $6
Foreign exchange losses   (18) 
 
 
 
 
 
AFUDC equity  157
 91
 50
 42
 8
 1
 15
Deferred returns  39
 32
 7
 7
 
 
 
Other income (expense)  58
 (4) 30
 7
 19
 (4) (3)
Other income and expense, net  $262
 $120
 $94
 $57
 $30
 $2
 $18
  Year Ended December 31, 2012
(in millions)  Duke Energy
 Duke Energy Carolinas
 Progress Energy
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 Duke Energy Ohio
 Duke Energy Indiana
Interest income  $50
 $11
 $2
 $1
 $1
 $
 $7
Foreign exchange gains4
 
 
 
 
 
 
AFUDC equity  300
 154
 106
 69
 37
 6
 84
Deferred returns  24
 24
 
 
 
 
 
Other income (expense)  19
 (4) 22
 9
 1
 2
 (1)
Other income and expense, net  $397
 $185
 $130
 $79
 $39
 $8
 $90

24. SUBSEQUENT EVENTS
For information on subsequent events related to acquisitions, dispositions and sales of other assets, regulatory matters, commitments and contingencies, and debt and credit facilities, see Notes 2, 4, 5 and 6.

234


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

25. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL DATA (UNAUDITED)
DUKE ENERGY
Quarterly EPS amounts are meant to be stand-alone calculations and are not always additive to the full-year amount due to rounding and the weighting of share issuances.
(in millions, except per share data)  
First
Quarter(a)

 
Second
Quarter(a)

 
Third
Quarter(a)

 
Fourth
Quarter(a)

 Total
2014              
Operating revenues  $6,263
 $5,708
 $6,395
 $5,559
 $23,925
Operating income  1,362
 1,289
 1,619
 988
 5,258
Income from continuing operations  750
 725
 891
 99
 2,465
(Loss) income from discontinued operations, net of tax(843) (112) 378
 1
 (576)
Net loss (income)(93) 613
 1,269
 100
 1,889
Net loss (income) attributable to Duke Energy Corporation  (97) 609
 1,274
 97
 1,883
Earnings per share:                
Income from continuing operations attributable to Duke Energy Corporation common shareholders                
Basic  $1.05
 $1.02
 $1.25
 $0.14
 $3.46
Diluted  $1.05
 $1.02
 $1.25
 $0.14
 $3.46
(Loss) income from discontinued operations attributable to Duke Energy Corporation common shareholders         
Basic$(1.19) $(0.16) $0.55
 $
 $(0.80)
Diluted$(1.19) $(0.16) $0.55
 $
 $(0.80)
Net (loss) income attributable to Duke Energy Corporation common shareholders                
Basic  $(0.14) $0.86
 $1.80
 $0.14
 $2.66
Diluted  $(0.14) $0.86
 $1.80
 $0.14
 $2.66
2013              
Operating revenues  $5,536
 $5,393
 $6,217
 $5,610
 $22,756
Operating income  1,259
 742
 1,660
 1,193
 4,854
Income from continuing operations  663
 292
 946
 689
 2,590
(Loss) income from discontinued operations, net of tax(29) 50
 62
 3
 86
Net income  634
 342
 1,008
 692
 2,676
Net income attributable to Duke Energy Corporation  634
 339
 1,004
 688
 2,665
Earnings per share:                
Income from continuing operations attributable to Duke Energy Corporation common shareholders                
Basic  $0.93
 $0.40
 $1.33
 $0.96
 $3.64
Diluted  $0.93
 $0.40
 $1.33
 $0.96
 $3.63
(Loss) income from discontinued operations attributable to Duke Energy Corporation common shareholders         
Basic$(0.04) $0.08
 $0.09
 $0.01
 $0.13
Diluted$(0.04) $0.08
 $0.09
 $0.01
 $0.13
Net income attributable to Duke Energy Corporation common shareholders                
Basic  $0.89
 $0.48
 $1.42
 $0.97
 $3.77
Diluted  $0.89
 $0.48
 $1.42
 $0.97
 $3.76
(a)Operating results reflect reclassifications due to the impact of discontinued operations (see Note 2 for further information).


235


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

The following table includes unusual or infrequently occurring items in each quarter during the two most recently completed fiscal years. All amounts discussed below are pretax unless otherwise noted.
(in millions)  
First
Quarter

 
Second
Quarter

 
Third
Quarter

 
Fourth
Quarter

 Total
2014               
Costs to achieve Progress Energy merger (see Note 2)  $(55) $(61) $(56) $(33) $(205)
Midwest Generation Impairment (see Note 2)  (1,287) 
 477
 (39) (849)
Coal ash Plea Agreements Reserve (see Note 5)
 
 
 (102) (102)
International Tax Adjustment (see Note 22)
 
 
 (373) (373)
Asset Impairment (see Note 11)(94) 
 
 
 (94)
Total  $(1,436) $(61) $421
 $(547) $(1,623)
2013(a)
              
Costs to achieve Progress Energy merger (see Note 2)  $(55) $(82) $(88) $(72) $(297)
Crystal River Unit 3 charges (see Note 4)
 (295) 
 (57) (352)
Harris and Levy nuclear development charges (see Note 4)
 (87) 
 
 (87)
Gain on sale of DukeNet (see Note 12)
 
 
 105
 105
Total  $(55) $(464) $(88) $(24) $(631)
(a)Revised retail rates became effective in January for Duke Energy Florida, May for Duke Energy Ohio, June for Duke Energy Progress and September for Duke Energy Carolinas (see Note 4 for further information).
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS
(in millions)
First
Quarter

 
Second
Quarter

 
Third
Quarter

 
Fourth
Quarter

 Total
2014              
Operating revenues$2,000
 $1,755
 $1,938
 $1,658
 $7,351
Operating income509
 438
 630
 318
 1,895
Net income286
 270
 377
 139
 1,072
2013              
Operating revenues$1,729
 $1,591
 $1,919
 $1,715
 $6,954
Operating income434
 351
 604
 420
 1,809
Net income244
 181
 342
 209
 976
The following table includes unusual or infrequently occurring items in each quarter during the two most recently completed fiscal years. All amounts discussed below are pretax unless otherwise noted.
(in millions)  
First
Quarter

 
Second
Quarter

 
Third
Quarter

 
Fourth
Quarter

 Total
2014              
Costs to achieve Progress Energy merger (see Note 2)  $(29) $(38) $(25) $(17) $(109)
Coal ash Plea Agreements Reserve (see Note 5)
 
 
 (72) (72)
Total(29) (38) (25) (89) (181)
2013(a)
              
Costs to achieve Progress Energy merger (see Note 2)  $(22) $(35) $(34) $(29) $(120)
(a)Revised retail rates became effective in September in both North Carolina and South Carolina (see Note 4 for further information).

236


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

PROGRESS ENERGY
(in millions)  
First
Quarter

 
Second
Quarter

 
Third
Quarter

 
Fourth
Quarter

 Total
2014              
Operating revenues  $2,541
 $2,421
 $2,863
 $2,341
 $10,166
Operating income  477
 488
 665
 388
 2,018
Income from continuing operations  204
 207
 330
 139
 880
Net income203
 202
 330
 139
 874
Net income attributable to Parent  202
 202
 329
 136
 869
2013              
Operating revenues  $2,186
 $2,281
 $2,766
 $2,300
 $9,533
Operating income  430
 114
 671
 403
 1,618
Income (loss) from continuing operations  154
 (13) 328
 190
 659
Net income (loss)154
 (17) 342
 196
 675
Net income (loss) attributable to Parent  153
 (17) 341
 195
 672
The following table includes unusual or infrequently occurring items in each quarter during the two most recently completed fiscal years. All amounts discussed below are pretax unless otherwise noted.
(in millions)  
First
Quarter

 
Second
Quarter

 
Third
Quarter

 
Fourth
Quarter

 Total
2014              
Costs to achieve the merger with Duke Energy (see Note 2)  $(19) $(12) $(21) $(13) $(65)
Coal ash Plea Agreements Reserve (see Note 5)
 
 
 (30) (30)
Total(19) (12) (21) (43) (95)
2013(a)
              
Costs to achieve the merger with Duke Energy (see Note 2)  $(19) $(33) $(42) $(28) $(122)
Crystal River Unit 3 charges (see Note 4)
 (295) 
 (57) (352)
Harris and Levy nuclear development charges (see Note 4)
 (87) 
 
 (87)
Total  $(19) $(415) $(42) $(85) $(561)
(a)Revised retail rates became effective in January in Florida and June in North Carolina (see Note 4 for further information).
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS
(in millions)
First
Quarter

 
Second
Quarter

 
Third
Quarter

 
Fourth
Quarter

 Total
2014              
Operating revenues$1,422
 $1,191
 $1,367
 $1,196
 $5,176
Operating income258
 212
 285
 180
 935
Net income133
 101
 157
 76
 467
2013              
Operating revenues$1,216
 $1,135
 $1,430
 $1,211
 $4,992
Operating income212
 166
 303
 251
 932
Net income110
 77
 175
 138
 500
The following table includes unusual or infrequently occurring items in each quarter during the two most recently completed fiscal years. All amounts discussed below are pretax unless otherwise noted.
(in millions)  
First
Quarter

 
Second
Quarter

 
Third
Quarter

 
Fourth
Quarter

 Total
2014              
Costs to achieve the merger with Duke Energy (see Note 2)  $(14) $(3) $(15) $(10) $(42)
Coal ash Plea Agreements Reserve (see Note 5)
 
 
 (30) (30)
Total(14)
(3)
(15)
(40)
(72)
2013(a)
              
Costs to achieve the merger with Duke Energy (see Note 2)  $(11) $(22) $(32) $(19) $(84)
Harris nuclear development charges (see Note 4)$
 $(22) $
 $
 $(22)
Total$(11) $(44) $(32) $(19) $(106)

237


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

(a)Revised retail rates became effective in June in North Carolina (see Note 4 for further information).
DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA
(in millions)
First
Quarter

 
Second
Quarter

 
Third
Quarter

 
Fourth
Quarter

 Total
2014              
Operating revenues$1,116
 $1,225
 $1,491
 $1,143
 $4,975
Operating income219
 276
 378
 205
 1,078
Net income108
 142
 205
 93
 548
2013              
Operating revenues$968
 $1,142
 $1,332
 $1,085
 $4,527
Operating income (loss)221
 (53) 369
 151
 688
Net income (loss)110
 (57) 197
 75
 325
The following table includes unusual or infrequently occurring items in each quarter during the two most recently completed fiscal years. All amounts discussed below are pretax unless otherwise noted.
(in millions)  
First
Quarter

 
Second
Quarter

 
Third
Quarter

 
Fourth
Quarter

 Total
2014              
Costs to achieve the merger with Duke Energy (see Note 2)  $(5) $(9) $(6) $(3) $(23)
2013(a)
              
Costs to achieve the merger with Duke Energy (see Note 2)  $(8) $(11) $(10) $(9) $(38)
Crystal River Unit 3 charges (see Note 4)
 (295) 
 (57) (352)
Levy nuclear development charges (see Note 4)
 (65) 
 
 (65)
Total  $(8) $(371) $(10) $(66) $(455)
(a)Revised retail rates became effective in January (see Note 4 for further information).
DUKE ENERGY OHIO
(in millions)
First
Quarter(a)

 
Second
Quarter(a)

 
Third
Quarter(a)

 
Fourth
Quarter(a)

 Total
2014            �� 
Operating revenues$575
 $412
 $446
 $480
 $1,913
Operating (loss) income(7) 62
 58
 74
 187
(Loss) income from discontinued operations, net of tax(875) (135) 413
 34
 (563)
Net (loss) income(890) (108) 439
 64
 (495)
2013              
Operating revenues$503
 $408
 $438
 $456
 $1,805
Operating income56
 27
 50
 49
 182
(Loss) income from discontinued operations, net of tax(47) 51
 35
 (4) 35
Net (loss) income(21) 58
 59
 6
 102
(a)Operating results reflect reclassifications due to the impact of discontinued operations (see Note 2 for further information).

The following table includes unusual or infrequently occurring items in each quarter during the two most recently completed fiscal years. All amounts discussed below are pretax unless otherwise noted.
(in millions)  
First
Quarter

 
Second
Quarter

 
Third
Quarter

 
Fourth
Quarter

 Total
2014              
Costs to achieve Progress Energy merger (see Note 2)  $(2) $(4) $(3) $(2) $(11)
Midwest Generation Impairment (see Note 2)(1,318) 
 477
 (39) (880)
Asset Impairment (see Note 11)(94) 
 
 
 (94)
Total$(1,414) $(4) $474
 $(41) $(985)
2013(a)
              
Costs to achieve Progress Energy merger (see Note 2)  $(4) $(4) $(4) $(4) $(16)
(a)Revised retail rates became effective in May (see Note 4 for further information).

238


PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC. – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA
(in millions)
First
Quarter

 
Second
Quarter

 
Third
Quarter

 
Fourth
Quarter

 Total
2014              
Operating revenues$845
 $748
 $790
 $792
 $3,175
Operating income215
 178
 182
 130
 705
Net income113
 87
 101
 58
 359
2013              
Operating revenues$724
 $700
 $755
 $747
 $2,926
Operating income181
 168
 203
 181
 733
Net income90
 82
 104
 82
 358
The following table includes unusual or infrequently occurring items in each quarter during the two most recently completed fiscal years. All amounts discussed below are pretax unless otherwise noted.
(in millions)  
First
Quarter

 
Second
Quarter

 
Third
Quarter

 
Fourth
Quarter

 Total
2014              
Costs to achieve Progress Energy merger (see Note 2)  $(2) $(5) $(3) $(2) $(12)
2013              
Costs to achieve Progress Energy merger (see Note 2)  $(4) $(5) $(5) $(5) $(19)

239


PART II

ITEM 9. CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
None.
ITEM 9A. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
Disclosure Controls and Procedures
Disclosure controls and procedures are effectivecontrols and other procedures that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by PECthe Duke Energy Registrants in the reports that it filesthey file or submitssubmit under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) is recorded, processed, summarized and reported, within the time periods specified by the SEC rules and forms.
Disclosure controls and procedures include, without limitation, controls and procedures designed to provide reasonable assurance that information required to be disclosed by the Duke Energy Registrants in the SEC's rules and forms, and that such informationreports they file or submit under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to PEC’s management, including the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.
Under the supervision and with the participation of management, including the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, the Duke Energy Registrants have evaluated the effectiveness of their disclosure controls and procedures (as such term is defined in Rule 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Exchange Act) as of December 31, 2014, and, based upon this evaluation, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have concluded that these controls and procedures are effective in providing reasonable assurance of compliance.
MANAGEMENT’S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTINGChanges in Internal Control over Financial Reporting
Under the supervision and with the participation of management, including the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, the Duke Energy Registrants have evaluated changes in internal control over financial reporting (as such term is defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act) that occurred during the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2014 and have concluded no change has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, internal control over financial reporting.
ItManagement’s Annual Report On Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
The Duke Energy Registrants’ management is the responsibilityresponsible for establishing and maintaining an adequate system of PEC’s management to establish and maintain adequate internal control over financial reporting, as such term is defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. PEC’sRules 13a−15(f) and 15d−15(f). The Duke Energy Registrants’ internal control over financial reporting is a processsystem was designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes, in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Internal control over financial reporting includes policies and procedures that (1) pertainStates. Due to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of PEC; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; (3) provide reasonable assurance that receipts and expenditures of PEC are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of PEC; and (4) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of PEC’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness of the internal control over financial reporting to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies orand procedures may deteriorate.
Management assessedThe Duke Energy Registrants’ management, including their Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, has conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of PEC’stheir internal control over financial reporting atas of December 31, 2011. Management2014 based this assessment on criteria for effective internal control over financial reporting describedthe framework in the Internal Control Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Management’s assessment included anBased on that evaluation, of the design of PEC’smanagement concluded that its internal controlcontrols over financial reporting and testingwere effective as of December 31, 2014.
Deloitte & Touche LLP, Duke Energy’s independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the operational effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting. Management reviewed the results of its assessment with the Audit Committee of the board of directors.
Based on our assessment, management determined that, at December 31, 2011, PEC maintained effectiveDuke Energy’s internal control over financial reporting.

240


This annual report does not include an attestation report of our independent registered public accounting firm regarding internal control over financial reporting for PEC. As PEC is a non-accelerated filer, management’s report is not subject to attestation by our independent registered public accounting firm pursuant to Section 404(c) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.PART III


CHANGES IN INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING
ITEM 10. DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
There has been no change in PEC’s internal control over financial reporting during the quarter ended December 31, 2011, that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, its internal control over financial reporting.
239

PEF
DISCLOSURE CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
PursuantDuke Energy will provide information that is responsive to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, PEF carried outthis Item 10 in its definitive proxy statement or in an evaluation, with the participation of its management, including PEF’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, of the effectiveness of PEF’s disclosure controls and procedures (as defined under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) as ofamendment to this Annual Report not later than 120 days after the end of the periodfiscal year covered by this report. Based upon that evaluation, PEF’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that its disclosure controls and procedures are effective to ensure that information required to be disclosed by PEF in the reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act, is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC's rules and forms, and that suchAnnual Report. That information is accumulated and communicated to PEF’s management, including the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.
MANAGEMENT’S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING
It is the responsibility of PEF’s management to establish and maintain adequate internal control over financial reporting, as such term is definedincorporated in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. PEF’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Internal control over financial reporting includes policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of PEF; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; (3) provide reasonable assurance that receipts and expenditures of PEF are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of PEF; and (4) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of PEF’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.this Item 10 by reference.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
Management assessed the effectiveness of PEF’s internal control over financial reporting at December 31, 2011. Management based this assessment on criteria for effective internal control over financial reporting described in Internal Control – Integrated FrameworkITEM 11. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Management’s assessment included an evaluation of the design of PEF’s internal control over financial reporting and testing of the operational effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting. Management reviewed the results of its assessment with the Audit Committee of the board of directors.
Based on our assessment, management determined that, at December 31, 2011, PEF maintained effective internal control over financial reporting.
This annual report does not include an attestation report of our independent registered public accounting firm regarding internal control over financial reporting for PEF. As PEF is a non-accelerated filer, management’s report is not subject to attestation by our independent registered public accounting firm pursuant to Section 404(c) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
CHANGES IN INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING
There has been no change in PEF’s internal control over financial reporting during the quarter ended December 31, 2011, that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, its internal control over financial reporting.
240

ITEM 9B.OTHER INFORMATION
None

241


PART III
ITEM 10.DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
a)  Information regarding Progress Energy’s directors and PEC’s directors will be set forth in Progress Energy’s and PEC’s definitive proxy statements for the 2012 Annual Meetings of Shareholders or will be filed with the SEC as part of an amendment to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A within 120 days after the end of our fiscal year and is incorporated by reference herein.
b)  Information regarding both Progress Energy’s and PEC’s executive officers is set forth in PART I and is incorporated by reference herein.
c)
We have adopted a Code of Ethics that applies to all of our employees, including our Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officer and Controller (or persons performing similar functions). Our board of directors has adopted our Code of Ethics as its own standard. Board members, Progress Energy officers and Progress Energy employees certify their compliance with the Code of Ethics on an annual basis. Our Code of Ethics is posted on our website at www.progress-energy.com/investor and is available in print at no cost to any shareholder upon written request.
We intend to satisfy the disclosure requirement under Item 5.05 of Form 8-K relating to amendments to or waivers from any provision of the Code of Ethics applicable to our Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officer and Controller by posting such information on our website cited above.
d)Information regarding the Audit and Corporate Performance Committee of Progress Energy’s board of directors is set forth in Progress Energy’s definitive proxy statement for the 2012 Annual Meeting of Shareholders or will be filed as part of an amendment to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A, and is incorporated by reference herein.
PEC does not have a separate audit committee. Information regarding the responsibilities of the Audit and Corporate Performance Committee of Progress Energy’s board with respect to PEC is set forth in PEC’s definitive proxy statement for the 2012 Annual Meeting of Shareholders or will be filed as part of an amendment to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A, and is incorporated by reference herein.
e)The board of directors has determined that Carlos A. Saladrigas and Theresa M. Stone are the “Audit Committee Financial Experts,” as that term is defined in the rules promulgated by the SEC pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and have designated them as such. Both Mr. Saladrigas and Ms. Stone are “independent,” as that term is defined in the general independence standards of the New York Stock Exchange listing standards.
f)Information regarding our compliance with Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and certain corporate governance matters is set forth in Progress Energy’s and PEC’s definitive proxy statements for the 2012 Annual Meeting of Shareholders or will be filed as part of amendments to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A, and is incorporated by reference herein.
g)           The following are available on our website cited above and in print at no cost:
·  Audit and Corporate Performance Committee Charter
·  Corporate Governance Committee Charter
·  Organization and Compensation Committee Charter
·  Corporate Governance Guidelines
242


h)Our 2012 Annual Meeting of Shareholders will be held on August 8, 2012, unless the Merger with Duke Energy has been completed by that date, in which case no 2012 Annual Meeting of Shareholders will be held. Shareholder proposals submitted for inclusion in the proxy statement for our 2012 Annual Meeting must be received no later than May 1, 2012, at our principal executive offices, addressed to the attention of:
John R. McArthur
Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary
Progress Energy, Inc.
P.O. Box 1551 
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-1551
Upon receipt of any such proposal, we will determine whether or not to include such proposal in the proxy statement and proxy in accordance with regulations governing the solicitation of proxies.
Duke Energy will provide information that is responsive to this Item 11 in its definitive proxy statement or in an amendment to this Annual Report not later than 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Annual Report. That information is incorporated in this Item 11 by reference.
ITEM 12. SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS
A Progress Energy shareholder who otherwise intends to present business at the 2012 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, or who wishes to nominate a candidate for director, must comply with our By-Laws. Our By-Laws require, among other things, that for nominations of persons for election to the board of directors or the proposal of business not included in the notice of meeting to be considered by the shareholders at an annual meeting, a shareholder must give timely written notice thereof. To be timely for the 2012 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, our Corporate Secretary must receive that notice not later than May 1, 2012, and the Corporate Secretary must receive notice of a shareholder's intention to present other business not later than May 1, 2012. The notice must contain and be accompanied by certain information as specified in our By-Laws. We reserve the right to reject, rule out of order or take other appropriate action with respect to any proposal that does not comply with these or other applicable requirements.
Any shareholder desiring a copy of our By-Laws will be furnished one without charge upon written request to the Corporate Secretary. A copy of the By-Laws, as amended and restated on May 10, 2006, was filed as an exhibit to our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, and is available at the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov.
TheDuke Energy will provide information called for bythat is responsive to this Item 10 is omitted for PEF pursuant to Instruction I(2)(c) to Form 10-K (Omission of Information by Certain Wholly Owned Subsidiaries).
ITEM 11.EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
Information regarding Progress Energy’s executive compensation and certain matters related to the Organization and Compensation Committee of Progress Energy’s board is set forth12 in Progress Energy’sits definitive proxy statement for the 2012 Annual Meeting of Shareholders or will be filed as part ofin an amendment to thethis Annual Report on Form 10-K/A, andnot later than 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Annual Report. That information is incorporated in this Item 12 by reference herein. Information regarding PEC’s executive compensation and PEC’s decisionreference.
ITEM 13. CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS, AND DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE
Duke Energy will provide information that is responsive to delegate authority to approve senior management compensation to the Organization and Compensation Committee of Progress Energy’s board rather than havingthis Item 13 in its own standing compensation committee is set forth in PEC’s definitive proxy statement for the 2012 Annual Meeting of Shareholders or will be filed as part ofin an amendment to thethis Annual Report on Form 10-K/A, andnot later than 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Annual Report. That information is incorporated in this Item 13 by reference herein.reference.
ITEM 14. PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING FEES AND SERVICES
The information called for by Item 11 is omitted for PEF pursuant to Instruction I(2)(c) to Form 10-K (Omission of Information by Certain Wholly Owned Subsidiaries).

SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS
a)  Information regarding any person Progress Energy and PEC knows to be the beneficial owner of more than 5 percent of any class of its voting securities is set forth in its definitive proxy statement for the 2012 Annual Meeting of Shareholders or will be filed as part of an amendment to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A, and is incorporated by reference herein.
243

b)  Information regarding the security ownership of Progress Energy’s and PEC’s management is set forth, respectively, in Progress Energy’s and PEC’s definitive proxy statements for the 2012 Annual Meeting of Shareholders or will be filed as part of an amendment to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A, and is incorporated by reference herein.
c)  Information regarding the equity compensation plans of Progress Energy is set forth under the heading “Equity Compensation Plan Information” in Progress Energy’s definitive proxy statement for the 2012 Annual Meeting of Shareholders or will be filed as part of an amendment to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A, and is incorporated by reference herein.
The information called for by Item 12 is omitted for PEF pursuant to Instruction I(2)(c) to Form 10-K (Omission of Information by Certain Wholly Owned Subsidiaries).

CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS, AND DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE
Information regarding certain relationships and related transactions is set forth, respectively, in Progress Energy’s and PEC’s definitive proxy statements for the 2012 Annual Meeting of Shareholders or will be filed as part of an amendment to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A, and is incorporated by reference herein.
The information called for by Item 13 is omitted for PEF pursuant to Instruction I(2)(c) to Form 10-K (Omission of Information by Certain Wholly Owned Subsidiaries).
ITEM 14.PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING FEES AND SERVICES
The Audit Committee has actively monitored all services provided by its independent registered public accounting firm, Deloitte & Touche LLP, and the member firms of Deloitte & Touche Tohmatsu and their respective affiliates (collectively, Deloitte) andprovided professional services to the relationship between audit and nonaudit services provided by Deloitte. ProgressDuke Energy has adopted policies and proceduresRegistrants. The following tables present the Deloitte fees for approving all audit and permissible nonaudit services rendered by Deloitte, and the fees billed for those services. These policies and procedures apply to Progress Energy and its subsidiaries. Progress Energy’s Controller (the Controller) is responsible to the Audit CommitteeDuke Energy Registrants during 2014 and 2013.
  Year Ended December 31, 2014
(in millions)  
Duke Energy  

 Duke Energy Carolinas
 
Progress Energy  

 
Duke Energy Progress  

 
Duke Energy Florida  

 Duke Energy Ohio
 Duke Energy Indiana
Types of Fees  
                    
Audit Fees(a)
$12.0
 $4.2
 $4.6
 $2.6
 $2.0
 $1.2
 $1.2
Audit-Related Fees(b)
4.2
 0.1
 0.1
 0.1
 
 2.6
 
Tax Fees(c)
0.7
 0.3
 0.3
 0.2
 0.1
 0.1
 0.1
Total Fees  $16.9
 $4.6
 $5.0
 $2.9
 $2.1
 $3.9
 $1.3
  Year Ended December 31, 2013
(in millions)  
Duke Energy
 Duke Energy Carolinas
 Progress Energy
 Duke Energy Progress
 Duke Energy Florida
 Duke Energy Ohio
 Duke Energy Indiana
Types of Fees  
                    
Audit Fees(a)
$11.5
 $4.1
 $4.3
 $2.5
 $1.8
 $1.3
 $1.2
Audit-Related Fees(b)
2.3
 0.4
 0.2
 0.1
 0.1
 
 
Tax Fees(c)
0.5
 0.2
 0.2
 0.1
 0.1
 0.1
 0.1
Total Fees  $14.3
 $4.7
 $4.7
 $2.7
 $2.0
 $1.4
 $1.3
(a)Audit Fees are fees billed or expected to be billed for professional services for the audit of the Duke Energy Registrants’ financial statements included in the annual report on Form 10-K and the review of financial statements included in quarterly reports on
Form 10-Q, for enforcement of this procedure, and for reporting noncompliance. Pursuant to the preapproval policy, the Audit Committee specifically preapproved the use of Deloitte for audit, audit-related and tax services.
The preapproval policy requires management to obtain specific preapproval from the Audit Committee for the use of Deloitte for any permissible nonaudit services, which, generally, are limited to tax services, including tax compliance, tax planning, and tax advice services such as return review and consultation and assistance. Other types of permissible nonaudit services will not be considered for approval except in limited instances, which could include circumstances in which proposed services provide significant economic or other benefits to us. In determining whether to approve these services, the Audit Committee will assess whether these services adversely impair the independence of Deloitte. Any permissible nonaudit services provided during a fiscal year that (i) do not aggregate more than 5 percent of the total fees paid to Deloitte for all services rendered during that fiscal year and (ii) were not recognized as nonaudit services at the time of the engagement must be brought to the attention of the Controller for prompt submission to the Audit Committee for approval. These de minimis nonaudit services must be approved by the Audit Committee or its designated representative before the completion of the services. Nonaudit services that are specifically prohibited under Sarbanes-Oxley Act Section 404, SEC rules, and Public Company Accounting Oversight Board rules are specifically prohibited under the policy.
Prior to the approval of permissible tax services by the Audit Committee, the policy requires Deloitte to (1) describe in writing to the Audit Committee (a) the scope of the service, the fee structure for the engagement and any side letter or other amendment to the engagement letter or any other agreement between Progress Energy and Deloitte relating to the service and (b) any compensation arrangement or other agreement, such as a referral agreement, a referral fee or fee-sharing arrangement, between Deloitte and any person (other than Progress Energy) with respect
244

to the promoting, marketing or recommending of a transaction covered by the service; and (2) discuss with the Audit Committee the potential effects of the services on the independence of Deloitte.
The policy also requires the Controller to update the Audit Committee throughout the year as to the servicesnormally provided by Deloitte and the costs of those services. The policy also requires Deloitte to annually confirm its independence in accordance with SEC and New York Stock Exchange standards. The Audit Committee will assess the adequacy of this policy and related procedure as it deems necessary and revise accordingly.
Information regarding principal accountant fees and services is set forth, respectively, in Progress Energy’s and PEC’s definitive proxy statements for the 2012 Annual Meeting of Shareholders or will be filed with the SEC as part of an amendment to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A, and is incorporated by reference herein.
PEF
Set forth in the table below is certain information relating to the aggregate fees billed by Deloitte for professional services rendered to PEF for the fiscal years ended December 31.
       
  2011  2010 
Audit fees $1,884,000  $1,736,000 
Audit-related fees  8,000   50,000 
Tax fees  4,000   4,000 
Total $1,896,000  $1,790,000 
         
Audit fees include fees billed for services rendered in connection with (i) the audits of the annual financial statements of PEF, (ii) the reviews of the financial statements included in the Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q of PEF, (iii) accounting consultations arising as part of the audits and (iv) audit services in connection with statutory, regulatory or other filings or engagements or for any other service performed by Deloitte to comply with generally accepted auditing standards.
(b)Audit-Related Fees are fees for assurance and related services that are reasonably related to the performance of an audit or review of financial statements, including assistance with acquisitions and divestitures and internal control reviews.
(c)Tax Fees are fees for tax return assistance and preparation, tax examination assistance, and professional services related to tax planning and tax strategy.

241


PART III

To safeguard the continued independence of the independent auditor, the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors (Duke Energy Audit Committee) adopted a policy that provides the independent public auditor is only permitted to provide services to Duke Energy and its consolidated subsidiaries, including comfort letters and consents in connection with SEC filings and financing transactions.
Audit-related fees include fees billed for (i) special procedures and letter reports, (ii) benefit plan audits when fees are paid by PEF rather than directlythe Subsidiary Registrants that have been pre-approved by the plan, (iii) accounting consultations for prospective transactions not arising directly fromDuke Energy Audit Committee. Pursuant to the audits,policy, detailed audit services, audit-related services, tax services and (iv) accounting research tool subscriptions.
Tax fees include fees billed for tax compliance matters.
Thecertain other services have been specifically pre-approved up to certain fee limits. In the event the cost of any of these services may exceed the pre-approved limits, the Duke Energy Audit Committee has concludedmust pre-approve the service. All other services that are not prohibited pursuant to the provisionSecurities and Exchange Commission’s or other applicable regulatory bodies’ rules of regulations must be specifically pre-approved by the nonauditDuke Energy Audit Committee. All services listed above as Tax fees is compatible with maintaining Deloitte’s independence.
None ofperformed in in 2014 and 2013 by the services provided wasindependent public accountant were approved by the Duke Energy Audit Committee pursuant to the “de minimis” waiver provisions described above.their pre-approval policies.

242

245


PART IV


ITEM 15. EXHIBITS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES
EXHIBITS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES
a)The following documents are filed as part of the report:
 
1.Financial Statements Filed:
See Item 8 – Financial Statements and Supplementary Data
2.Financial Statement Schedules Filed:
(a)Consolidated Financial StatementStatements, Supplemental Financial Data and Supplemental Schedules for the Years Ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009:
Schedule II - Valuation and Qualifying Accounts - Progress Energy, Inc. 247
Schedule II - Valuation and Qualifying Accounts - Carolina Power & Light Company d/b/a Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. 248
Schedule II - Valuation and Qualifying Accounts - Florida Power Corporation d/b/a Progress Energy Florida, Inc. 249
All other schedules have been omitted as not applicable or are not required because the information required to be shown is included in the Financial Statements or the Combined Notes to the Financial Statements.
3.Exhibits Filed:
See EXHIBIT INDEXPart II of this annual report are as follows:
Duke Energy Corporation
Consolidated Financial Statements
Consolidated Statements of Operations for the Years Ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012
Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income for the Years Ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2014 and 2013
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the Years Ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012
Consolidated Statements of Changes in Equity for the Years Ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements
Quarterly Financial Data, (unaudited, included in Note 25 to the Consolidated Financial Statements)
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
All other schedules are omitted because they are not required, or because the required information is included in the Consolidated Financial Statements or Notes.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
Consolidated Financial Statements
Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income for the Years Ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2014 and 2013
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the Years Ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012
Consolidated Statements of Changes in Member’s Equity for the Years Ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements
Quarterly Financial Data, (unaudited, included in Note 25 to the Consolidated Financial Statements)
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
All other schedules are omitted because they are not required, or because the required information is included in the Consolidated Financial Statements or Notes.
Progress Energy, Inc.
Consolidated Financial Statements
Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income for the Years Ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2014 and 2013
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the Years Ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012
Consolidated Statements of Changes in Common Stockholder’s Equity for the Years Ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements
Quarterly Financial Data, (unaudited, included in Note 25 to the Consolidated Financial Statements)
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
All other schedules are omitted because they are not required, or because the required information is included in the Consolidated Financial Statements or Notes.
Duke Energy Progress, Inc.
Consolidated Financial Statements
Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income for the Years Ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2014 and 2013
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the Years Ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012
Consolidated Statements of Changes in Common Stockholder’s Equity for the Years Ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements
Quarterly Financial Data, (unaudited, included in Note 25 to the Consolidated Financial Statements)
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
All other schedules are omitted because they are not required, or because the required information is included in the Consolidated Financial Statements or Notes.
Duke Energy Florida, Inc.
Consolidated Financial Statements
Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income for the Years Ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2014 and 2013
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the Years Ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012
Consolidated Statements of Changes in Common Stockholder’s Equity for the Years Ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements
Quarterly Financial Data, (unaudited, included in Note 25 to the Consolidated Financial Statements)
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
All other schedules are omitted because they are not required, or because the required information is included in the Consolidated Financial Statements or Notes.

243

246

PART IV

Duke Energy Ohio, Inc.
Consolidated Financial Statements
Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income for the Years Ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2014 and 2013
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the Years Ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012
Consolidated Statements of Changes in Common Stockholder’s Equity for the Years Ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements
Quarterly Financial Data, (unaudited, included in Note 25 to the Consolidated Financial Statements)
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
All other schedules are omitted because they are not required, or because the required information is included in the Consolidated Financial Statements or Notes.
Duke Energy Indiana, Inc.
Consolidated Financial Statements
Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income for the Years Ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2014 and 2013
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the Years Ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012
Consolidated Statements of Changes in Common Stockholder’s Equity for the Years Ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements
Quarterly Financial Data, (unaudited, included in Note 25 to the Consolidated Financial Statements)
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
All other schedules are omitted because they are not required, or because the required information is included in the Consolidated Financial Statements or Notes.
(b) Exhibits — See Exhibit Index immediately following the signature page.


PROGRESS ENERGY, INC.
Schedule II - Valuation and Qualifying Accounts
For the Years Ended December 31
(in millions)
                
 Description
 
Balance at
Beginning of
Period
  
Additions
Charged to
Expenses
  
Charged
to Other
Accounts
  
Deductions(a)
  
Balance at
End of
Period
 
                
Valuation and qualifying accounts deducted on the balance sheet from the related assets: 
                
 2011 
               
Uncollectible accounts $35  $10  $1  $(19)(b) $27 
Inventory valuation(c)
  17   2   -   (2)  17 
Fossil fuel plants dismantlement reserve  144   4   -   -   148 
Nuclear refueling outage reserve  15   5   -   -   20 
Deferred tax asset valuation allowance  60   11   -   -   71 
                     
 2010 
                    
Uncollectible accounts $18  $18  $24(b) $(25) $35 
Inventory valuation(c)
  14   3   -   -   17 
Fossil fuel plant dismantlement reserve  143   4   -   (3)  144 
Nuclear refueling outage reserve  5   13   -   (3)  15 
Deferred tax asset valuation allowance
  55   5   -   -   60 
                     
 2009 
                    
Uncollectible accounts $18  $32  $-  $(32) $18 
Inventory valuation(c)
  -   14   -   -   14 
Fossil fuel plants dismantlement reserve  145   1   -   (3)  143 
Nuclear refueling outage reserve  14   18   -   (27)  5 
Deferred tax asset valuation allowance  55   -   -   -   55 
244


(a)Deductions from valuation accounts represent write-offs, net of recoveries, or the release of valuation allowances.
(b)Includes $6 million deduction in 2011 and $18 million charge in 2010 related to other noncustomer receivables.
(c)Relates to the impact of PEC's decision to retire 11 coal-fired units prior to the end of their estimated useful lives.
PART IV

247



CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
d/b/a PROGRESS ENERGY CAROLINAS, INC.
Schedule II - Valuation and Qualifying Accounts
For the Years Ended December 31
(in millions)
  
 Description
Balance at
Beginning of
Period
 
Additions
Charged to
Expenses
 
Charged
to Other
Accounts
 
Deductions(a)
 
Balance at
End of
Period
 
                
Valuation and qualifying accounts deducted on the balance sheet from the related assets: 
                
 2011 
               
Uncollectible accounts $10  $2  $-  $(3) $9 
Inventory valuation(b)
  17   2   -   (2)  17 
                     
 2010 
                    
Uncollectible accounts $8  $3  $2  $(3) $10 
Inventory valuation(b)
  14   3   -   -   17 
                     
 2009 
                    
Uncollectible accounts $6  $14  $1  $(13) $8 
Inventory valuation(b)
  -   14   -   -   14 
(a)Deductions from valuation accounts represent write-offs, net of recoveries.
(b)Relates to the impact of PEC's decision to retire 11 coal-fired units prior to the end of their estimated useful lives.

248



FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION
d/b/a PROGRESS ENERGY FLORIDA, INC.
Schedule II - Valuation and Qualifying Accounts
For the Years Ended December 31
(in millions)
                
 Description
Balance at Beginning of Period Additions Charged to Expenses 
Charged
to Other Accounts
 
Deductions(a)
 Balance at End of Period 
                
Valuation and qualifying accounts deducted on the balance sheet from the related assets: 
                
 2011 
               
Uncollectible accounts $25  $8  $1  $(16)(b) $18 
Fossil fuel plants dismantlement reserve  144   4   -   -   148 
Nuclear refueling outage reserve  15   5   -   -   20 
                     
 2010 
                    
Uncollectible accounts $10  $15  $22(b) $(22) $25 
Fossil fuel plants dismantlement reserve  143   4   -   (3)  144 
Nuclear refueling outage reserve  5   13   -   (3)  15 
                     
 2009 
                    
Uncollectible accounts $11  $18  $(1) $(18) $10 
Fossil fuel plants dismantlement reserve  145   1   -   (3)  143 
Nuclear refueling outage reserve  14   18   -   (27)  5 
(a)Deductions from valuation accounts represent write-offs, net of recoveries.
(b)Includes $6 million deduction in 2011 and $18 million charge in 2010 related to other noncustomer receivables.

249


SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrants have duly caused this report to be signed on their behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

Date: February 27, 2015
PROGRESS ENERGY, INC.
Date: February 28, 2012(Registrant)
 
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION
(Registrant)
 
 
By:
/s/ William D. Johnson
William D. Johnson
Chairman, President and Chief Executive OfficerLYNN J. GOOD  
  
 
By: /s/ Mark F. MulhernLynn J. Good
Mark F. Mulhern
Senior Vice President and
Chief FinancialExecutive Officer
By: /s/ Jeffrey M. Stone
Jeffrey M. Stone
Chief Accounting Officer and Controller

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the date indicated.

Signature
(i)/s/ LYNN J. GOOD TitleDate
Lynn J. Good
Vice Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer and Director)
  
(ii)/s/ STEVEN K. YOUNG
Steven K. Young
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
(iii)/s/ BRIAN D. SAVOY
Brian D. Savoy
Senior Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer and Controller (Principal Accounting Officer)
(iv)Directors:  
    
/s/ William D. JohnsonG. Alex Bernhardt, Sr.*ChairmanFebruary 28, 2012
(William D. Johnson)James B. Hyler, Jr.* 
    
/s/ John D. Baker IIMichael G. Browning*DirectorFebruary 28, 2012
(John D. Baker II)William E. Kennard * 
    
/s/ JamesHarris E. Bostic,DeLoach, Jr.*DirectorFebruary 28, 2012
(James E. Bostic, Jr.)Marie McKee* 
    
/s/ Harris E. DeLoach, Jr.Daniel R. DiMicco*DirectorFebruary 28, 2012
(Harris E. DeLoach, Jr.)Richard A. Meserve* 
    
/s/John H. Forsgren*E. James B. Hyler, Jr.Reinsch* DirectorFebruary 28, 2012
(James B. Hyler, Jr.) Ann Maynard Gray*James T. Rhodes* 
    
/s/ Robert W. JonesJames H. Hance, Jr.*DirectorFebruary 28, 2012
(Robert W. Jones)
Carlos A. Saladrigas*

 
    
/s/ W. Steven JonesDirectorFebruary 28, 2012
(W. Steven Jones)John T. Herron*  
Steven K. Young, by signing his name hereto, does hereby sign this document on behalf of the registrant and on behalf of each of the above-named persons previously indicated by asterisk (*) pursuant to a power of attorney duly executed by the registrant and such persons, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit hereto.
By:/s/ STEVEN K. YOUNG
Attorney-In-Fact 
    
/s/ Melquiades R. MartinezDirectorFebruary 28, 2012
(Melquiades R. Martinez)
/s/ E. Marie McKeeDirectorFebruary 28, 2012
(E. Marie McKee)
250

/s/ John H. Mullin, IIIDirectorFebruary 28, 2012
(John H. Mullin, III)
/s/ Charles W. Pryor, Jr.DirectorFebruary 28, 2012
(Charles W. Pryor, Jr.)
/s/ Carlos A. SaladrigasDirectorFebruary 28, 2012
(Carlos A. Saladrigas)
/s/ Theresa M. StoneDirectorFebruary 28, 2012
(Theresa M. Stone)
/s/ Alfred C. Tollison, Jr.DirectorFebruary 28, 2012
(Alfred C. Tollison, Jr.)
 
 Date: February 27, 2015

245



251

PART IV

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrants haveregistrant has duly caused this report to be signed on theirits behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

Date: February 27, 2015
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
Date:  February 28, 2012(Registrant)
 
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC
(Registrant)
 
 
By:
/s/ Lloyd M. Yates
Lloyd M. Yates
President and Chief Executive OfficerLYNN J. GOOD  
  
 
By: /s/ Mark F. MulhernLynn J. Good
Mark F. Mulhern
Senior Vice President and
Chief FinancialExecutive Officer
By: /s/ Jeffrey M. Stone
Jeffrey M. Stone
Chief Accounting Officer

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the date indicated.

Signature
TitleDate
 
(i)/s/ LYNN J. GOOD
Lynn J. Good
Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
(ii)/s/ STEVEN K.YOUNG 
Steven K. Young
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
(iii)/s/ BRIAN D. SAVOY 
Brian D. Savoy
Senior Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer and Controller (Principal Accounting Officer)
(iv)Directors:
   
 /s/ LYNN J. GOOD  
/s/ William D. JohnsonLynn J. Good ChairmanFebruary 28, 2012
(William D. Johnson)   
 /s/ B. KEITH TRENT  
/s/ Jeffrey A. CorbettB. Keith Trent DirectorFebruary 28, 2012
(Jeffrey A. Corbett)   
 
/s/ Jeffrey J. LyashDirectorFebruary 28, 2012
(Jeffrey J. Lyash)LLOYD M. YATES  
 
/s/ John R. McArthurDirectorFebruary 28, 2012
(John R. McArthur)
/s/ Mark F. MulhernDirectorFebruary 28, 2012
(Mark F. Mulhern)
/s/ James ScarolaDirectorFebruary 28, 2012
(James Scarola)
/s/ Paula J. SimsDirectorFebruary 28, 2012
(Paula J. Sims)
/s/ Lloyd M. Yates DirectorFebruary 28, 2012
(Lloyd M. Yates)

Date: February 27, 2015

246

252

PART IV

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrants haveregistrant has duly caused this report to be signed on theirits behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

Date: February 27, 2015
FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION
Date:  February 28, 2012(Registrant)
 
PROGRESS ENERGY, INC.
(Registrant)
 
 
By:
/s/ Vincent M. Dolan
Vincent M. Dolan
President and Chief Executive OfficerLYNN J. GOOD  
  
 
By: /s/ Mark F. MulhernLynn J. Good
Mark F. Mulhern
Senior Vice President and
Chief FinancialExecutive Officer
By: /s/ Jeffrey M. Stone
Jeffrey M. Stone
Chief Accounting Officer

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the date indicated.

Signature
TitleDate
 
(i)/s/ LYNN J. GOOD 
Lynn J. Good
Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
(ii)/s/ STEVEN K. YOUNG
Steven K. Young
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
(iii)/s/ BRIAN D. SAVOY
Brian D. Savoy
Chief Accounting Officer and Controller (Principal Accounting Officer)
(iv)Directors:
/s/ LYNN J. GOOD
Lynn J. Good
/s/ JULIA S. JANSON
Julia S. Janson
   
   
Date: February 27, 2015


247


PART IV

SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
Date: February 27, 2015
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC.
(Registrant)
 
By:/s/ William D. JohnsonLYNN J. GOOD  
 ChairmanFebruary 28, 2012
Lynn J. Good
Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the date indicated.
(William
(i)/s/ LYNN J. GOOD
Lynn J. Good
Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
(ii)/s/ STEVEN K. YOUNG
Steven K. Young
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
(iii)/s/ BRIAN D. Johnson)SAVOY
Brian D. Savoy
Senior Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer and Controller (Principal Accounting Officer)
(iv)Directors:
   
   
/s/ LYNN J. GOOD 
/s/ Vincent M. DolanLynn J. Good DirectorFebruary 28, 2012
(Vincent M. Dolan)   
 /s/ DHIAA M. JAMIL 
/s/ Michael A. LewisDhiaa M. Jamil DirectorFebruary 28, 2012
(Michael A. Lewis)   
 /s/ JULIA S. JANSON 
/s/ Jeffrey J. LyashJulia S. Janson DirectorFebruary 28, 2012
(Jeffrey J. Lyash)   
 /s/ B. KEITH TRENT 
/s/ John R. McArthurB. Keith Trent DirectorFebruary 28, 2012
(John R. McArthur)   
 /s/ LLOYD M. YATES
Lloyd M. Yates
Date: February 27, 2015

248


PART IV

SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
Date: February 27, 2015
DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC.
(Registrant)
By:/s/ LYNN J. GOOD  
Lynn J. Good
Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the date indicated.
   
(i)/s/ Mark F. MulhernLYNN J. GOOD
Lynn J. Good
Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
 DirectorFebruary 28, 2012
(Mark F. Mulhern)(ii)/s/ STEVEN K. YOUNG 
Steven K. Young
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
(iii)/s/ BRIAN D. SAVOY 
Brian D. Savoy
Senior Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer and Controller (Principal Accounting Officer)
(iv)Directors:
   
 /s/ LYNN J. GOOD
Lynn J. Good
   
/s/ Paula J. SimsDHIAA M. JAMIL 
DirectorFebruary 28, 2012Dhiaa M. Jamil
(Paula J. Sims)   
/s/ JULIA S. JANSON
Julia S. Janson
/s/ B. KEITH TRENT
B. Keith Trent
/s/ LLOYD M. YATES
Lloyd M. Yates

Date: February 27, 2015

249

253

PART IV

SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
Date: February 27, 2015
DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC.
(Registrant)
By:/s/ LYNN J. GOOD  
Lynn J. Good
Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the date indicated.
(i)/s/ LYNN J. GOOD
Lynn J. Good
Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
(ii)/s/ STEVEN K. YOUNG 
Steven K. Young
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
(iii)/s/ BRIAN D. SAVOY
Brian D. Savoy
Senior Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer and Controller (Principal Accounting Officer)
(iv)Directors:
/s/ LYNN J. GOOD
Lynn J. Good
/s/ B. KEITH TRENT
B. Keith Trent
/s/ LLOYD M. YATES
Lloyd M. Yates
Date: February 27, 2015

250


PART IV

SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
Date: February 27, 2015
DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
(Registrant)
By:/s/ LYNN J. GOOD  
Lynn J. Good
Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the date indicated.
(i)/s/ LYNN J. GOOD
Lynn J. Good
Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
(ii)/s/ STEVEN K. YOUNG
Steven K. Young
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
(iii)/s/ BRIAN. D. SAVOY
Brian D. Savoy
Senior Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer and Controller (Principal Accounting Officer)
(iv)Directors:
/s/ DOUGLAS F ESAMANN
Douglas F. Esamann
/s/ KELLEY A. KARN
Kelley A. Karn
/s/ LLOYD M. YATES
Lloyd M. Yates
Date: February 27, 2015

251


PART IV

EXHIBIT INDEX

Exhibits filed herewithin are designated by an asterisk (*). All exhibits not so designated are incorporated by reference to a prior filing, as indicated. Items constituting management contracts or compensatory plans or arrangements are designated by a double asterisk (**). The Company agrees to furnish upon request to the Commission a copy of any omitted schedules or exhibits upon request on all items designated by a triple asterisk (***). A management contract or compensation plan or arrangement under legacy Progress Energy that is required to be filed as an exhibit to this report pursuant to Item 15 (b) of Form 10-K is designated by a plus (+).
Exhibit 
Number
ExhibitDuke EnergyDuke Energy
Carolinas
Progress Energy Inc.PECPEFDuke Energy ProgressDuke Energy FloridaDuke Energy OhioDuke Energy
Indiana
*2a(1)2.1Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of January 8, 2011, by and amongbetween Duke Energy Corporation, Diamond Acquisition Corporation and Progress Energy, Inc. (filed, dated as of January 8, 2011, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.1 to theDuke Energy Corporation's Current Report on Form 8-K datedfiled on January 8,11, 2011, File No. 1-15929)1-32853).X  
     
*3a(1)3.1Amended and Restated CharterCertificate of Carolina Power & Light Company as amended on May 10, 1996 (filed asIncorporation (incorporated by reference to Exhibit No. 3(i)3.1 to QuarterlyDuke Energy Corporation's Current Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 1997,8-K filed on May 20, 2014, File No. 1-3382)1-32853).X 
     
*3a(2)3.2Articles of Organization including Articles of Conversion (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on April 7, 2006, File No. 1-04928).X
3.2.1Amended Articles of Organization, effective October 1, 2006, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 filed on November 13, 2006, File No. 1-04928).X
3.3Amended Articles of Consolidation of Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. (formerly The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company), effective October 23, 1996, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3(a) to registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 1996 filed on November 13, 1996, File No. 1-01232).X
3.3.1Amended Articles of Consolidation, effective October 1, 2006, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to Duke Energy Ohio, Inc.'s (formerly The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company) Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 filed on November 17, 2006, File No. 1-01232).X
3.4Amended Articles of Consolidation of Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. (formerly PSI Energy Inc.), effective April 20, 1995, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3(a) to registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 1995 filed on August 11, 1995, File No. 1-03543).X
3.4.1Amendment to Article D of the Amended Articles of Consolidation of Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. (formerly PSI Energy Inc.), effective July 10, 1997, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3(f) to registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997 filed on March 27, 1998, File No. 1-03543).X
3.4.2Amended Articles of Consolidation, effective October 1, 2006, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to Duke Energy Indiana, Inc.'s (formerly PSI Energy, Inc.) Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 filed on November 17, 2006, File No. 1-03543).X
3.5Amended and Restated By-Laws of Duke Energy Corporation (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on November 3, 2014, File No. 1-32853).X
3.6Limited Liability Company Operating Agreement of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.2 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on April 7, 2006, File No. 1-04928).X
3.7Regulations of Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. (formerly The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company), effective July 23, 2003, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.2 to registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 filed on August 13, 2003, File No. 1-01232).X
3.8By-Laws of Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. (formerly PSI Energy, Inc.), effective July 23, 2003, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 filed on August 13, 2003, File No. 1-03543).X
3.9Restated Charter of Duke Energy Progress (formerly Carolina Power & Light Company), effective May 10, 1996, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3(i) to registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 1997 filed on August 13, 1997, File No. 1-03382).X
3.10Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of Progress Energy, Inc. (f/k/a(formerly CP&L Energy, Inc.), as amended and restated oneffective June 15, 2000, (filed as(incorporated by reference to Exhibit No. 3a(1)3(a)(1) to registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly periodquarter ended June 30, 2000 filed on August 14, 2000, File No. 1-15929 and No. 1-3382)1-03382).X  
     
*3a(3)3.10.1Articles of Amendment to the Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of Progress Energy, Inc. (f/k/a(formerly CP&L Energy, Inc.), datedeffective December 4, 2000, (filed as(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3b(1)3(b)(1) to registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001 as filed with the SEC on March 28, 2002, File No. 1-15929)1-03382).X  
     
*3a(4)3.10.2Articles of Amendment to the Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of Progress Energy, Inc. (formerly CP&L Energy, Inc.), datedeffective May 10, 2006, (filed as(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.A3(a) to registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly periodquarter ended June 30, 2006 filed on August 9, 2006, File No. 1-15929, 1-3382 and 1-3274)1-15929).X  
     
*3a(5)3.11Amended Articles of Incorporation of Duke Energy Florida, Inc. (formerly Florida Power Corporation (filed asCorporation) (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3(a) to the Progress Energy Floridaregistrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1991 as filed with the SEC on March 30, 1992, File No. 1-3274)1-03274).  X
3.12By-Laws of Progress Energy, Inc. (formerly CP&L Energy, Inc.), effective May 10, 2006, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3(b) to registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 filed on August 9, 2006, File No. 1-15929).X     
*3b(1)3.13By-Laws of Duke Energy Progress, Energy, Inc., as amended on May 10, 2006 (filed as Exhibit 3.B to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006, File No. 1-15929, 1-3382 and 1-3274).X
*3b(2)By-Laws of (formerly Carolina Power & Light Company, as amended onCompany), effective May 13, 2009, (filed as(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.B3(b) to theregistrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 filed on August 7, 2009, File No. 1-15929, 1-3382 and 1-3274)1-15929). X 
     
*3b(3)3.14
By-Laws of Duke Energy Florida, Inc. (formerly Florida Power Corporation, as amendedCorporation), effective September 20, 2010, (filed as(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the Florida Power Corporationregistrant's Current Report on Form 8-K dated
X
254

filed on September 20, 2010, File No. 1-3274).
X   
4.1Indenture between Duke Energy Corporation and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as Trustee, dated as of June 3, 2008, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on June 16, 2008, File No. 1-32853).X     
*4a(1)4.1.1DescriptionFirst Supplemental Indenture, dated as of Preferred Stock and the rights of the holders thereof (as set forth in Article Fourth of the Restated Charter of Carolina Power & Light Company, as amended, and Sections 1-9, 15,June 16, 22-27, and 31 of the By-Laws of Carolina Power & Light Company, as amended (filed as2008, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(f),4.2 to Duke Energy Corporation's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on June 16, 2008, File No. 33-25560)1-32853).X 
     
*4a(2)4.1.2StatementSecond Supplemental Indenture, dated as of Classification of Shares dated January 13, 1971, relating26, 2009, (incorporated by reference to the authorization of, and establishing the series designation, dividend rate and redemption prices for Carolina Power & Light Company’s Serial Preferred Stock, $7.95 Series (filed as Exhibit 3(f),4.1 to Duke Energy Corporation's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on January 26, 2009, File No. 33-25560)1-32853).X 
     
*4a(3)4.1.3StatementThird Supplemental Indenture, dated as of Classification of Shares dated September 7, 1972, relatingAugust 28, 2009, (incorporated by reference to the authorization of, and establishing the series designation, dividend rate and redemption prices for Carolina Power & Light Company’s Serial Preferred Stock, $7.72 Series (filed as Exhibit 3(g),4.1 to Duke Energy Corporation's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on August 28, 2009, File No. 33-25560)1-32853).X 
     
 *4b(1)4.1.4
Mortgage and Deed of TrustFourth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of May 1, 1940March 25, 2010, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Duke Energy Corporation's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 25, 2010, File No. 1-32853).
X
4.1.5Fifth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of August 25, 2011, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Duke Energy Corporation's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on August 25, 2011, File No. 1-32853).X
4.1.6Sixth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of November 17, 2011, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Duke Energy Corporation's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on November 17, 2011, File No. 1-32853).X
4.1.7Seventh Supplemental Indenture, dated as of August 16 , 2012, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Duke Energy Corporation's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on August 16, 2012, File No. 1-32853).X
4.1.8Eighth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of January 14, 2013, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2 to Duke Energy Corporation's Form 8-A filed on January 14, 2013, File No. 1-32853).X
4.1.9Ninth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of June 13, 2013, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Duke Energy Corporation's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on June 13, 2013, File No. 1-32853).X
4.1.10Tenth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of October 11, 2013, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Duke Energy Corporation's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on October 11, 2013, File No.1-32853).X
4.1.11Eleventh Supplemental Indenture, dated as of April 4, 2014, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Duke Energy Corporation's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on April 4, 2014, File No. 1-32853).X
4.2Senior Indenture between Carolina Power & Light CompanyDuke Energy Carolinas, LLC and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as successor trustee to JPMorgan Chase Bank (formerly known as The Chase Manhattan Bank), dated as of September 1, 1998, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4-D-1 to registrant's Post-Effective Amendment No. 2 to Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed on April 7, 1999, File No. 333-14209).X
4.2.1Fifteenth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of April 3, 2006, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.4.1 to registrant's Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed on October 3, 2007, File No. 333-146483-03).X
4.2.2Sixteenth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of June 5, 2007, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on June 6, 2007, File No. 1-04928).X
4.3First and Refunding Mortgage from Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC to The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., successor trustee to Guaranty Trust Company of New York, dated as of December 1, 1927, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 7(a) to registrant's Form S-1, effective October 15, 1947, File No. 2-7224).X
4.3.1Instrument of Resignation, Appointment and Acceptance among Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Trustee, and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as Successor Trustee, dated as of September 24, 2007, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.6.1 to registrant's Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed on October 3, 2007, File No. 333-146483).X
4.3.2Ninth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of February 1, 1949, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 7 (j) to registrant's Form S-1 filed on February 3, 1949, File No. 2-7808).X
4.3.3Twentieth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of June 15, 1964, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4-B-20 to registrant's Form S-1 filed on August 23, 1966, File No. 2-25367).X
4.3.4Twenty-third Supplemental Indenture, dated as of February 1, 1968, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2-B-26 to registrant's Form S-9 filed on January 21, 1969, File No. 2-31304).X
4.3.5Sixtieth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of March 1, 1990, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4-B-61 to registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1990, File No.1-04928).X
4.3.6Sixty-third Supplemental Indenture, dated as of July 1, 1991, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4-B-64 to registrant's Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed on February 13, 1992, File No. 33-45501).X
4.3.7Eighty-fourth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of March 20, 2006, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.6.9 to registrant's Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed on October 3, 2007, File No. 333-146483-03).X
4.3.8Eighty-fifth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of January 10, 2008, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on January 11, 2008, File No.1-04928).X
4.3.9Eighty-seventh Supplemental Indenture, dated as of April 14, 2008, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on April 15, 2008, File No.1-04928).X
4.3.10Eighty-eighth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of November 17, 2008, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on November 20, 2008, File No.1-04928).X
4.3.11Ninetieth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of November 19, 2009, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on November 19, 2009, File No.1-04928).X
4.3.12Ninety-first Supplemental Indenture, dated as of June 7, 2010, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on June 7, 2010, File No.1-04928).X
4.3.13Ninety-third Supplemental Indenture, dated as of May 19, 2011, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on May 19, 2011, File No.1-04928).X
4.3.14Ninety-fourth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of December 8, 2011, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on December 8, 2011, File No.1-04928).X
4.3.15Ninety-fifth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of September 21, 2012, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on September 21, 2012, File No.1-04928).X
4.4Mortgage and Deed of Trust between Duke Energy Progress, Inc. (formerly Carolina Power & Light Company) and The Bank of New York Mellon (formerly Irving Trust Company) and Frederick G. Herbst (Douglas J. MacInnes, Successor)(Tina D. Gonzalez, successor), as Trustees, and the dated as of May 1, 1940.X
4.4.1First through Fifth Supplemental Indentures thereto (Exhibit 2(b), File No. 2-64189); the Sixth through Sixty-sixth Supplemental Indentures (Exhibit 2(b)-5, File No. 2-16210; Exhibit 2(b)-6, File No. 2-16210; Exhibit 4(b)-8, File No. 2-19118; Exhibit 4(b)-2, File No. 2-22439; Exhibit 4(b)-2, File No. 2-24624; Exhibit 2(c), File No. 2-27297; Exhibit 2(c), File No. 2-30172; Exhibit 2(c), File No. 2-35694; Exhibit 2(c), File No. 2-37505; Exhibit 2(c), File No. 2-39002; Exhibit 2(c), File No. 2-41738; Exhibit 2(c), File No. 2-43439; Exhibit 2(c), File No. 2-47751; Exhibit 2(c), File No. 2-49347; Exhibit 2(c), File No. 2-53113; Exhibit 2(d), File No. 2-53113; Exhibit 2(c), File No. 2-59511; Exhibit 2(c), File No. 2-61611; Exhibit 2(d), File No. 2-64189; Exhibit 2(c), File No. 2-65514; Exhibits 2(c) and 2(d), File No. 2-66851; Exhibits 4(b)-1, 4(b)-2, and 4(b)-3, File No. 2-81299; Exhibits 4(c)-1 through 4(c)-8, File No. 2-95505; Exhibits 4(b) through 4(h), File No. 33-25560; Exhibits 4(b) and 4(c), File No. 33-33431; Exhibits 4(b) and 4(c), File No. 33-38298; Exhibits 4(h) and 4(i), File No. 33-42869; Exhibits 4(e)-(g), File No. 33-48607; Exhibits 4(e) and 4(f), File No. 33-55060; Exhibits 4(e) and 4(f), File No. 33-60014; Exhibits 4(a) and 4(b) to Post-Effective Amendment No. 1, File No. 33-38349; Exhibit 4(e), File No. 33-50597; Exhibit 4(e) and 4(f), to Registration Statement on Form S-3, File No. 33-57835;33-57835, filed on February 24, 1995; Exhibit to the Current Report on Form 8-K datedfiled on August 28, 1997, File No. 1-3382;1-03382; Exhibit 4(b) to Registration Statement on Form
S-3, File No. 333-69237, filed on December 18, 1998; and Exhibit 4(c) to the Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 19, 1999, File No. 1-03382).
 X 
255

of Carolina Power & Light Company First Mortgage Bond, 6.80% Series Due August 15, 2007 filed as Exhibit 4 to Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 1998, File No. 1-3382; Exhibit 4(b), File No. 333-69237; and Exhibit 4(c) to Current Report on Form 8-K dated March 19, 1999, File No. 1-3382.); and the Sixty-eighth Supplemental Indenture (Exhibit No. 4(b) to Current Report on Form 8-K dated April 20, 2000, File No. 1-3382; and the Sixty-ninth Supplemental Indenture (Exhibit No. 4b(2) to Annual Report on Form 10-K dated March 29, 2001, File No. 1-3382); and the Seventieth Supplemental Indenture, (Exhibit 4b(3) to Annual Report on Form 10-K dated March 29, 2001, File No. 1-3382); and the Seventy-first Supplemental Indenture (Exhibit 4b(2) to Annual Report on Form 10-K dated March 28, 2002, File No. 1-3382 and 1-15929); the Seventy-second Supplemental Indenture (Exhibit 4 to PEC Current Report on Form 8-K dated September 12, 2003, File No. 1-3382); the Seventy-third Supplemental Indenture (Exhibit 4 to PEC Current Report on Form 8-K dated March 22, 2005, File No. 1-3382); the Seventy-fourth Supplemental Indenture (Exhibit 4 to PEC Current Report on Form 8-K dated November 30, 2005, File No. 1-3382); the Seventy-fifth Supplemental Indenture (Exhibit 4 to PEC Current Report on Form 8-K dated March 13, 2008, File No. 1-3382); the Seventy-sixth Supplemental Indenture (Exhibit 4 to PEC Current Report on Form 8-K dated January 8, 2009, File No. 1-3382); the Seventy-seventh Supplemental Indenture (Exhibit 4 to PEC Current Report on Form 8-K dated June 18, 2009, File No. 1-3382); and the Seventy-eighth Supplemental Indenture (Exhibit 4 to PEC Current Report on Form 8-K dated September 12, 2011, File No. 1-3382).
     
*4b(2)4.4.2Seventy-second Supplemental Indenture, dated as of September 1, 2003, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4 to Duke Energy Progress, Inc.'s (formerly Carolina Power & Light Company (d/b/a Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.)) Current Report on Form 8-K filed on September 12, 2003, File No. 1-03382).X
4.4.3Seventy-third Supplemental Indenture, dated as of March 1, 2005, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4 to Duke Energy Progress, Inc.'s (formerly Carolina Power & Light Company (d/b/a Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.)) Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 22, 2005, File No. 1-03382).X
4.4.4Seventy-fourth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of November 1, 2005, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4 to Duke Energy Progress, Inc.'s (formerly Carolina Power & Light Company (d/b/a Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.)) Current Report on Form 8-K filed on November 30, 2005, File No. 1-03382).X
4.4.5Seventy-fifth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of March 1, 2008, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4 to Duke Energy Progress, Inc.'s (formerly Carolina Power & Light Company (d/b/a Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.)) Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 13, 2008, File No. 1-03382).X
4.4.6Seventy-sixth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of January 1, 1944 (the "Indenture"2009, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4 to Duke Energy Progress, Inc.'s (formerly Carolina Power & Light Company (d/b/a Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.)) Current Report on Form 8-K filed on January 15, 2009, File No. 1-03382).X
4.4.7Seventy-seventh Supplemental Indenture, dated as of June 18, 2009, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4 to Duke Energy Progress, Inc.'s (formerly Carolina Power & Light Company (d/b/a Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.)) Current Report on Form 8-K filed on June 23, 2009, File No. 1-03382).X
4.4.8Seventy-eighth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of September 1, 2011, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4 to Duke Energy Progress, Inc.'s (formerly Carolina Power & Light Company (d/b/a Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.)) Current Report on Form 8-K filed on September 15, 2011, File No. 1-03382).X
4.4.9Seventy-ninth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of May 1, 2012, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4 to Duke Energy Progress, Inc.'s (formerly Carolina Power & Light Company (d/b/a Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.)) Current Report on Form 8-K filed on May 18, 2012, File No. 1-03382).X
4.4.10Eightieth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of March 1, 2013, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Duke Energy Progress, Inc.'s (formerly Carolina Power & Light Company (d/b/a Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.)) Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 12, 2013, File No. 1-03382).X
4.4.11Eighty Second Supplemental Indenture, dated as of March 1, 2014, between the Company and The Bank of New York Mellon (formerly Irving Trust Company) and Tina D. Gonzalez (successor to Frederick G. Herbst) and forms of global notes (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Duke Energy Progress, Inc.'s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 6, 2014, File No. 1-03382).X
4.4.12Eighty Third Supplemental Indenture, dated as of November 1, 2014, between the Company and The Bank of New York Mellon (formerly Irving Trust Company) and Tina D. Gonzalez (successor to Frederick G. Herbst) and forms of global notes (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Duke Energy Progress, Inc.'s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on November 20, 2014, File No. 1-03382).X
4.5Indenture (for Debt Securities) between Duke Energy Progress, Inc. (formerly Carolina Power & Light Company) and The Bank of New York Mellon (successor in interest to The Chase Manhattan Bank), as Trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(a) to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on November 5, 1999, File No. 1-03382).X
4.6Indenture (for [Subordinated] Debt Securities)(open ended) (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(a)(2) to Duke Energy Progress, Inc.'s (formerly Carolina Power & Light Company (d/b/a Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.)) Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed on November 18, 2008, File No. 333-155418).X
4.7Indenture (for First Mortgage Bonds) between Duke Energy Florida, Inc. (formerly Florida Power CorporationCorporation) and The Bank of New York Mellon (as successor to Guaranty Trust Company of New York and The Florida National Bank of Jacksonville,Jacksonville), as Trustees (filedTrustee, dated as of January 1, 1944, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit B-18 to Florida Power's Registration Statement onregistrant's Form A-2) (No. 2-5293) filed with the SEC on January 24, 1944)A-2, File No. 2-05293).  X
 X    
*4b(3)4.7.1
Seventh Supplemental Indenture (filed as(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(b) to Duke Energy Florida, Inc.'s (formerly Florida Power Corporation'sCorporation) Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 33-16788) filed with the SEC on September 27, 1991); and the 1991, File No. 33-16788).
X
4.7.2Eighth Supplemental Indenture (filed as(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(c) to Duke Energy Florida, Inc.'s (formerly Florida Power Corporation'sCorporation) Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 33-16788) filed with the SEC on September 27, 1991); and the 1991, File No. 33-16788).X
4.7.3Sixteenth Supplemental Indenture (filed as(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(d) to Duke Energy Florida, Inc.'s (formerly Florida Power Corporation'sCorporation) Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 33-16788) filed with the SEC on September 27, 1991); and the 1991, File No. 33-16788).X
4.7.4Twenty-ninth Supplemental Indenture (filed as(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(c) to Duke Energy Florida, Inc.'s (formerly Florida Power Corporation'sCorporation) Registration Statement on Form S-3
filed on September 17, 1982, File No. 2-79832).
  X
256

  
(No. 2-79832) filed with the SEC on September 17, 1982); and the
4.7.5Thirty-eighth Supplemental Indenture, (fileddated as of July 25, 1994, (incorporated by reference to exhibit 4(f) to Duke Energy Florida, Power'sInc.'s (formerly Florida Power Corporation) Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 33-55273) as filed with the SEC on August 29, 1994); and the Thirty-ninth1994, File No. 33-55273).X
4.7.6Forty-first Supplemental Indenture, (fileddated as of February 1, 2003, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4 to Duke Energy Florida, Inc.'s (formerly Duke Energy Florida Power Corporation (d/b/a Progress Energy Florida, Inc.)) Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on July 23, 2001); and the FortiethFebruary 21, 2003, File No. 1-03274).X
4.7.7Forty-second Supplemental Indenture, (fileddated as of April 1, 2003, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4 to Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on February 18, 2003); and the Forty-first Supplemental Indenture (filed as Exhibit 4 to Current Report on Form  8-K filed with the SEC on February 21, 2003); and the Forty-second Supplemental Indenture (filed as Exhibit 4 toDuke Energy Florida, Inc.'s (formerly Florida Power Corporation (d/b/a Progress Energy Florida, Inc.)) Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 filed with the SEC on SeptemberAugust 11, 2003); and the 2003, File No. 1-03274).X
4.7.8Forty-third Supplemental Indenture, (fileddated as of November 1, 2003, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4 to Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on November 21, 2003); and the Forty-fourth Supplemental Indenture (filed as Exhibit 4.(m) to theDuke Energy Florida, Inc.'s (formerly Florida Power Corporation (d/b/a Progress Energy Florida, Annual Report on Form 10-K dated March 16, 2005); and the Forty-fifth Supplemental Indenture (filed as Exhibit 4 toInc.)) Current Report on Form 8-K filed on MayNovember 21, 2003, File No. 1-03274).X
4.7.9Forty-fourth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of August 1, 2004, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(m) to Duke Energy Florida, Inc.'s (formerly Florida Power Corporation (d/b/a Progress Energy Florida, Inc.)) Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 filed on March 16, 2005); and the 2005, File No. 1-03274).X ��
4.7.10Forty-sixth Supplemental Indenture, (fileddated as of September 1, 2007, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4 to Duke Energy Florida, Inc.'s (formerly Florida Power Corporation (d/b/a Progress Energy Florida, Inc.)) Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on September 19, 2007); the 2007, File No. 1-03274).X
4.7.11Forty-seventh Supplemental Indenture, (fileddated as of December 1, 2007, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4 to Duke Energy Florida, Inc.'s (formerly Florida Power Corporation (d/b/a Progress Energy Florida, Inc.)) Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on December 13, 2007); the 2007, File No. 1-03274).X
4.7.12Forty-eighth Supplemental Indenture, (fileddated as of June 1, 2008, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4 to Duke Energy Florida, Inc.'s (formerly Florida Power Corporation (d/b/a Progress Energy Florida, Inc.)) Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on June 18, 2008); the 2008, File No. 1-03274).X
4.7.13Forty-ninth Supplemental Indenture, (fileddated as of March 1, 2010, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4 to Duke Energy Florida, Inc.'s (formerly Florida Power Corporation (d/b/a Progress Energy Florida, Inc.)) Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on March 25, 2010); and the 2010, File No. 1-03274).X
4.7.14Fiftieth Supplemental Indenture, (fileddated as of August 11, 2011, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4 to Duke Energy Florida, Inc.'s (formerly Florida Power Corporation (d/b/a Progress Energy Florida, Inc.)) Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on August 18, 2011)2011, File No. 1-03274).X      
4.7.15Fifty-first Supplemental Indenture, dated as of November 1, 2012, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Duke Energy Florida, Inc.'s (formerly Florida Power Corporation (d/b/a Progress Energy Florida, Inc.)) Current Report on Form 8-K filed on November 20, 2012, File No. 1-03274).X
4.8Indenture (for Debt Securities) between Duke Energy Florida, Inc. (formerly Florida Power Corporation (d/b/a Progress Energy Florida, Inc.)) and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, National Association (successor in interest to J.P. Morgan Trust Company, National Association), as Trustee, dated as of December 7, 2005, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(a) to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on December 13, 2005, File No. 1-03274).X
4.9Indenture (for [Subordinated] Debt Securities)(open ended) (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(a)(2) Duke Energy Florida, Inc.'s (formerly Florida Power Corporation (d/b/a Progress Energy Florida, Inc.)) Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed on November 18, 2008, File No. 333-155418).X
4.10Original Indenture (Unsecured Debt Securities) between Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. (formerly The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company) and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as Successor Trustee, dated as of May 15, 1995, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3 to registrant's Form 8-A filed on July 27, 1995, File No. 1-01232).X
4.10.1First Supplemental Indenture, dated as of June 1, 1995, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4 B to Duke Energy Ohio, Inc.'s (formerly The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company) Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 1995 filed on August 11, 1995, File No. 1-01232).X
4.10.2Seventh Supplemental Indenture, dated as of June 15, 2003, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Duke Energy Ohio, Inc.'s (formerly The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company) Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 filed on August 13, 2003, File No. 1-01232).X
4.11Original Indenture (First Mortgage Bonds) between Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. (formerly The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company) and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as Successor Trustee, dated as of August 1, 1936, (incorporated by reference to an exhibit to registrant's Registration Statement No. 2-2374).X
4.11.1Fortieth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of March 23, 2009, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Duke Energy Ohio, Inc.’s (formerly The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company) Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 24, 2009, File No. 1-01232).X
4.11.2Forty-second Supplemental Indenture, dated as of September 6, 2013, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Duke Energy Ohio, Inc.’s (formerly The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company) Current Report on Form 8-K filed on September 6, 2013, File No. 1-01232).X
4.12Indenture between Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. (formerly PSI Energy, Inc.) and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as Successor Trustee, dated as of November 15, 1996, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(v) to registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1996 filed on March 27, 1997, File No. 1-03543).X
4.12.1Third Supplemental Indenture, dated as of March 15, 1998, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4 to Duke Energy Indiana, Inc.'s (formerly PSI Energy, Inc.) Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997 filed on March 27, 1998, File No. 1-03543).X
4.12.2Eighth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of September 23, 2003, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.2 to Duke Energy Indiana, Inc.'s (formerly PSI Energy, Inc.) Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 filed on November 13, 2003,  File No. 1-03543).X
4.12.3Ninth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of October 21, 2005, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.7.3 to Duke Energy Indiana, Inc.'s (formerly PSI Energy, Inc.) Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed on September 29, 2010, File No. 333-169633).X
4.12.4Tenth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of June 9, 2006, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Duke Energy Indiana, Inc.’s (formerly PSI Energy, Inc.) Current Report on Form 8-K filed on June 15, 2006, File No. 1-03543).X
4.13Original Indenture (First Mortgage Bonds) between Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. (formerly PSI Energy, Inc.) and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Successor Trustee, dated as of September 1, 1939, (filed as an exhibit in File No. 70-258).X
4.13.1Tenth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of July 1, 1952, (filed as an exhibit in File No. 2-9687).X
4.13.2Twenty-third Supplemental Indenture, dated as of January 1, 1977, (filed as an exhibit in File No. 2-57828).X
4.13.3Twenty-fifth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of September 1, 1978, (filed as an exhibit in File No. 2-62543).X
4.13.4Twenty-sixth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of September 1, 1978, (filed as an exhibit in File No. 2-62543).X
4.13.5Thirtieth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of August 1, 1980, (filed as an exhibit in File No. 2-68562).X
4.13.6Thirty-fifth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of March 30, 1984, (filed as an exhibit to registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1984, File No. 1-03543).X
4.13.7Forty-sixth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of June 1, 1990, (filed as an exhibit to registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1991, File No. 1-03543).X
4.13.8Forty-seventh Supplemental Indenture, dated as of July 15, 1991, (filed as an exhibit to registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1991, File No. 1-03543).X
4.13.9Forty-eighth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of July 15, 1992, (filed as an exhibit to registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1992, File No. 1-03543).X
4.13.10Fifty-second Supplemental Indenture, dated as of April 30, 1999, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4 to Duke Energy Indiana, Inc.’s (formerly PSI Energy, Inc.) Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 1999 filed on May 13, 1999, File No. 1-03543).X
4.13.11Fifty-seventh Supplemental Indenture, dated as of August 21, 2008, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Duke Energy Indiana, Inc.’s (formerly PSI Energy, Inc.) Current Report Form 8-K filed on August 21, 2008, File No. 1-03543).X
4.13.12Fifty-eighth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of December 19, 2008, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.8.12 to Duke Energy Indiana, Inc.’s (formerly PSI Energy, Inc.) Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed on September 29, 2010, File No. 333-169633-02).X
4.13.13Fifty-ninth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of March 23, 2009, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Duke Energy Indiana, Inc.’s (formerly PSI Energy, Inc.) Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 24, 2009, File No. 1-03543).X
4.13.14Sixtieth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of June 1, 2009, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.8.14 to Duke Energy Indiana, Inc.’s (formerly PSI Energy, Inc.) Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed on September 29, 2010, File No. 333-169633-02).X
4.13.15Sixty-first Supplemental Indenture, dated as of October 1, 2009, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.8.15 to Duke Energy Indiana, Inc.’s (formerly PSI Energy, Inc.) Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed on September 29, 2010, File No. 333-169633-02).X
4.13.16Sixty-second Supplemental Indenture, dated as of July 9, 2010, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Duke Energy Indiana, Inc.’s (formerly PSI Energy, Inc.) Current Report on Form 8-K filed on July 9, 2010, File No. 1-03543). X
4.13.17Sixty-third Supplemental Indenture, dated as of September 23, 2010, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.8.17 to Duke Energy Indiana, Inc.’s (formerly PSI Energy, Inc.) Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed on September 29, 2010, File No. 333-169633-02).X
4.13.18Sixty-fourth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of December 1, 2011, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(d)(2)(xviii) to Duke Energy Indiana, Inc.’s (formerly PSI Energy, Inc.) Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed on September 30, 2013, File No.333-191462-03).X
4.13.19Sixty-fifth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of March 15, 2012, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Duke Energy Indiana, Inc.’s (formerly PSI Energy, Inc.) Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 15, 2012, File No. 1-03543).X
4.13.20Sixty-sixth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of July 11, 2013, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Duke Energy Indiana, Inc.’s (formerly PSI Energy, Inc.) Current Report on Form 8-K filed on July 11, 2013, File No. 1-03543).X
4.14Repayment Agreement between Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. (formerly The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company) and The Dayton Power and Light Company, dated as of December 23, 1992, (filed with registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1992, File No. 1-01232).X
4.15Unsecured Promissory Note between Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. (formerly PSI Energy, Inc.) and the Rural Utilities Service, dated as of October 14, 1998, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4 to registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1998 filed on March 8, 1999, File No. 1-03543).X
4.166.302% Subordinated Note between Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. (formerly PSI Energy, Inc.) and Cinergy Corp., dated as of February 5, 2003, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4 (yyy) to registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 filed on May 12,2003, File No. 1-03543).X
4.176.403% Subordinated Note between Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. (formerly PSI Energy, Inc.) and Cinergy Corp., dated as of February 5, 2003, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4 (zzz) to registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 filed on May 12, 2003, File No. 1-03543).X
4.18Form of Duke Energy InterNote (Fixed Rate), dated as of November 13, 2012, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Duke Energy Corporation's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on November 14, 2012, File No. 1-32853).X          
*4b(4)4.19Indenture,Form of Duke Energy InterNote (Floating Rate), dated as of December 7, 2005, between Florida Power Corporation and J.P. Morgan Trust Company, National Association, as Trustee with respectNovember 13, 2012, (incorporated by reference to Senior Notes, (filed as Exhibit 4(a)4.2 to Duke Energy Corporation's Current Report on Form 8-K dated December 13, 2005,filed on November 14, 2012, File No. 1-3274)1-32853).X    X
          
*4b(5)4.20Indenture, dated as of February 15, 2001,Contingent Value Obligation Agreement between Progress Energy, Inc. (formerly CP&L Energy, Inc.) and The Chase Manhattan Bank, One Trust Company, N.A., as Trustee, with respectdated as of November 30, 2000, (incorporated by reference to Senior Notes (filed as Exhibit 4(a)4.1 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K dated February 27, 2001,filed on December 1, 2000, File No. 1-15929)1-03382).X    
          
*4c4.21
Forty-second Supplemental Indenture (for Senior Notes), dated as of March 1, 1999 between Carolina PowerDuke Energy Ohio, Inc. (formerly The Cincinnati Gas & Light CompanyElectric Company) and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as Trustee, (fileddated as of September 6, 2013, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit No. 4(a)4.1 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K dated March 19, 1999,filed on September 6, 2013, File No. 1-3382), and the First and Second Supplemental Senior Note Indentures thereto (Exhibit No. 4(b) to
1-01232).
  X  
257

  
4.22
Sixty-sixth Supplemental Indenture between Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. (formerly PSI Energy, Inc.) and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee, dated as of July 11, 2013, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K dated March 19, 1999,filed on July 11, 2013, File No. 1-3382); Exhibit No. 4(a) to Current Report on Form 8-K dated April 20, 2000, File No. 1-3382)1-03543).
      X
10.1Purchase and Sale Agreement between Duke Energy Americas, LLC and LSP Bay II Harbor Holding, LLC, dated as of January 8, 2006, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 filed on May 10, 2006, File No. 1-32853).XX          
*4d10.1.1Indenture (For Debt Securities)Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreement between Duke Energy Americas, LLC, LS Power Generation, LLC (formerly LSP Bay II Harbor Holding, LLC), LSP Gen Finance Co, LLC, LSP South Bay Holdings, LLC, LSP Oakland Holdings, LLC, and LSP Morro Bay Holdings, LLC, dated as of October 28, 1999 between Carolina Power & Light Company and The Chase Manhattan Bank, as Trustee (filed asMay 4, 2006, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(a)10.2.1 to Currentregistrant's Quarterly Report on Form 8-K dated November 5, 1999,10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 filed on May 10, 2006, File No. 1-3382), (Exhibit 4(b) to Current Report on Form 8-K dated November 5, 1999, File No. 1-3382)No.1-32853).X  X  
          
10.2**4eContingent Value Obligation Agreement, dated as of November 30, 2000, between CP&LDirectors’ Charitable Giving Program (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10-P to Duke Energy Inc. and The Chase Manhattan Bank, as Trustee (Exhibit 4.1 to CurrentCarolinas, LLC's Annual Report on Form 8-K dated10-K for the year ended December 12, 2000,31, 1992, File No. 1-3382)1-04928).X    
          
10.2.1**10a(1)Amendment to Directors’ Charitable Giving Program, dated as of  June 18, 1997, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 1-1.1 to Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 filed on March 15, 2004, File No. 1-04928).X
10.2.2**Amendment to Directors’ Charitable Giving Program, dated as of July 28, 1997, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10-1.2 to Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 filed on March 15, 2004, File No. 1-04928).X
10.2.3**Amendment to Directors’ Charitable Giving Program, dated as of February 18, 1998, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10-1.3 to Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 filed on March 15, 2004, File No. 1-04928).X
10.3Agreements with Piedmont Electric Membership Corporation, Rutherford Electric Membership Corporation and Blue Ridge Electric Membership Corporation to provide wholesale electricity and related power scheduling services from September 1, 2006 through December 31, 2021 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.15 to Duke Energy Corporation's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 filed on August 9, 2006, File No. 1-32853).X
10.4Asset Purchase Agreement between Saluda River Electric Cooperative, Inc., as Seller, and Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, as Purchaser, dated as of December 20, 2006, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on December 27, 2006, File No. 1-04928).X
10.5Settlement between Duke Energy Corporation, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC and the U.S. Department of Justice resolving Duke Energy's used nuclear fuel litigation against the U.S. Department of Energy, dated as of March 6, 2007, (incorporated by reference to Item 8.01 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 12, 2007, File No. 1-04928).X
10.6Engineering, Procurement and Construction Agreement between Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC and Stone & Webster National Engineering P.C., dated as of July 11, 2007, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 filed on November 12, 2007, File No. 1-04928). (Portions of the exhibit have been omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to a request for confidential treatment pursuant to Rule 24b-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.)X
10.7Amended and Restated Engineering, Procurement and Construction Agreement between Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC and Stone & Webster National Engineering P.C., dated as of February 20, 2008, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 filed on May 14, 2008, File No. 1-04928). (Portions of the exhibit have been omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to a request for confidential treatment pursuant to Rule 24b-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended).X
10.8Asset Purchase Agreement between Cinergy Capital & Trading, Inc. (Capital & Trading), CinCap Madison, LLC and Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. (formerly PSI Energy, Inc.), dated as of February 5, 2003, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(tt) to registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 filed on May 12, 2003, File No. 1-03543).X
10.9Amended and Restated Engineering and Construction Agreement between Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC and Shaw North Carolina, Inc., dated as of December 21, 2009, (incorporated by reference to Item 1.01 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on December 28, 2009, File No. 1-04928).X
10.10Asset Purchase Agreement between Capital & Trading., CinCap VII, LLC and Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. (formerly PSI Energy, Inc.), dated as of February 5, 2003, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(uu) to registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 filed on May 12, 2003, File No. 1-03543).X
10.11Asset Purchase Agreement between Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. (formerly PSI Energy, Inc.) and Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. (formerly The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company) and Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC, Allegheny Energy Supply Wheatland Generating Facility, LLC and Lake Acquisition Company, L.L.C., dated as of May 6, 2005, (incorporated by reference to registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 filed on August 4, 2005, File No. 1-01232).X
10.12Asset Purchase Agreement between Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. (formerly PSI Energy, Inc.) and CG&E and Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC, Allegheny Energy Supply Wheatland Generating Facility, LLC and Lake Acquisition Company, L.L.C., dated as of May 6, 2005, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(kkkk) to registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 filed on August 4, 2005, File No. 1-03543).X
10.13Keepwell Agreement between Duke Capital LLC and Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. (formerly The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company), dated as of April 10, 2006, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on April 14, 2006, File No. 1-01232).X
10.14Agreements between Piedmont Electric Membership Corporation, Rutherford Electric Membership Corporation and Blue Ridge Electric Membership Corporation to provide wholesale electricity and related power scheduling services from September 1, 2006 through December 31, 2021 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.15 to Duke Energy Corporation's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 filed on August 9, 2006, File No. 1-32853).X
10.15Asset Purchase Agreement between Duke Energy Indiana, Inc., (formerly PSI Energy, Inc.), as Seller, and Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc., as Buyer, dated as of December 1, 2006, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on December 7, 2006, File No. 1-03543).X
10.16Purchase and Sale Agreement between Cinergy Capital & Trading, Inc., as Seller, and Fortis Bank, S.A./N.V., as Buyer, dated as of June 26, 2006, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Duke Energy Corporation's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on June 30, 2006, File No. 1-32853).X
10.17Engineering, Procurement and Construction Management Agreement between Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. (formerly PSI Energy, Inc.) and Bechtel Power Corporation, dated as of December 15, 2008, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.16 to registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 filed on March 13, 2009, File No. 1-03543). (Portions of the exhibit have been omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to a request for confidential treatment pursuant to Rule 24b-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended).X
10.18Formation and Sale Agreement between Duke Ventures, LLC, Crescent Resources, LLC, Morgan Stanley Real Estate Fund V U.S. L.P., Morgan Stanley Real Estate Fund V Special U.S., L.P., Morgan Stanley Real Estate Investors V U.S., L.P., MSP Real Estate Fund V, L.P., and Morgan Stanley Strategic Investments, Inc., dated as of September 7, 2006, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to Duke Energy Corporation's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 filed on November 9, 2006, File No. 1-32853).X
10.19Engineering, Procurement and Construction Agreement between Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC and Stone & Webster National Engineering P.C., dated as of July 11, 2007, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to Duke Energy Corporation's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 filed on November 9, 2007, File No. 1-32853). (Portions of the exhibit have been omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to a request for confidential treatment pursuant to Rule 24b-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended).X
10.20Amended and Restated Engineering, Procurement and Construction Agreement between Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC and Stone & Webster National Engineering P.C., dated as of February 20, 2008, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Duke Energy Corporation's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 filed on May 9, 2008, File No. 1-32853). (Portions of the exhibit have been omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to a request for confidential treatment pursuant to Rule 24b-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended).X
10.21Agreement and Plan of Merger between DEGS Wind I, LLC, DEGS Wind Vermont, Inc., Catamount Energy Corporation, dated as of June 25, 2008, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to Duke Energy Corporation's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 filed on August 11, 2008, File No. 1-32853).X
10.22Amended and Restated Engineering and Construction Agreement between Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC and Shaw North Carolina, Inc., dated as of December 21, 2009, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.41 to Duke Energy Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 filed on February 26, 2010, File No.1-32853).X
10.23Operating Agreement of Pioneer Transmission, LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Duke Energy Corporation's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 filed on November 7, 2008, File No. 1-32853).X
10.24**Amended and Restated Duke Energy Corporation Directors' Saving Plan, dated as of January 1, 2014, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.32 to Duke Energy Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 filed on February 28, 2014, File No. 1-32853).X
10.25Engineering, Procurement and Construction Management Agreement between Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. (formerly PSI Energy, Inc.) and Bechtel Power Corporation, dated as of December 15, 2008, (incorporated by reference to Item 1.01 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on December 19, 2008, File Nos. 1-32853 and 1-03543). (Portions of the exhibit have been omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to a request for confidential treatment pursuant to Rule 24b-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended).XX
10.26Amended and Restated Engineering and Construction Agreement between Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC and Shaw North Carolina, Inc., dated as of March 8, 2010, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 filed on May 7, 2010, File Nos. 1-32853 and 1-04928).XX
10.27**Form of Performance Award Agreement of Duke Energy Corporation (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on February 22, 2011, File No. 1-32853).X
10.28**Form of Phantom Stock Award of Duke Energy Corporation (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on February 22, 2011, File No. 1-32853).X
10.29**Duke Energy Corporation Executive Severance Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on January 10, 2011, File No. 1-32853).X
10.30$6,000,000,000 Five-Year Credit Agreement between Duke Energy Corporation, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., Duke Energy Indiana, Inc., Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc., Carolina Power and Light Company d/b/a Duke Energy Progress, Inc. and Florida Power Corporation, d/b/a Duke Energy Florida, Inc., as Borrowers, the lenders listed therein, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Administrative Agent, Bank of America, N.A. and The Royal Bank of Scotland plc, as Co-Syndication Agents and Bank of China, New York Branch, Barclays Bank PLC, Citibank, N.A., Credit Suisse AG, Cayman Islands Branch, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Limited, New York Branch, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and UBS Securities LLC, as Co-Documentation Agents, dated as of November 18, 2011, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on November 25, 2011, File Nos. 1-32853, 1-04928, 1-01232 and 1-03543).XXXX
10.31**Form of Performance Award Agreement of Duke Energy Corporation under the Duke Energy Corporation 2010 Long-Term Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on February 22, 2011, File No. 1-32853).X
10.32**Form of Phantom Stock Award Agreement of Duke Energy Corporation under the Duke Energy Corporation 2010 Long-Term Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on February 22, 2011, File No. 1-32853).X
10.33**Duke Energy Corporation 2010 Long-term Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to Appendix A to registrant's Form DEF 14A filed on March 22, 2010, File No. 1-32853).X
10.33.1**Amendment to Duke Energy Corporation 2010 Long-Term Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2012 filed on August 8, 2012, File No. 1-32853).X
10.34Settlement Agreement between Duke Energy Corporation, the North Carolina Utilities Commission Staff and the North Carolina Public Staff, dated as of November 28, 2012, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on November 29, 2012, File No. 1-32853).X
10.35Settlement Agreement between Duke Energy Corporation and the North Carolina Attorney General, dated as of December 3, 2012, (incorporated by reference Item 7.01 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on December 3, 2012, File No. 1-32853).X
10.36**Retention Award Agreement between Duke Energy Corporation and Lloyd Yates, dated as of July 9, 2012, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.56 to registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012 filed on March 1, 2013, File No. 1-32853).X
10.37**Form of Change-in-Control Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.58 to Duke Energy Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012 filed on March 1, 2013, File No. 1-32853).X
10.38**Form of Performance Share Award (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.64 to Duke Energy Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012 filed on March 1, 2013, File No. 1-32853).X
10.39**Amended and Restated Duke Energy Corporation Executive Cash Balance Plan, dated as of January 1, 2014, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.52 to Duke Energy Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 filed on February 28, 2014, File No. 1-32852).X
10.40Purchase, Construction and Ownership Agreement, dated as of July 30, 1981, between Duke Energy Progress, Inc. (formerly Carolina Power & Light CompanyCompany) and North Carolina Municipal Power Agency Number 3 and Exhibits, together with resolution, dated as of December 16, 1981, changing name to North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency, amending letter, dated as of February 18, 1982, and amendment, dated as of February 24, 1982, (filed as(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(a), to registrant's File No. 33-25560).  X  
          
*10a(2)10.41Operating and Fuel Agreement, dated as of July 30, 1981, between Duke Energy Progress, Inc. (formerly Carolina Power & Light CompanyCompany) and North Carolina Municipal Power Agency Number 3 and Exhibits, together with resolution, dated as of December 16, 1981, changing name to North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency, amending letters, dated as of August 21, 1981 and December 15, 1981, and amendment, dated as of February 24, 1982, (filed as(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(b), to registrant's File No. 33-25560).  X  
          
*10a(3)10.42Power Coordination Agreement, dated as of July 30, 1981, between Duke Energy Progress, Inc. (formerly Carolina Power & Light CompanyCompany) and North Carolina Municipal Power Agency Number 3 and Exhibits, together with resolution, dated as of December 16, 1981, changing name to North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency and amending letter, dated as of January 29, 1982, (filed as(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(c), to registrant's File No. 33-25560).  X  
          
*10a(4)10.43Amendment, dated as of December 16, 1982, to Purchase, Construction and Ownership Agreement, dated as of July 30, 1981, between Duke Energy Progress, Inc. (formerly Carolina Power & Light CompanyCompany) and North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency (filed as(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(d), to registrant's File No. 33-25560).  X  
          
*10b(1)Progress Energy, Inc. Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated as of February 15, 2012 (filed as Exhibit 10.1 to Current Report on Form 8-K dated February 15, 2012, File No. 1-15929).X
258

*10b(2)Carolina Power & Light Company 3-Year $750,000,000 Credit Agreement, dated as of October 15, 2010 (filed as Exhibit 10.1 to Current Report on Form 8-K dated October 15, 2010, File No. 1-15929, 1-3382 and 1-3274).X
*10b(3)Florida Power Corporation 3-Year $750,000,000 Credit Agreement, dated as of October 15, 2010 (filed as Exhibit 10.2 to Current Report on Form 8-K dated October 15, 2010, File No. 1-15929, 1-3382 and 1-3274).X
-+*10c(1)Retirement Plan for Outside Directors (filed as Exhibit 10(i), File No. 33-25560).X
+*10c(2)Resolutions of Board of Directors dated July 9, 1997, amending the Deferred Compensation Plan for Key Management Employees of Carolina Power & Light Company.X
+*10c(3)Progress Energy, Inc. Form of Stock Option Agreement (filed as Exhibit 4.4 to Form S-8 dated September 27, 2001, File No. 333-70332).XXX
+*10c(4)Progress Energy, Inc. Form of Stock Option Award (filed as Exhibit 4.5 to Form S-8 dated September 27, 2001, File No. 333-70332).XXX
+*10c(5)2002 Progress Energy, Inc. Equity Incentive Plan, Amended and Restated effective January 1, 2007 (filed as Exhibit 10c(5) to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the SEC on March 1, 2007, File No. 1-3382, No. 1-15929, and No. 1-3274).XXX
+*10c(6)10.44+Amended and Restated Broad-Based Performance Share Sub-Plan, Exhibit B to the 2002 Progress Energy, Inc. Equity Incentive Plan, effective January 1, 2007, (filed as(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10c(6) to registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the SEC on March 1, 2007, File No. 1-3382, No.Nos. 1-15929, 1-03382 and No. 1-3274)1-03274).XXX
  X        
+*10c(7)10.45+Amended and Restated Executive and Key Manager Performance Share Sub-Plan, Exhibit A to the 2002 Progress Energy, Inc. Equity Incentive Plan, (effectiveeffective January 1, 2007) (filed as2007, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10c(7)10(c)(7) to registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the SEC on March 1, 2007, File No. 1-3382, No.Nos. 1-15929, 1-03382 and No. 1-3274)1-03274).XXXX
10.46+Progress Energy, Inc. 2007 Equity Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit C to registrant's Form DEF 14A filed on March 30, 2007, File No. 1-15929).X          
+*10c(8)10.47+Progress Energy, Inc. 2007 Equity Incentive Plan (filed as Exhibit C to Form DEF 14A, as filed with the SEC on March 30, 2007, File No. 1-15929).XXX
+*10c(9)
Executive and Key Manager 2007 Performance Share Sub-
XXX
259

Plan,Sub-Plan, Exhibit A to the 2007 Equity Incentive Plan, effective January 1, 2007, (filed as(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K datedfiled on July 16, 2007, File No.Nos. 1- 15929, No. 1-33821-03382 and No. 1-3274)1-03274).
      
  XXX        
+*10c(10)Form of Progress Energy, Inc. Restricted Stock Agreement pursuant to the 2002 Progress Energy Inc. Equity Incentive Plan, as amended July 2002 (filed as Exhibit 10c(18) to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the SEC on March 16, 2005, File No. 1-3382 and 1-15929).XXX
+*10c(11)Form of Employment Agreement dated May 8, 2007 between (i) Progress Energy Service Company, LLC and Robert McGehee, John R. McArthur and Peter M. Scott III; (ii) PEC and Lloyd M. Yates, Fredrick N. Day IV, Paula M. Sims, William D. Johnson and Clayton S. Hinnant; and (iii) PEF and Jeffrey A. Corbett and Jeffrey J. Lyash (filed as Exhibit 10 to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007, File No. 1-15929, No. 1-3382 and No. 1-3274).XXX
+*10c(12)Form of Employment Agreement between Progress Energy Service Company, LLC and Mark F. Mulhern dated September 18, 2007 (filed as Exhibit 10 to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007, File No. 1-15929, No. 1-3382 and No. 1-3274).X
+*10c(13)Amendment, dated August 5, 2005, to Employment Agreement dated between Progress Energy Service Company, LLC and Peter M. Scott III (filed as Exhibit 10 to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005, File No. 1-15929, 1-3382 and 1-3274).XXX
+*10c(14)Selected Executives Supplemental Deferred Compensation Program Agreement, dated August, 1996, between CP&L and C. S. Hinnant (filed as Exhibit 10c(22) to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the SEC on March 1, 2007, File No. 1-3382, No. 1-15929, and No. 1-3274).X
 +*10c(15)Form of Executive Permanent Life Insurance Agreement (filed as Exhibit 10c(23) to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the SEC on March 1, 2007, File No. 1-3382, No. 1-15929, and No. 1-3274). X
+*10c(16)10.48+Form of Executive and Key Manager 2008 Performance Share Sub-Plan (filed as(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(a) to registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the periodquarter ended March 31, 2008 filed on May 12, 2008, File No. 1-15929, 1-33821-03382 and 1-3274)1-03274).XXX
260

  X        
+*10c(17)Progress Energy, Inc. 2009 Executive Incentive Plan, effective March 17, 2009 (filed as Exhibit D to Form DEF 14A, as filed with the SEC on March 31, 2009, File No. 1-15929).X
+*10c(18)Employment Agreement Term Sheet for William D. Johnson in connection with the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of January 8, 2011, by and among Duke Energy Corporation, Diamond Acquisition Corporation and Progress Energy, Inc. (Exhibit C to the Agreement and Plan of Merger filed as Exhibit 2.1 to the Current Report on Form 8-K, dated January 8, 2011, File No. 1-15929).X
+*10c(19)10.49+Form of Letter Agreement dated January 8, 2011, executed by certain officers of Progress Energy, Inc., waiving certain rights under Progress Energy, Inc.’s Management Change-in-Control Plan and their employment agreements, (fileddated as of January 8, 2011, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to theregistrant's Current Report on Form 8-K datedfiled on January 8, 2011, File No. 1-15929).X    
          
+*10c(20)Deferred Compensation Plan for Key Management Employees of Progress Energy, Inc., amended and restated effective July 13, 2011 (filed as Exhibit 10(a) to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2011, File No. 1-15929, 1-3382 and 1-3274).XXX
+*10c(21)10.50+Executive and Key Manager 2009 Performance Share Sub-Plan, Exhibit A to 2007 Equity Incentive Plan, amendedAmended and restatedRestated, effective July 12, 2011, (filed as(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(b) to registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the periodquarter ended September 30, 2011 filed on November 8, 2011, File No.Nos. 1-15929, 1-33821-03382 and 1-3274.1-03274.XXX
  X        
+*10c(22)10.51+Amended Management Incentive Compensation Plan of Progress Energy, Inc., amended Management Change-in-Control Plan, Amended and restatedRestated, effective July 12,13, 2011, (filed as(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(c)10(d) to registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the periodquarter ended September 30, 2011 filed on November 8, 2011, File No.Nos. 1-15929, 1-33821-03382 and 1-3274)1-03274).XXX
  X        
+*10c(23)Progress Energy, Inc. Management Change-in-Control Plan, amended and restated effective July 13, 2011 (filed as Exhibit 10(d) to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2011, File No. 1-15929, 1-3382 and 1-3274).XXX
+*10c(24)Progress Energy, Inc. Amended and Restated Management Deferred Compensation Plan, revised and restated effective July 12, 2011 (filed as Exhibit 10(e) to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2011, File No. 1-15929, 1-3382 and 1-3274).XXX
261

+*10c(25)Progress Energy, Inc. Non-Employee Director Deferred Compensation Plan, amended and restated effective July 13, 2011 (filed as Exhibit 10(f) to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2011, File No. 1-15929, 1-3382 and 1-3274).XXX
+*10c(26)Progress Energy, Inc. Non-Employee Director Stock Unit Plan, amended and restated effective July 13, 2011 (filed as Exhibit 10(g) to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2011, File No. 1-15929, 1-3382 and 1-3274).XXX
+*10c(27)Amended and Restated Progress Energy, Inc. Restoration Retirement Plan, amended and restated effective July 13, 2011 (filed as Exhibit 10(h) to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2011, File No. 1-15929, 1-3382 and 1-3274).XXX
+*10c(28)Amended and Restated Supplemental Senior Executive Retirement Plan of Progress Energy, Inc., amended and restated effective July 13, 2011 (filed as Exhibit 10(i) to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2011, File No. 1-15929, 1-3382 and 1-3274).XXX
+10c(29)10.52+Form of Progress Energy, Inc. Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement (Graded Vesting), effective September 15, 2011.XXX
  X        
+10c(30)10.53+Form of Progress Energy, Inc. Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement (Cliff Vesting), effective September 15, 2011.XXX
  X        
+10c(31)First Amendment to the Progress Energy, Inc. Amended and Restated Management Deferred Compensation Plan, effective December 14, 2011.XXX
+10c(32)First Amendment to the Progress Energy, Inc. Amended Management Incentive Compensation Plan, effective December 14, 2011.XXX
*10d(1)10.54
Precedent and Related Agreements amongbetween Duke Energy Florida, Inc. (formerly Florida Power Corporation d/b/a Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (“PEF”)), Southern Natural Gas Company, Florida Gas Transmission Company (“FGT”), and BG LNG Services, LLC (“BG”), including:
a) Precedent Agreement by and between Southern Natural Gas Company and PEF, dated as of December 2, 2004;
b) Gas Sale and Purchase Contract between BG and PEF, dated as of December 1, 2004;
c) Interim Firm Transportation Service Agreement by and between FGT and PEF, dated as of December 2, 2004;
d) Letter Agreement between FGT and PEF, dated
XX
262

as of December 2, 2004 and Firm Transportation Service Agreement by and between FGT and PEF to be entered into upon satisfaction of certain conditions precedent;
e) Discount Agreement between FGT and PEF, dated as of December 2, 2004;
f) Amendment to Gas Sale and Purchase Contract between BG and PEF, dated as of January 28, 2005; and
g) Letter Agreement between FGT and PEF, dated as of January 31, 2005, (filed as(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K/A filed on March 15, 2005)2005, File Nos. 1-15929 and 1-03274). (Confidential treatment has been requested for portions(Portions of this exhibit. These portionsthe exhibit have been omitted fromand filed separately with the above-referenced Current ReportSecurities and submitted separatelyExchange Commission pursuant to a request for confidential treatment pursuant to Rule 24b-2 under the SEC.)Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended).
      
  XX        
*10d(2)10.55Engineering, Procurement and Construction Agreement dated as of December 31, 2008, between Duke Energy Florida, Inc. (formerly Florida Power Corporation d/b/a/ Progress Energy Florida, Inc.), as owner, and a consortium consisting of Westinghouse Electric Company LLC and Stone & Webster, Inc., as contractor, for a two-unit AP1000 Nuclear Power Plant, (fileddated as of December 31, 2008, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 2, 2009)2009, File Nos. 1-15929 and 1-03274). (The Registrants(Portions of the exhibit have requested confidential treatment for certain portions of this exhibitbeen omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to an applicationa request for confidential treatment submittedpursuant to Rule 24b-2 under the SEC. These portions have been omitted from the above-referencedSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended).XX
10.56Amendment No. 1 and Consent between Duke Energy Corporation, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., Duke Energy Indiana, Inc., Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc., Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Duke Energy Florida, Inc., and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, dated as of December 18, 2013, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on December 23, 2013, File Nos. 1-32853, 1-04928, 1-03382, 1-03274, 1-01232 and submitted separately to the SEC.)1-03543).XXXXX  X
10.57**Employment Agreement between Duke Energy Corporation and Lynn J. Good, dated as of June 17, 2013, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on June 18, 2013, File No. 1-32853).X          
12(a)10.58**Duke Energy Corporation Executive Short-Term Incentive Plan, effective February 25, 2013, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8- filed on May 7, 2013, File No. 1-32853).X
10.59**Duke Energy Corporation 2013 Director Compensation Program Summary (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.81 To Duke Energy Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 filed on February 28, 2014, File No. 1-32853).X
10.60**Amended and Restated Duke Energy Corporation Executive Savings Plan, dated as of January 1, 2014, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.82 to Duke Energy Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 filed on February 28, 2014, File No. 1-32853).X
*10.61Agreement between Duke Energy SAM, LLC, Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., Duke Energy Commercial Enterprise, Inc. and Dynegy Resource I, LLC, dated as of August 21, 2014.XX
*10.62Asset Purchase Agreement between Duke Energy Progress, Inc. and North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency, dated as of September 5, 2014.XX
10.63Change in Control Agreement between Duke Energy Corporation and Lloyd M. Yates, dated as of April 30, 2014, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Duke Energy Corporation's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on May 6, 2014, File No. 1-32853).X
*12.1Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and Preferred Dividends Combined.- DUKE ENERGY CORPORATIONX    
          
12(b)*12.2Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and Preferred Dividends Combined.- DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC  X  
          
12(c)*12.3Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and Preferred Dividends Combined.- PROGRESS ENERGY, INC    X
          
21*12.4SubsidiariesComputation of Progress Energy, Inc.Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges - DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INCX  
          
23*12.5ConsentComputation of Deloitte & Touche LLP.Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges - DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INCX
*12.6Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC.X    
*12.7Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges - DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.X
*21List of SubsidiariesX          
31(a)*23.1.1302 CertificationConsent of Chief Executive OfficerIndependent Registered Public Accounting Firm.X    
          
31(b)*23.1.2302 CertificationConsent of Chief Financial OfficerIndependent Registered Public Accounting Firm.X    
          
31(c)*23.1.3302 CertificationConsent of Chief Executive OfficerIndependent Registered Public Accounting Firm.  X  
          
31(d)*23.1.4302 CertificationConsent of Chief Financial OfficerIndependent Registered Public Accounting Firm.  X  
263

          
31(e)*23.1.5302 CertificationConsent of Chief Executive OfficerIndependent Registered Public Accounting Firm.X
*23.1.6Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm.X
*23.1.7Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm.    X
*24.1Power of attorney authorizing Lynn J. Good and others to sign the annual report on behalf of the registrant and certain of its directors and officers.X          
31(f)*24.2302 CertificationCertified copy of Chief Financial Officerresolution of the Board of Directors of the registrant authorizing power of attorney.X    X
          
32(a)*31.1.1906 Certification of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.X    
          
32(b)*31.1.2906 Certification of the Chief FinancialExecutive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.X    
          
32(c)*31.1.3906 Certification of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.  X  
          
32(d)*31.1.4906 Certification of the Chief FinancialExecutive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.  X  
          
32(e)*31.1.5906 Certification of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.X
*31.1.6Certification of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.X
*31.1.7Certification of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.    X
*31.2.1Certification of the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.X          
32(f)*31.2.2906 Certification of the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.    X
          
101.INS*31.2.3XBRL Instance Document**Certification of the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.XXX
          
101.SCH*31.2.4XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema DocumentCertification of the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.XXX
          
101.CAL*31.2.5XBRL Taxonomy Calculation Linkbase DocumentCertification of the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.X
*31.2.6Certification of the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.X
*31.2.7Certification of the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.X
*32.1.1Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.X          
101.LAB*32.1.2XBRL Taxonomy Label Linkbase DocumentCertification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.XXX
          
101.PRE*32.1.3XBRL Taxonomy Presentation Linkbase DocumentCertification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.XXX
          
*32.1.4Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.X
*32.1.5Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.X
*32.1.6Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.X
*32.1.7Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.X
*32.2.1Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.X
*32.2.2Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.X
*32.2.3Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.X
*32.2.4Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.X
*32.2.5Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.X
*32.2.6Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.X
*32.2.7Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.X
*101.INSXBRL Instance DocumentXXXXXXX
*101.SCHXBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema DocumentXXXXXXX
*101.CALXBRL Taxonomy Calculation Linkbase DocumentXXXXXXX
*101.LABXBRL Taxonomy Label Linkbase DocumentXXXXXXX
*101.PREXBRL Taxonomy Presentation Linkbase DocumentXXXXXXX
*101.DEFXBRL Taxonomy Definition Linkbase DocumentXXXXXXX


*Incorporated herein by reference as indicated.
+Management contractThe total amount of securities of the registrant or compensation plan or arrangement requiredits subsidiaries authorized under any instrument with respect to belong-term debt not filed as an exhibit to this report pursuant to Item 15 (b) of Form 10-K.
-Sponsorship of this management contract or compensation plan or arrangement was transferred from Carolina Power & Light Company to Progress Energy, Inc., effective August 1, 2000.
**Attached as Exhibit 101 are the following financial statements and notes thereto for Progress Energy, PEC and PEF from the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011, formatted in Extensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL): (i) the Consolidated Statements of Income, (ii) the Consolidated Balance Sheets, (iii) the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows, (iv) the Consolidated Statements of Changes in Total Equity, (v) the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income and (vi) the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements, which are tagged as blocks of text in respect to PEC and PEF’s disclosures.

In accordance with Rule 406T of Regulation S-T, the XBRL-related information for PEC and PEF in Exhibit 101 to this Annual Report on Form 10-K is deemeddoes not filed or part of a registration statement or prospectus for purposes of Section 11 or 12exceed 10 percent of the Securities Act, is deemed not filed for purposes of Section 18total assets of the Exchange Actregistrant and otherwise is not subjectits subsidiaries on a consolidated basis. The registrant agrees, upon request of the SEC, to liability under these sections.

264

furnish copies of any or all of such instruments to it.

           Exhibit No. 12(a)
                
PROGRESS ENERGY, INC.
Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and
 Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and Preferred Dividends Combined
For the Years Ended December 31
                
                
 (dollars in millions)
 2011  
2010 (a)
  
2009 (a)
  
2008 (a)
  
2007 (a)
 
 EARNINGS, AS DEFINED:
               
 Add:
               
Pre-tax income from continuing operations $910  $1,406  $1,237  $1,173  $1,036 
Fixed charges, as below  827   846   813   768   677 
 Deduct:
                    
Capitalized interest(b)
  35   32   39   40   17 
Pre-tax income (loss) attributable to noncontrolling
  interests of subsidiaries that have not incurred fixed
  charges
  3   3   -   5   9 
Preference security dividend requirements of
  consolidated subsidiaries
  6   7   7   7   7 
Total earnings, as defined $1,693  $2,210  $2,004  $1,889  $1,680 
  
                    
 FIXED CHARGES, AS DEFINED:
                    
 Interest on debt, including capitalized portion
 $769  $788  $774  $679  $618 
 Estimate of interest within rental expense
  52   51   32   82   52 
 Preference security dividend requirements of
  consolidated subsidiaries
  6   7   7   7   7 
Total fixed charges, as defined $827  $846  $813  $768  $677 
                     
 Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
  2.05   2.61   2.46   2.46   2.48 
                     
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and Preferred
  Dividends Combined(c)
   2.05    2.61    2.46    2.46    2.48 
(a)Prior periods have been revised primarily to include (1) interest within discontinued operations and (2) purchased power agreements classified as leases in the estimate of interest within rental expense.
(b)Excludes equity costs related to allowance for equity funds used during construction that are included in other income (expense) on the Consolidated Statements of Income.
(c)For all periods presented, we had no preferred stock outstanding.

E-1
265



           Exhibit No. 12(b)
                
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
d/b/a PROGRESS ENERGY CAROLINAS, INC.
Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and Preferred Dividends Combined
For the Years Ended December 31
                
                
 (dollars in millions)
 2011  
2010 (a)
  
2009 (a)
  
2008 (a)
  
2007 (a)
 
 EARNINGS, AS DEFINED:
               
 Add:
               
Pre-tax income $772  $952  $791  $832  $796 
Fixed charges, as below  235   227   219   231   226 
 Deduct:
                    
Capitalized interest(b)
  21   19   12   12   5 
Pre-tax loss attributable to noncontrolling interests of
  subsidiaries that have not incurred fixed charges
  -   (1)  (2)  -   - 
Total earnings, as defined $986  $1,161  $1,000  $1,051  $1,017 
  
                    
 FIXED CHARGES, AS DEFINED:
                    
 Interest on debt, including capitalized portion
 $205  $205  $207  $219  $215 
 Estimate of interest within rental expense
  30   22   12   12   11 
Total fixed charges, as defined  235   227   219   231   226 
 Preferred dividends, as defined
  4   5   5   5   5 
 Total fixed charges and preferred dividends combined
 $239  $232  $224  $236  $231 
                     
 Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
  4.20   5.11   4.57   4.55   4.50 
                     
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and Preferred
  Dividends Combined
  4.13   5.00   4.46   4.45   4.40 
(a)Prior periods have been revised primarily to include purchased power agreements classified as leases in the estimate of interest within rental expense.
(b)Excludes equity costs related to allowance for equity funds used during construction that are included in other income (expense) on the Consolidated Statements of Income.

266



           Exhibit No. 12(c)
                
FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION
d/b/a PROGRESS ENERGY FLORIDA, INC.
Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and Preferred Dividends Combined
For the Years Ended December 31
                
                
 (dollars in millions)
 2011  
2010 (a)
  
2009 (a)
  
2008 (a)
  
2007 (a)
 
 EARNINGS, AS DEFINED:
               
 Add:
               
Pre-tax income $494  $729  $671  $566  $461 
Fixed charges, as below  275   300   278   305   224 
 Deduct:
                    
Capitalized interest(b)
  14   13   27   28   12 
Total earnings, as defined $755  $1,016  $922  $843  $673 
  
                    
 FIXED CHARGES, AS DEFINED:
                    
 Interest on debt, including capitalized portion
 $253  $271  $258  $236  $185 
 Estimate of interest within rental expense
  22   29   20   69   39 
Total fixed charges, as defined  275   300   278   305   224 
 Preferred dividends, as defined
  2   2   2   2   2 
 Total fixed charges and preferred dividends combined
 $277  $302  $280  $307  $226 
                     
 Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
  2.75   3.39   3.32   2.76   3.00 
                     
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and Preferred
  Dividends Combined
  2.73   3.36   3.29   2.75   2.98 
(a)Prior periods have been revised primarily to include purchased power agreements classified as leases in the estimate of interest within rental expense.
(b)Excludes equity costs related to allowance for equity funds used during construction that are included in other income (expense) on the Statements of Income.

267


Exhibit No. 21

PROGRESS ENERGY, INC.
List of Subsidiaries

The following is a list of certain direct and indirect subsidiaries of Progress Energy, Inc., and their respective states of incorporation as of December 31, 2011. All other subsidiaries, if considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, would not constitute a significant subsidiary.

Carolina Power & Light Company d/b/a Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.North Carolina
Florida Progress CorporationFlorida
Florida Power Corporation d/b/a/ Progress Energy Florida, Inc.Florida

268


Exhibit No. 23
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-70332 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 333-78157 on Form S-4, Registration Statement No. 333-104951 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 333-104952 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 333-155541 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 333-155543 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-178020 on Form S-3 of our reports dated February 28, 2012, relating to the consolidated financial statements and consolidated financial statement schedule of Progress Energy, Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”), and the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2011.
/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Raleigh, North Carolina
February 28, 2012


269