UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
(Mark One)
ýANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the fiscal period ended December 31, 20162017 or
¨TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the transition period from________to________
Commission
file number
 Registrant, State of Incorporation or Organization, Address of Principal Executive Offices and Telephone Number 
IRS Employer
Identification No.
  
  
1-32853 
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION
(a Delaware corporation)
550 South Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28202-1803
704-382-3853
 20-2777218
Commission file number Registrant, State of Incorporation or Organization, Address of Principal Executive Offices, Telephone Number and IRS Employer Identification Number Commission file number Registrant, State of Incorporation or Organization, Address of Principal Executive Offices, Telephone Number and IRS Employer Identification 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, LLC
(a Florida limited liability company)
299 First Avenue North
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
704-382-3853
59-0247770
1-15929 
PROGRESS ENERGY, INC.
(a North Carolina corporation)
410 South Wilmington Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1748
704-382-3853
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, LLC
(a North Carolina limited liability company)
410 South Wilmington Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1748
704-382-3853
56-0165465
 1-3543 
DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, LLC
(an Indiana limited liability company)
1000 East Main Street
Plainfield, Indiana 46168
704-382-3853
35-0594457
1-6196
PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS COMPANY, INC.
(a North Carolina corporation)
4720 Piedmont Row Drive
Charlotte, North Carolina 28210
704-364-3120
56-0556998
SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(b) OF THE ACT:
Registrant Title of each class 
Name of each exchange on
which registered
Duke Energy Corporation
(Duke Energy)
 Common Stock, $0.001 par value New York Stock Exchange, Inc.
Duke Energy 5.125% Junior Subordinated Debentures due January 15, 2073 New York Stock Exchange, Inc.

SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(g) OF THE ACT:  None
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act
Duke Energy
Yes x
 
No ¨
 Duke Energy Florida, LLC (Duke Energy Florida)
Yes x
 
No ¨
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy Carolinas)
Yes x
 
No ¨
 Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. (Duke Energy Ohio)
Yes x
 
No ¨
Progress Energy, Inc. (Progress Energy)
Yes ¨
 
No x
 Duke Energy Indiana, LLC (Duke Energy Indiana)
Yes x
 
No ¨
Duke Energy Progress, LLC (Duke Energy Progress)
Yes x
 
No ¨
 Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc. (Piedmont)
Yes x
 
No ¨
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act.
Yes ¨ No x (Response applicable to all registrants.)
Indicate by check mark whether the registrants (1) have 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 ¨
Indicate by check mark whether the registrants have submitted electronically and posted on their corporate 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 registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes 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 registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. ¨ (Only applicable to Duke Energy)
Indicate by check mark whether Duke 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. (Check one): Large accelerated filer x Accelerated filer ¨ Non-accelerated filer ¨ Smaller reporting company ¨ Emerging growth company ¨
If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ¨
Indicate by check mark whether Duke Energy Carolinas, Progress Energy, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Florida, Duke Energy Ohio, and Duke Energy Indiana and Piedmont 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 ¨ Emerging growth company ¨
If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ¨
Indicate by check mark whether the registrants are a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ¨ No x
Estimated aggregate market value of the common equity held by nonaffiliates of Duke Energy at June 30, 2016.$59,060,642,963
Number of shares of Common Stock, $0.001 par value, outstanding at January 31, 2017.699,607,929
Estimated aggregate market value of the common equity held by nonaffiliates of Duke Energy at June 30, 2017.$58,468,482,557
Number of shares of Common Stock, $0.001 par value, outstanding at January 31, 2018.700,092,667
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
Portions of the Duke Energy definitive proxy statement for the 20172018 Annual Meeting of the Shareholders or an amendment to this Annual Report are incorporated by reference into PART III, Items 10, 11 and 13 hereof.
This combined Form 10-K is filed separately by seveneight registrants: Duke Energy, Duke Energy Carolinas, Progress Energy, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Florida, Duke Energy Ohio, and Duke Energy Indiana and Piedmont (collectively the Duke Energy Registrants). Information contained herein relating to any individual registrant is filed by such registrant solely on its own behalf. Each registrant makes no representation as to information relating exclusively to the other registrants.
Duke Energy Carolinas, Progress Energy, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Florida, Duke Energy Ohio, and Duke Energy Indiana and Piedmont meet the conditions set forth in General Instructions I(1)(a) and (b) of Form 10-K and are, therefore, filing this Form 10-K with the reduced disclosure format specified in General Instructions I(2) of Form 10-K. 


TABLE OF CONTENTS
FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED December 31, 20162017
Item
 Page Page
    
CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATIONCAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION 
    
GLOSSARY OF TERMSGLOSSARY OF TERMS GLOSSARY OF TERMS 
    
PART I.    
1.
PIEDMONT
    
1A.
  
1B.
  
2.
  
3.
  
4.
    
PART II.    
5.
    
6.
    
7.
    
7A.
    
8.
    
9.
    
9A.
    
PART III.    
10.
    
11.
    
12.
    
13.
    
14.
    
PART IV.    
15.
EXHIBIT INDEX


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 and can often be identified by terms and phrases that include “anticipate,” “believe,” “intend,” “estimate,” “expect,” “continue,” “should,” “could,” “may,” “plan,” “project,” “predict,” “will,” “potential,” “forecast,” “target,” “guidance,” “outlook” or other similar terminology. Various factors may cause actual results to be materially different than the suggested outcomes within forward-looking statements; accordingly, there is no assurance that such results will be realized. These factors include, but are not limited to:
State, federal and foreign legislative and regulatory initiatives, including costs of compliance with existing and future environmental requirements, orincluding those related to 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 costs and liabilities to comply with federal and state laws, regulations and legal requirements related to coal ash remediation, including amounts for required closure of certain ash impoundments, are uncertain and difficult to estimate;
The ability to recover eligible costs, including amounts associated with coal ash impoundment retirement obligations and costs related to significant weather events, and to earn an adequate return on investment through rate case proceedings and the regulatory process;
The costs of decommissioning Crystal River Unit 3 and other nuclear facilities could prove to be more extensive than amounts estimated and all costs may not be fully recoverable through the regulatory process;
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 sustained downturns of the economy and the economic health of our service territories or variations in customer usage patterns, including energy efficiency efforts and use of alternative energy sources, includingsuch as self-generation and distributed generation technologies;
Federal and state regulations, laws and other efforts designed to promote and expand the use of energy efficiency measures and distributed generation technologies, such as private solar and battery storage, in Duke Energy service territories could result in customers leaving the electric distribution system, excess generation resources as well as stranded costs;
Advancements in technology;
Additional competition in electric and natural gas markets and continued industry consolidation;
The influence of weather and other natural phenomena on operations, including the economic, operational and other effects of severe storms, hurricanes, droughts, earthquakes and tornadoes, including extreme weather associated with climate change;
The ability to successfully operate electric generating facilities and deliver electricity to customers including direct or indirect effects to the company resulting from an incident that affects the U.S. electric grid or generating resources;
The ability to complete necessary or desirable pipeline expansion or infrastructure projects in our natural gas business;
Operational interruptions to our natural gas distribution and transmission activities;
The availability of adequate interstate pipeline transportation capacity and natural gas supply.supply;
The impact on facilities and business from a terrorist attack, cybersecurity threats, data security breaches and other catastrophic events, such as fires, explosions, pandemic health events or other similar occurrences;
The inherent risks associated with the operation and potential construction of nuclear facilities, including environmental, health, safety, regulatory and financial risks;risks, including the financial stability of third-party service providers;
The timing and extent of changes in commodity prices interest rates and foreign currency exchangeinterest 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, interest rate fluctuations, compliance with debt covenants and conditions and general market and economic conditions;
Credit ratings of the Duke Energy Registrants may be different from what is expected;
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 the Duke Energy Registrants’ capital investment projects, 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;
Substantial revision to the U.S. tax code, such as changes to the corporate tax rate or a material change in the deductibility of interest;
The impact of new U.S. tax legislation to our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows and our credit ratings;
The impacts from potential impairments of goodwill impairments;or equity method investment carrying values;
The ability to successfully complete future merger, acquisition or divestiture plans; and
The ability to successfully integrate the natural gas businesses following the acquisition of Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc. and realize anticipated benefits.implement our business strategy.
Additional risks and uncertainties are identified and discussed in the Duke Energy Registrants' reports filed with the SEC and available at the SEC's website at www.sec.gov. 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 and the Duke Energy Registrants expressly disclaim an obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.


Glossary of Terms 
The following terms or acronyms used in this Form 10-K are defined below:
Term or AcronymDefinition
  
the 20122013 SettlementRevised and Restated Stipulation and Settlement agreementAgreement approved in 2012November 2013 among Duke Energy Florida, the Florida OPC and other customer advocates
  
the 20132015 PlanDuke Energy Corporation 2015 Long-Term Incentive Plan
2017 SettlementSecond Revised and Restated Settlement agreementAgreement in 20132017 among Duke Energy Florida, the Florida OPC and other customer advocates,
which replaces and supplants the 2013 Agreement2013 revised and restated stipulation and settlement agreement
the 2015 PlanDuke Energy Corporation 2015 Long-Term Incentive PlanSettlement
  
ACPAtlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC, a limited liability company owned by Dominion, Duke Energy and Southern Company Gas
  
ACP PipelineThe approximately 600-mile proposed interstate natural gas pipeline
  
ADITNet Accumulated Deferred Income Tax
AFUDCAllowance for funds used during construction
  
AHFSthe AgentsAssets held for saleWells Fargo Securities, LLC, Citigroup Global Market Inc.,J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC
  
ALJAdministrative Law Judge
  
Amended ComplaintAmended Verified Consolidated Shareholder Derivative Complaint
  
AMIAdvanced Metering Infrastructure
  
ANPRMAdvance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
AOCIAccumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)
  
AROAsset Retirement Obligation
ARPAlternative Revenue Programs
  
the ASRAccelerated Stock Repurchase Program
  
ASRPAccelerated natural gas service line replacement program
  
Audit CommitteeAudit Committee of the Board of Directors
BarclaysBarclays Capital Inc.
  
BCWFBenton County Wind Farm, LLC
  
BeckjordBeckjord Generating Station
Belews CreekBelews Creek Steam Station
  
BisonBison Insurance Company Limited
  
Board of DirectorsDuke Energy Board of Directors
  
Bresalier ComplaintShareholder derivative lawsuit filed by Saul Bresalier related to ash basin management practices
  
Bresalier DefendantsSeveral current and former Duke Energy officers and directors named in the Bresalier Complaint
  
Bridge Facility$4.9 billion senior secured financing facility with Barclays Capital Inc.
  
BrunswickBrunswick Nuclear Plant
  
CAAClean Air Act
  
CalpineCalpine Corporation
CardinalCardinal Pipeline Company, LLC
  
CatawbaCatawba Nuclear Station
  
CCCombined Cycle
  
CCRCoal Combustion Residuals
  
CCSCarbon Capture and Storage
  
CECPCNCertificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Convenience and Necessity
  
CEOChief Executive Officer
  
CertainTeedCertainTeed Gypsum NC, Inc.
CinergyCinergy Corp. (collectively with its subsidiaries)
  
CO2
Carbon Dioxide


Coal Ash ActNorth Carolina Coal Ash Management Act of 2014
Coal Ash CommissionCoal Ash Management Commission
  
COLCombined Operating License
  
the CompanyDuke Energy Corporation and its subsidiaries
  
Consolidated ComplaintCorrected Verified Consolidated Shareholder Derivative Complaint
  
ConstitutionConstitution Pipeline Company, LLC
COSOCommittee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission
CPCapacity Performance
  
CPCNCertificate of Public Convenience and Necessity
  
CPPClean Power Plan
  
CRCCinergy Receivables Company LLC
  
Crystal River Unit 3Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Plant
  
CSAComprehensive Site Assessment
  
CSAPRCross-State Air Pollution Rule
  
CTCombustion Turbine
  
CTGChina Three Gorges Energy S.à.r.l.
  
CWAClean Water Act
  
DATCDuke-American Transmission Co.
  
D.C. Circuit CourtU.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
  
the DealersGoldman, Sachs & Co. and JP MorganJPMorgan Chase Bank
DEBSDuke Energy Business Services, LLC
DECAMDuke Energy Commercial Asset Management, LLC
  
DEFPFDuke Energy Florida Project Finance, LLC
  
DEFRDuke Energy Florida Receivables, LLC
  
DeloitteDeloitte & Touche LLP, and the member firms of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu and their respective affiliates
  
DEPRDuke Energy Progress Receivables, LLC
  
DERFDuke Energy Receivables Finance Company, LLC
  
DETMDuke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC
DHHSNorth Carolina Department of Health and Human Services
Directors' Savings PlanDuke Energy Corporation Directors' Savings Plan
  
DOEU.S. Department of Energy
  
DOJDepartment of Justice
  
DominionDominion Resources
DRIPDividend Reinvestment Program
  
DSMDemand Side Management
  
DthDekatherm
  
Duke EnergyDuke Energy Corporation (collectively with its subsidiaries)
  
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, LLC
  
Duke Energy IndianaDuke Energy Indiana, LLC
  
Duke Energy KentuckyDuke Energy Kentucky, Inc.
  
Duke Energy OhioDuke Energy Ohio, Inc.
  
Duke Energy ProgressDuke Energy Progress, LLC
  


Duke Energy RegistrantsDuke Energy, Duke Energy Carolinas, Progress Energy, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Florida, Duke Energy Ohio, Duke Energy Indiana and Piedmont
  
DynegyDynegy Inc.
  
East BendEast Bend Generating Station
  
the EDAEquity Distribution Agreement
EEEnergy efficiency
  
EGUElectric Generating Units
  
EISEnvironmental Impact Statement
  
ELGEffluent Limitations Guidelines
  
EPAU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
  
EPCEngineering, Procurement and Construction agreement
  
EPSEarnings Per Share
  
ESPElectric Security Plan
  
ETREffective tax rate
  
Exchange ActExchange Act of 1934
  
FASBFinancial Accounting Standards Board
  
FERCFederal Energy Regulatory Commission
  
FitchFitch Ratings, Inc.
  
FirstEnergyFirstEnergy Corp.
  
Florida OPCFlorida Office of Public Counsel
  
Form S-3Registration statement
  
FP&LFlorida Power & Light Company
  
FPSCFlorida Public Service Commission
  
FRRFixed Resource Requirement
FTRFinancial transmission rights
  
GAAPGenerally Accepted Accounting Principles in the United States
  
GHGGreenhouse Gas
  
GPCGWhGeorgia Power CompanyGigawatt-hours
  
GWhHardy StorageGigawatt-hoursHardy Storage Company, LLC
  
HarrisShearon Harris Nuclear Plant
HB 998North Carolina House Bill 998, or the North Carolina Tax Simplification and Rate Reduction Act
  
HinesHines Energy Complex
  
I SquaredISQ Enerlam Aggregator, L.P. and Enerlam Holding Ltd.
  
IBNRIncurred but not yet reported
  
ICPAInter-companyInter-Company Power Agreement
  
IGCCIntegrated Gasification Combined Cycle
  
IGCC RiderTracking mechanism used to recover costs related to the Edwardsport IGCC plant from retail electric customers
  
IGCC Settlement2015 Settlement to resolve disputes with intervenors related to 5five IGCC riders
  
IMRIntegrity Management Rider
Interim FERC MitigationInterim firm power sale agreements mitigation plans related to the Progress Energy merger
  
International Disposal GroupDuke Energy's international business, excluding National Methanol Company
  
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
  
KO TransmissionKO Transmission Company
  
KPSCKentucky Public Service Commission
  
kVKilovolt
  
kWhKilowatt-hour
  
LDCLocal Distribution Company
  
Lee Nuclear StationWilliam States Lee III Nuclear Station
Legacy Duke Energy DirectorsMembers of the pre-merger Duke Energy Board of Directors
  
LevyDuke Energy Florida’s proposed nuclear plant in Levy County, Florida
  
LIBORLondon Interbank Offered Rate
  
Long-Term FERC MitigationThe revised market power mitigation plan related to the Progress Energy merger
  
MATSMaster TrustMercury and Air Toxics Standards
McfThousand cubic feetDuke Energy Master Retirement Trust
  
McGuireMcGuire Nuclear Station
Merger AgreementThe Agreement and Plan of Merger between Duke Energy and Piedmont
  
Merger Chancery LitigationFour shareholder derivative lawsuits filed in the Delaware Chancery Court related to the Progress Energy merger
Mesirov ComplaintShareholder derivative complaint file by Judy Mesirov
  
MGPManufactured gas plant
  
Midwest Generation Disposal GroupDuke Energy Ohio’s nonregulated Midwest generation business and Duke Energy Retail Sales, LLC
  
MISOMidcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
  
MMBtuMillion British Thermal Unit
  
MPPMoney Purchase Pension
  
Moody’sMoody’s Investors Service, Inc.
  
MTBEMethyl tertiary butyl ether
  
MTEPMISO Transmission Expansion Planning
  
MWMegawatt
  
MVPMulti Value Projects
  
MWhMegawatt-hour
  
NCDEQNorth Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (formerly the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources)
  
NCEMCNorth Carolina Electric Membership Corporation
  
NCEMPANorth Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency
  
NCRCFlorida’s Nuclear Cost Recovery Clause
  
NCRSNuclear Power Plant Cost Recovery Statutes
  
NCUCNorth Carolina Utilities Commission
  
NC WARNNDTFN.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction NetworkNuclear decommissioning trust funds
  
NDTFNEILNuclear decommissioning trust fundsElectric Insurance Limited
  


NEILNew Source ReviewNuclear Electric Insurance LimitedNew Source Review (NSR) is a CAA program that requires industrial facilities to install modern pollution control equipment when they are built or when making a change that increases emissions significantly
  
NYSDECNew York State Department of Environmental Conservation
  
NMCNational Methanol Company
  
NOLNet operating loss
  
NOVNotice of violation
  
NOx
Nitrogen oxide
  
NPDESNational Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPNSNormal purchase/normal sale
NPRNotice of Proposed Rulemaking
  
NRCU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
  
NWPANuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982
NYAGNew York Attorney General
  
NYSENew York Stock Exchange
  
OconeeOconee Nuclear Station
  
OPEBOther Post-Retirement Benefit Obligations
  
OPEB AssetsOther post-retirement plan assets are comprised of the Retirement Plan of Piedmont 401(h) Medical Plan, and the following Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association Trusts: Duke Energy Corporation Employee Benefits Trust, Piedmont Natural Gas Company 501(c)(9) Trust for Retired Bargaining Unit Employees and the Piedmont Natural Gas Company 501(c)(9) Trust for Retired Non-Bargaining Unit Employees.
ORSOffice of Regulatory Staff
  
Osprey Plant acquisitionDuke Energy Florida's purchase of a Calpine Corporation's 599 MW599-MW combined-cycle natural gas plant in Auburndale, Florida
  
OTTIOther-than-temporary impairment
  
OVECOhio Valley Electric Corporation
  
the ParentDuke Energy Corporation Holding Companyholding company
  
the PaymentsPCAOBFines and restitution related to the North Carolina Ash Basin Grand Jury InvestigationPublic Company Accounting Oversight Board
  
PGAPurchased Gas Adjustments
  
Phase I CCR Compliance ProjectsDuke Energy Indiana's federally mandated compliance projects to comply with the EPA's CCR rule
  
Philadelphia Utility IndexPhiladelphia Sector Index
PHMSAPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
PiedmontPiedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc.
  
Piedmont Pension AssetsQualified pension plan assets associated with the Retirement Plan of Piedmont
  
Piedmont Term Loan18-month term loan facility with commitments totaling $250M entered in June 2017
Pine NeedlePine Needle LNG Company, LLC
PioneerPioneer Transmission, LLC
  
PJMPJM Interconnection, LLC
PMPAPiedmont Municipal Power Agency
  
PPAPurchase Power Agreement
  
Progress EnergyProgress Energy, Inc.
  
PSCSCPublic Service Commission of South Carolina
  
PTCProduction Tax Credits
  
PUCOPublic Utilities Commission of Ohio
  
PUCO OrderOrder issued by PUCO approving a settlement of Duke Energy Ohio’s natural gas base rate case and authorizing the recovery of certain MGP costs
  
PURPAPublic Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978
  
QFQualifying Facility
  


RCARevolving Credit Agreement
  
RCRAResource Conservation and Recovery Act
  
RFPRequests for Proposal
Relative TSRTSR of Duke Energy stock relative to a pre-definedpredefined peer group
  


RobinsonRobinson Nuclear Plant
RRBARoanoke River Basin Association
RSURestricted Stock Unit
  
RTORegional Transmission Organization
  
Sabal TrailSabal Trail Transmission, LLC
  
Sabal Trail PipelineSabal Trail Natural Gas Pipeline
  
SACESouthern Alliance of Clean Energy
  
SAFSTORA 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.use
  
S.C. Court of AppealsCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
  
SCCLSouth Carolina Coastal Conservation League
  
SCDHECSECSouth Carolina Department of HealthSecurities and Environmental ControlExchange Commission
  
SECSEISSecurities and Exchange CommissionSupplemental Environmental Impact Statement
  
SELCSouthern Environmental Law Center
  
Segment IncomeIncome from continuing operations net of income attributable to noncontrolling interests
  
SO2
Sulfur dioxide
  
SouthStarSouthStar Energy Services, LLC
Spectra CapitalSpectra Energy Capital, LLC
  
S&PStandard & Poor’s Rating Services
S&P 500Standard & Poor's 500 Stock Index
  
SSOStandard Service Offer
  
State Utility CommissionsNCUC, PSCSC, FPSC, PUCO, IURC, KPSC and TRATPUC (Collectively)
  
State Electric Utility CommissionsNCUC, PSCSC, FPSC, PCO,PUCO, IURC and KPSC (Collectively)
  
State Gas Utility CommissionsNCUC, PSCSC, PUCO, TRATPUC and KPSC (Collectively)
  
Subsidiary RegistrantsDuke Energy Carolinas, Progress Energy, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Florida, Duke Energy Ohio, Duke Energy Indiana and Piedmont
  
SuttonL.V. Sutton combined cycle facilityCombined Cycle Plant
the Tax ActTax Cut and Jobs Act
  
T&D RiderTracking mechanism to recover grid infrastructure improvement costs in Indiana
  
Term LoanDuke Energy (Parent) $1.5 billion term loan facility, as amended maturing on July 31, 2017
TRATPUCTennessee Regulatory AuthorityPublic Utility Commission
  
TSRTotal shareholder return
  
Uprate ProjectHines Chiller Uprate Project
  
U.S.United States
  
U.S. Court of AppealsU.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
  
USDOJVEBAUnited 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, collectivelyVoluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association
  
VIEVariable Interest Entity
  
WACCWeighted Average Cost of Capital
WNAweather normalization adjustment
  
WVPAWabash Valley Power Association, Inc.



PART I

 
ITEM 1. BUSINESS
 
DUKE ENERGY
 
General
Duke Energy Corporation (collectively with its subsidiaries, Duke Energy) was incorporated on May 3, 2005, and 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.) primarily through its direct and indirect subsidiaries. Certain Duke Energy subsidiaries are also subsidiary registrants, including Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy Carolinas); Progress Energy, Inc. (Progress Energy); Duke Energy Progress, LLC (Duke Energy Progress); Duke Energy Florida, LLC (Duke Energy Florida); Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. (Duke Energy Ohio); and Duke Energy Indiana, LLC (Duke Energy Indiana). On October 3, 2016, Duke Energy acquired and Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc. (Piedmont) which also became a wholly owned subsidiary and subsidiary registrant of Duke Energy. Duke Energy's consolidated financial statements include Piedmont's results of operations and cash flow activity subsequent to the acquisition. See Note 2 for additional information regarding the acquisition.. When discussing Duke Energy’s consolidated financial information, it necessarily includes the results of its seven 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).Registrants.
Piedmont, a North Carolina corporation, is an energy services company whose principal business is the distribution of natural gas to over one1 million residential, commercial, industrial and power generation customers in portions of North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee, including customers served by municipalities who are Piedmont's sales for resale customers. In October 2016, Duke Energy completed the acquisition of Piedmont for a totalPiedmont. Piedmont's earnings and cash purchase price of $5.0 billion and assumed Piedmont's existing long-term debt, which had an estimated fair value of approximately $2.0 billion atflows are only included in Duke Energy's consolidated results subsequent to the time of the acquisition. The acquisition provides a foundation for Duke Energy to establish a broader, long-term strategic natural gas infrastructure platform to supplement and complement its existing natural gas pipeline investments and regulated natural gas business in the Midwest. For additional information on the details of this transaction, including preliminary purchase price allocation and acquisition financing, see Item 7, Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations (MD&A) anddate. See Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Acquisitions and Dispositions.Dispositions," for additional information regarding the acquisition.
In December 2016, Duke Energy completed the salean exit of itsthe Latin American businessesmarket to focus on its domestic regulated electric and gas businesses,business, which was further bolstered by the acquisition of Piedmont. The sale of the International Energy businesses,business segment, excluding an equity method investment in National Methanol Company (NMC), was completed through two transactions including thea sale of assets in Brazil to China Three Gorges (Luxembourg) Energy S.à.r.l. (CTG) and a sale of Duke Energy's Brazilian businessremaining Latin American assets in Peru, Chile, Ecuador, Guatemala, El Salvador and Argentina to China Three GorgesISQ Enerlam Aggregator, L.P. and Duke Energy's remaining Central and South American businesses to I Squared CapitalEnerlam (UK) Holding Ltd. (I Squared) (collectively, the International Disposal Group). See Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Acquisitions and Dispositions," for additional information.information on the sale of International Energy.
The Duke Energy Registrants electronically file reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), including annual reportsAnnual Reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, proxies and amendments to such reports.
The public may read and copy any materials the Duke Energy Registrants file with the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549. The public may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. The SEC also maintains an internet site that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the 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 are made available as soon as reasonably practicable after such material is filed with or furnished to the SEC.
Business Segments
The acquisition of Piedmont and sale of the International Disposal Group has resulted in a realigned business withDuke Energy's segment structure includes three reportable operating segments (business segments); Electric Utilities and Infrastructure, Gas Utilities and Infrastructure and Commercial Renewables. The remainder of Duke Energy’s operations is presented as Other. Duke Energy's chief operating decision makerdecision-maker routinely reviews financial information about each of these business segments in deciding how to allocate resources and evaluate the performance of the business. 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 business segments, as well as Other.

PART I

ELECTRIC UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Electric Utilities and Infrastructure conducts operations primarily through the regulated public utilities of Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Florida, Duke Energy Indiana and Duke Energy Ohio. Electric Utilities and Infrastructure provides retail electric service through the generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electricity to approximately 7.57.6 million customers within the Southeast and Midwest regions of the U.S. The service territory is approximately 95,000 square miles across six states with a total estimated population of 24 million people. The operations include electricity sold wholesale to municipalities, electric cooperative utilities and other load-serving entities. Electric Utilities and Infrastructure is also a joint owner in certain electric transmission projects. Electric Utilities and Infrastructure has a 50 percent ownership interest in Duke-American Transmission Co. (DATC), a partnership with American Transmission Company, formed to design, build and operate transmission infrastructure. DATC owns 72 percent of the transmission service rights to Path 15, an 84-mile transmission line in central California. Electric Utilities and Infrastructure also has a 50 percent ownership interest in Pioneer Transmission, LLC, which builds, owns and operates electric transmission facilities in North America.

9


PART I

The electric operations and investments in projects are subject to the rules and regulations of the FERC, the North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC), the Public Service Commission of South Carolina (PSCSC), the Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC), the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC), the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) and the Kentucky Public Service Commission (KPSC).
The following table represents the distribution of billed sales by customer class for the year ended December 31, 2016.2017.
Duke
Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
Energy
Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
Carolinas(a)

Progress(a)

 
Florida(b)

 
Ohio(c)

 
Indiana(d)

Carolinas
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Residential32%26% 50% 35% 26%30% 26% 49% 34% 26%
General service33%23% 38% 38% 24%33% 23% 37% 38% 25%
Industrial25%15% 8% 24% 31%25% 16% 8% 23% 32%
Total retail sales90%64% 96% 97% 81%88% 65% 94% 95% 83%
Wholesale and other sales10%36% 4% 3% 19%12% 35% 6% 5% 17%
Total sales100%100% 100% 100% 100%100% 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.
(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 primary metals, chemicals, food and beverage and transportation.
(d)Primary general service sectors include retail, financial, health care and education services. Primary industrial sectors include metals, transportation, building materials, food and beverage and chemicals.
The number of residential and general service customers within the Electric Utilities and Infrastructure service territory is expected to increase over time. While economic conditions within the service territory continue to improve, sales growth has been hampered by continued adoption of energy efficiencies and self-generation. The continued adoption of more efficient housing and appliances is expected to have a negative impact on average usage per residential customer over time. While residential sales increased in 20162017 compared to 2015,2016, the growth rate was modest when compared to historical periods.
Seasonality and the Impact of Weather
Revenues and costs are influenced by seasonal weather patterns. Peak sales of electricity occur during the summer and winter months, which results in higher revenue and cash flows during these periods. By contrast, lower sales of electricity occur during the spring and fall, allowing for scheduled plant maintenance. Residential and general service customers are more impacted by weather than industrial customers. 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 based on the temperature variances from a normal condition and customers’ historic usage patterns. The methodology used to estimate the impact of weather does not consider all variables that may impact customer response to weather conditions such as humidity in the summer or wind chill in the winter. The precision of this estimate may also be impacted by applying long-term weather trends to shorter-term periods.
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 each degree of temperature above the base temperature counts as one cooling-degree day.

PART I

Competition
Retail
Electric Utilities and Infrastructure’s 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. Electric Utilities and Infrastructure 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 the development and deployment of alternative energy sources including on-site generation from industrial customers and distributed generation, such as private solar, at residential, general service and/or industrial customer sites.
Duke Energy is not aware of any proposed legislation within any of its jurisdictions that would provide retail customers the right to choose their electricity provider or otherwise restructure or deregulate the electric industry, including broadly subsidizing distributed generation such as private solar.
Although there is no pending legislation at this time, if the retail jurisdictions served by Electric Utilities and Infrastructure become subject to deregulation, the recovery of stranded costs could become a significant consideration. Stranded costs primarily include the generation assets of Electric Utilities and Infrastructure whose value in a competitive marketplace may be less than their current book value, as well as above-market purchased power commitments from 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.

10


PART I

Electric Utilities and Infrastructure’s largest stranded cost exposure is primarily related to Duke Energy Florida’s purchased power commitments with QFs, under which it has future minimum expected capacity payments through 2043 of $2.8$2.4 billion. Duke Energy Florida was obligated to enter into these contracts under provisions of PURPA. 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. For additional information related to these purchased power commitments, see Note 5 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Commitments and Contingencies.”
In Ohio, Electric Utilities and Infrastructure conducts competitive auctions for electricity supply. The cost of energy purchased through these auctions is recovered from retail customers. Electric Utilities and Infrastructure earns retail margin in Ohio on the transmission and distribution of electricity and not on the cost of the underlying energy.
Wholesale
Duke Energy competes with other utilities and merchant generators for bulk power sales, sales to municipalities and cooperatives and wholesale transactions under primarily cost-based contracts approved by FERC. 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 Electric Utilities and Infrastructure’s 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 Electric Utilities and Infrastructure to attract new customers and to retain existing customers.
Energy Capacity and Resources
Electric Utilities and Infrastructure owns approximately 49,30049,506 megawatts (MW) of generation capacity. For additional information on owned generation facilities, see Item 2, “Properties.”

Energy and capacity are also supplied through contracts with other generators and purchased on the open market. Factors that could cause Electric Utilities and Infrastructure to purchase power for its customers may include, but are not limited to, generating plant outages, extreme weather conditions, generation reliability, demand growth and price. Electric Utilities and Infrastructure 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.
Electric Utilities and Infrastructure’s 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.
Potential 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 earlier than their current estimated useful lives, primarily because these facilities do not have the requisite emission control equipment to meet United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations recently approved or proposed. 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. For additional information related to potential plant retirements, see Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters.”

PART I

On October 23, 2015, the EPA published in the Federal Register the final Clean Power Plan (CPP) rule that regulates carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired electric generating units (EGUs). The CPP establishes CO2 emission rates and mass cap goals that apply to existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs. Petitions challenging the rule have beenwere filed by several groups. Ongroups and on February 9, 2016, the Supreme Court issued a stay of the final CPP rule, halting implementation of the CPP until legal challenges are resolved. States in which the Duke Energy Registrants operate have suspended work on the CPP compliance plans as a result ofin response to the stay. Oral arguments before 10 of the 11 judges on D.C. Circuit Court were heard on September 27, 2016. The court is expected to decidehas not issued its opinion in the case in early 2017.case.
ComplianceOn March 28, 2017, President Trump signed an executive order directing EPA to review the CPP and determine whether to suspend, revise or rescind the rule. On the same day, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a motion with the D.C. Circuit Court requesting that the court stay the litigation of the rule while it is reviewed by EPA. On April 28, 2017, the court issued an order to suspend the litigation for 60 days. On August 8, 2017, the court, on its own motion, extended the suspension of the litigation for an additional 60 days. On October 16, 2017, EPA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) to repeal the CPP based on a change to EPA’s legal interpretation of the section of the Clean Air Act (CAA) on which the CPP was based. In the proposal, EPA indicates that it has not determined whether it will issue a rule to replace the CPP, and if it will do so, when and what form that rule will take. The comment period on EPA's NPR ends April 26, 2018. On December 28, 2017 EPA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in which it seeks public comment on various aspects of a potential CPP replacement rule. The comment period on the ANPRM ends February 26, 2018. If EPA decides to move forward with a CPP replacement rule, it will need to issue a formal proposal for public comment. Litigation of the CPP remains on hold in the D.C. Circuit and the February 2016 U.S. Supreme Court stay of the CPP remains in effect.

11


PART I

Should the CPP be upheld, compliance could cause the industry to replace coal-fired generation with natural gas and renewables. Costs to operate coal-fired generation plants continue to grow due to increasing environmental compliance requirements, including ash management costs unrelated to CPP, which may result in the retirement of coal-fired generation plants earlier than the current end of useful lives. If the CPP is ultimately upheld by the courts and implementation goes forward, theThe Duke Energy Registrants could incur increased fuel, purchased power, operation and maintenance and other costs for replacement generation as a result of this rule. Due to the uncertainties related to the implementation of the CPP, the Duke Energy Registrants cannot predict the outcome of these matters.
Sources of Electricity
Electric Utilities and Infrastructure relies principally on coal, nuclear fuel and natural gas for its generation of electricity. The following table lists sources of electricity and fuel costs for the three years ended December 31, 2016.2017.
  Cost of Delivered Fuel per Net  Cost of Delivered Fuel per Net
Generation by Source Kilowatt-hour Generated (Cents)Generation by Source Kilowatt-hour Generated (Cents)
2016
 2015
 2014
 2016
 2015
 2014
2017
 2016
 2015
 2017
 2016
 2015
Coal(a)
27.1% 29.0% 33.5% 3.07
 3.24
 3.54
27.4% 27.1% 29.0% 2.72
 3.07
 3.24
Nuclear(a)
27.4% 27.0% 26.1% 0.66
 0.65
 0.65
27.8% 27.4% 27.0% 0.69
 0.66
 0.65
Natural gas and oil(a)
22.9% 23.1% 19.0% 3.07
 3.74
 4.70
23.6% 22.9% 23.1% 2.85
 3.07
 3.74
All fuels (cost-based on weighted average)(a)
77.4% 79.1% 78.6% 2.22
 2.50
 2.86
78.8% 77.4% 79.1% 2.04
 2.22
 2.50
Hydroelectric and solar(b)
0.7% 0.8% 0.8%      0.7% 0.7% 0.8%      
Total generation78.1% 79.9% 79.4%      79.5% 78.1% 79.9%      
Purchased power and net interchange21.9% 20.1% 20.6%      20.5% 21.9% 20.1%      
Total sources of energy100.0% 100.0% 100.0%      100.0% 100.0% 100.0%      
(a)Statistics related to all fuels reflect Electric Utilities and Infrastructure's ownership interest in jointly owned generation facilities.
(b)Generating figures are net of output required to replenish pumped storage facilities during off-peak periods. 
Coal
Electric Utilities and Infrastructure 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. Electric Utilities and Infrastructure uses spot market purchases to meet 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 20172018 to 20192020 for Duke Energy Carolinas, 20172018 to 20192020 for Duke Energy Progress, 20172018 to 20192020 for Duke Energy Florida, 20172018 to 2020 for Duke Energy Ohio and 20172018 to 2025 for Duke Energy Indiana. Electric Utilities and Infrastructure 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 Colorado and the Illinois Basin. Coal purchased for Kentucky is delivered by barge and is produced from mines along the Ohio River in Illinois, Ohio, West Virginia and Pennsylvania. Coal purchased for Indiana is primarily produced in Indiana and Illinois. Electric Utilities and Infrastructure has an adequate supply of coal under contract to meet its hedging guidelines regarding projected future consumption. As a result of volatility in natural gas prices and the associated impacts on coal-fired dispatch within the generation fleet, coal inventories will continue to fluctuate. Electric Utilities and Infrastructure continues to actively manage its portfolio and has worked with suppliers to obtain increased flexibility in its coal contracts.
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 Colorado and the Illinois Basin. Coal purchased for Kentucky is delivered by barge and is produced from mines along the Ohio River in Illinois, Ohio, West Virginia and Pennsylvania. Coal purchased for Indiana is primarily produced in Indiana and Illinois. The current average sulfur content of coal purchased by Electric Utilities and Infrastructure 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 3 percent for Duke Energy Florida, between 3 percent and 3.5 percent for Duke Energy Ohio and between 2.5 percent and 3 percent for Duke Energy Indiana. Electric Utilities and Infrastructure's environmental controls, in combination with the use of sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission allowances, enable Electric Utilities and Infrastructure to satisfy current SO2emission 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.

PART I

Electric Utilities and Infrastructure 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. Electric Utilities and Infrastructure staggers its contracting so that its portfolio of long-term contracts covers the majority of its fuel requirements in 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 technical complexities of changing suppliers of fuel fabrication services, Electric Utilities and Infrastructure generally sources these services to a single domestic supplier on a plant-by-plant basis using multi-yearmultiyear contracts.
Electric Utilities and Infrastructure has entered into fuel contracts that cover 100 percent of its uranium concentrates, conversion services and enrichment services requirements through at least 20172018 and cover fabrication services requirements for these plants through at least 2019.2027. For future requirements not already covered under long-term contracts, Electric Utilities and Infrastructure believes it will be able to renew contracts as they expire or enter into similar contractual arrangements with other suppliers of nuclear fuel materials and services.

12


PART I

Natural Gas and Fuel Oil
Natural gas and fuel oil supply, transportation and storage for Electric Utilities and Infrastructure’s generation fleet is purchased under standard industry agreements from various suppliers, including Piedmont. Natural gas supply agreements typically provide for a percentage of forecasted burns being procured over time, with varied expiration dates. Electric Utilities and Infrastructure believes it has access to an adequate supply of natural gas and fuel oil for the reasonably foreseeable future.
Electric Utilities and Infrastructure has certain dual-fuel generating facilities that can operate utilizing both natural gas and fuel oil. The cost of Electric Utilities and Infrastructure’s natural gas and fuel oil is fixed price or determined by published market prices as reported in certain industry publications, plus any transportation and freight costs. Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Florida and Duke Energy Indiana use derivative instruments to manage a portion of their exposure to price fluctuations for natural gas. For Duke Energy Florida, there is currently an agreed to moratorium on future hedging with the Florida Public Service Commission.
Electric Utilities and Infrastructure has firm interstate and intrastate natural gas transportation agreements and storage agreements in place to support generation needed for load requirements. Electric Utilities and Infrastructure may purchase additional shorter-term natural gas transportation and utilize natural gas interruptible transportation agreements to support generation needed for load requirements. The Electric Utilities and Infrastructure natural gas plants are served by various supply zones and multiple pipelines.
Purchased Power
Electric Utilities and Infrastructure purchases a portion of its capacity and system requirements through purchase obligations, leases and purchase capacity contracts. Electric Utilities and Infrastructure believes it can obtain adequate purchased power capacity to meet future system load needs. However, during periods of high demand, the price and availability of purchased power may be significantly affected.
The following table summarizes purchased power for the previous three years:
2016
 2015
 2014
2017
 2016
 2015
Purchase obligations and leases (in millions of megawatt-hours (MWh))(a)
18
 14.9
 14.3
17.7
 18.0
 14.9
Purchase capacity under contract (in MW)(b)
4,588
 4,573
 4,500
4,028
 4,588
 4,573
(a)Represents approximately 7 percent of total system requirements for 2017 and 2016 and 6 percent for 2015 and 2014.2015.
(b)    These agreements include approximately 451 MW of firm capacity under contract by Duke Energy Florida with QFs.
Inventory
Generation of electricity is capital intensive. Electric Utilities and Infrastructure must maintain an adequate stock of fuel and materials and supplies in order to ensure continuous operation of generating facilities and reliable delivery to customers. As of December 31, 2016,2017, the inventory balance for Electric Utilities and Infrastructure was approximately $3.4$3.1 billion. For additional information on inventory, see Note 1 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Summary of Significant Accounting Policies.”
Ash Basin Management
On September 20, 2014, theThe North Carolina Coal Ash Management Act of 2014 (Coal Ash Act) became law and was amended on June 24, 2015, and July 14, 2016. The Coal Ash Act, as amended, regulates the handling of coal ash within the state and requires closure of ash impoundments by no later than December 31, 2029, based on risk rankings, among other detailed requirements. The Coal Ash Act leaves the decision on cost recovery determinations related to closure of coal ash surface impoundments (ash basins or impoundments) to the normal ratemaking processes before utility regulatory commissions. Duke Energy has and will periodically submit to applicable authorities required site-specific coal ash impoundment remediation or closure plans. These plans and all associated permits must be approved before any work can begin.
On April 17, 2015, the EPA published in the Federal Register a rule to regulate the disposal of coal combustion residuals (CCR) from electric utilities as solid waste. The rule classifies CCR as nonhazardous under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The EPA CCR rule has certain requirements, which if not met could initiate impoundment closure and require closure completion within five years. The EPA CCR rule includes extension requirements, which if met could allow the extension of closure completion by up to 10 years. The RCRA and the Coal Ash Act as amended, finalized the legal framework related to coal ash management practices and ash basin closure.
Duke Energy has advanced the strategy and implementation for the remediation or closure of coal ash basins. In 2015, Duke Energy began activities at certain North Carolina sites specified as high riskpriority by the Coal Ash Act, including moving coal ash off-site for use in structural fill or to lined landfills. Additional modifications to operating coal plants are underway to comply with the Coal Ash Act and RCRA.
Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress have included compliance costs associated with the EPA CCR rule and the Coal Ash Act in their respective rate case filings. During 2017, Duke Energy Carolinas' and Duke Energy Progress’ wholesale contracts were amended to include the recovery of expenditures related to asset retirement obligations for the closure of coal ash basins. The amended contracts have retail disallowance parity or provisions limiting challenges to CCR cost recovery actions at FERC. FERC approved the amended wholesale rate schedules in 2017. For additional information on the ash basins and recovery, see Notes 4, 5 and 9 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Regulatory Matters," "Commitments and Contingencies" and "Asset Retirement Obligations," respectively.

13


PART I

Nuclear Matters
Duke Energy owns, wholly or partially, 11 operating nuclear reactors located at six stations. The Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Plant (Crystal River Unit 3) permanently ceased operation in February 2013. Nuclear insurance includes: nuclear liability coverage; property damage coverage; nuclear accident decontamination and premature decommissioning coverage; and replacement power expense coverage.accidental outage coverage for losses in the event of a major accidental outage. Joint owners reimburse Duke Energy 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 is approximately $13.4 billion. For additional information on nuclear insurance see Note 5 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Commitments and Contingencies.”
Duke Energy 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 Duke Energy 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. Decommissioning costs in the table below are stated in 2013 or 2014 dollars, depending the year of the cost study, and include costs to decommission plant components not subject to radioactive contamination.
NDTF(a)
   
NDTF(a)
 Decommissioning
 
(in millions)December 31, 2016
 December 31, 2015
 
Decommissioning Costs(a)(b)

 Year of Cost StudyDecember 31, 2017
 December 31, 2016
 
Costs(a)(b)

 Year of Cost Study
Duke Energy$6,205
 $5,825
 $8,150
 2013 and 2014$7,097
 $6,205
 $8,150
 2013 and 2014
Duke Energy Carolinas3,273
 3,050
 3,420
 20133,772
 3,273
 3,420
 2013
Duke Energy Progress2,217
 2,035
 3,550
 20142,588
 2,217
 3,550
 2014
Duke Energy Florida(c)
715
 740
 1,180
 2013736
 715
 1,180
 2013
(a)    Amounts for Progress Energy equal the sum of Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida.
(b)Amounts include 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)Duke Energy Florida received reimbursements formfrom the NDTF for costs related to ongoing decommissioning activity of Crystal River Unit 3 during 2016.3.
The NCUC, PSCSC, FPSC and FERC have allowed Electric Utilities and Infrastructure to recover estimated decommissioning costs through retail and wholesale rates over the expected remaining service periods of their nuclear stations. Electric Utilities and Infrastructure believes the decommissioning costs being recovered through rates, when coupled with the existing fund balancebalances and expected fund earnings, will be sufficient 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 federal government of interim storage and permanent disposal facilities for high-level radioactive waste materials. The NWPA promotes increased usage of interimgovernment has not yet developed a storage of spent nuclear fuel at existing nuclear plants.facility or disposal capacity, so Electric Utilities and Infrastructure will continue to maximize the use ofstore spent fuel storage capability withinon its own facilities for as long as feasible.reactor sites.
Under federal law, the U.S. Department of Energy (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 inThe DOE terminated the DOE’s proposed permanentproject to license and develop a geologic repository to be located at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. At this time, DOE's focusNevada in 2010, and is on developing consolidated storage for commercialcurrently taking no action to fulfill its responsibilities to dispose of spent nuclear fuel at one or more central sites rather than at a permanent repository.fuel.
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. Under current regulatory guidelines, Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant (Harris) has sufficient storage capacity in its spent fuel pools through the expiration of its renewed operating license. Crystal River Unit 3 was retiredceased operation in 2013 and was placed in a SAFSTOR prior to final decommissioning. Thecondition in January 2018. As of January 2018, all spent fuel is currently stored inat Crystal River Unit 3 has been transferred from the spent fuel pool. Anpool to dry storage at an on-site independent spent fuel storage installation where it will be installed to accommodate storage of all the spent nuclear fuelstored until the DOE accepts the spent nuclear fuel.removes it. With certain modifications and approvals by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to expand the on-site dry cask storage facilities, spent nuclear fuel dry storage facilities will be sufficient to provide storage space of spent fuel through the expiration of the operating licenses, including any license renewals, for the Brunswick Nuclear Plant (Brunswick), Catawba Nuclear Station (Catawba), McGuire Nuclear Station (McGuire), Oconee Nuclear Station (Oconee) and Robinson Nuclear Plant (Robinson).
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.construction.

14


PART I

Electric Utilities and Infrastructure is subject to the jurisdiction of the NRC for the design, construction and operation of its nuclear generating facilities. The following table includes the current year of expiration of nuclear operating licenses for nuclear stations in operation. Nuclear operating licenses are potentially subject to extension.
UnitYear of Expiration
Duke Energy Carolinas 
Catawba UnitUnits 1 &and 22043
McGuire Unit 12041
McGuire Unit 22043
Oconee UnitUnits 1 &and 22033
Oconee Unit 32034
Duke Energy Progress 
Brunswick Unit 12036
Brunswick Unit 22034
Harris2046
Robinson2030
Duke Energy FloridaThe NRC has requestedacknowledged permanent cessation of operation and permanent removal of fuel from the NRC to terminate thereactor vessel at Crystal River Unit 3 operating3. Therefore, the license as Crystal River Unit 3 permanently ceasedno longer authorizes operation in February 2013.of the reactor. For additional information on decommissioning activity, see Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Regulatory Matters."
On October 27, 2016, and December 15, 2016, the NRC issued combined operating licenses for Duke Energy Florida's proposed Levy Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 (Levy) and Duke Energy Carolinas' William States Lee III Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2, respectively. On August 25, 2017, as part of Duke Energy Carolinas rate case filing, Duke Energy Carolinas requested NCUC approval to cancel the development of the Lee Nuclear Station project with the intent to maintain the combined operating licenses. On August 29, 2017, Duke Energy announced the complete abandonment of the Levy project with the intent to terminate the combined operating licenses. For additional information on these proposed nuclear plants, see Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "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 intelligence, military, law enforcement and emergency response functions at the federal, state and local levels. 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
State
The NCUC, PSCSC, FPSC, PUCO, IURC and KPSC (collectively, the state electric utility commissions) approve rates for Duke Energy's retail electric service within their respective states. The state electric utility commissions, to varying degrees, have authority over the construction and operation of Electric Utilities and Infrastructure’s generating facilities. Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity issued by the state electric utility commissions, as applicable, authorize Electric Utilities and Infrastructure to construct and operate its electric facilities and to sell electricity to retail and wholesale customers. Prior approval from the relevant state electric utility commission is required for the entities within Electric Utilities and Infrastructure 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.
In addition to rates approved in base rate cases, each of the state electric 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.
Fuel, fuel-related costs and certain purchased power costs are eligible for recovery by Electric Utilities and Infrastructure. Electric Utilities and Infrastructure uses coal, hydroelectric, natural gas, oil, renewable generation 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 Electric Utilities and Infrastructure, 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 Electric Utilities and Infrastructure.
On December 8, 2016, the PSCSC approved Duke Energy Progress' 2016 South Carolina
15


PART I

The table below reflects significant electric rate case authorizing an increase of approximately $56 million in revenues over a two-year period. An increase of approximately $38 million in revenues was effective January 1, 2017, and an additional increase of approximately $18.5 million in revenues will be effective January 1, 2018. Duke Energy Progress will amortize approximately $18.5 million from the cost of removal reserve in 2017. Other terms include a rate of return on equity of 10.1 percent, recovery of coal ash costs incurred from January 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016, over a 15-year period and ongoing deferral of allocated ash basin closure costs from July 1, 2016, until the next base rate case. This represents the only base rate caseapplications approved and effective in the past three years.years or applications currently pending approval.
  AnnualReturnEquity 
 RegulatoryIncreaseonComponent ofEffective
 Body(in millions)EquityCapital StructureDate
Approved Rate Cases:     
Duke Energy Progress 2016 South Carolina Rate Case(a)
PSCSC(a)
10.1%53%1/1/2017
      
Pending Rate Cases:     
Duke Energy Carolinas 2017 North Carolina Rate CaseNCUC$647
10.75%53%
5/1/2018(d)
Duke Energy Progress 2017 North Carolina Rate Case(b)
NCUC85
9.9%52%
2/1/2018(d)
Duke Energy Progress 2017 North Carolina Rate Case(c)
NCUC221
9.9%52%
2/1/2018(d)
Duke Energy Kentucky 2017 Kentucky Rate CaseKPSC49
10.3%49%
4/15/2018(d)
Duke Energy Ohio 2017 Ohio Rate CasePUCO15
10.4%50.75%
1/1/2018(d)
(a)An increase of approximately $38 million in revenues was effective January 1, 2017, and an additional increase of approximately $18.5 million in revenues was effective January 1, 2018. Duke Energy Progress amortized approximately $18.5 million from the cost of removal reserve in 2017.
(b)On November 22, 2017, Duke Energy Progress and the North Carolina Public Staff filed an Agreement and Stipulation of Partial Settlement resolving certain portions of the proceeding, pending NCUC approval.
(c)Represents portions in the original 2017 rate case application not covered by the Agreement and Stipulation of Partial Settlement.
(d)Represents the requested effective dates in the filings. Actual effective dates may differ based on orders from the respective commission.
For more information on rate matters and other regulatory proceedings, see Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters.”
Federal
The FERC approves Electric Utilities and Infrastructure’s cost-based rates for electric sales to certain power and transmission wholesale customers. Regulations of FERC and the state electric utility commissions govern access to regulated electric and other data by nonregulated entities and services provided between regulated and nonregulated energy affiliates. These regulations affect the activities of nonregulated affiliates with Electric Utilities and Infrastructure.

PART I

Regional Transmission Organizations (RTO). PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM) and Midcontinent Independent 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 control the day-to-day operations of bulk power systems through central dispatch.
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,regionwide, open-access basis using the transmission facilities of the RTO members at rates based on the costs of transmission service.
Environmental. Electric Utilities and Infrastructure is subject to the jurisdiction of the EPA and state and local environmental agencies. For a discussion of environmental regulation, see “Environmental Matters” in this section. See “Other Matters” section of MD&A 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.
GAS UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Gas Utilities and Infrastructure conducts natural gas operations primarily through the regulated public utilities of Piedmont and Duke Energy Ohio. The natural gas operations are subject to the rules and regulations of the NCUC, PSCSC, PUCO, KPSC, Tennessee Regulatory Authority (TRA)Public Utility Commission (TPUC), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and the FERC. Gas Utilities and Infrastructure serves residential, commercial, industrial and power generation natural gas customers. Gas Utilities and Infrastructure has over 1.5 million customers, including more than 1 million customers located in North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee, and an additional 529,000526,000 customers located within southwestern Ohio and northern Kentucky. In the Carolinas, Ohio and Kentucky, the service areas are comprised of numerous cities, towns and communities. In Tennessee, the service area is the metropolitan area of Nashville.
The number of residential, commercial and industrial customers within the Gas Utilities and Infrastructure service territory is expected to increase over time. Average usage per residential customer is expected to remain flat or decline for the foreseeable future, however decoupled rates in North Carolina and various rate design mechanisms in other jurisdictions to partially mitigate the impact of the declining usage per customer trend on overall profitability. While total industrial and general service sales increased in 20162017 when compared to 2015,2016, the growth rate was modest when compared to historical periods.
Gas Utilities and Infrastructure also owns, operates and has investments in various pipeline transmission and natural gas storage facilities.

16


PART I

Natural Gas for Retail Distribution
Gas Utilities and Infrastructure is responsible for the distribution of natural gas to retail customers in its North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Ohio and Kentucky service territories. Gas Utilities and Infrastructure’s natural gas procurement strategy is to contract primarily with major and independent producers and marketers for natural gas supply. It also purchases a diverse portfolio of transportation and storage service from interstate pipelines. This strategy allows Gas Utilities and Infrastructure to assure reliable natural gas supply and transportation for its firm customers during peak winter conditions. When firm pipeline services or contracted natural gas supplies are temporarily not needed due to market demand fluctuations, Gas Utilities and Infrastructure may release these services and supplies in the secondary market under FERC-approved capacity release provisions or make wholesale secondary market sales. In 2016,2017, firm supply purchase commitment agreements provided approximately 86100 percent of the natural gas supply for Piedmont and 53100 percent for Duke Energy Ohio.
Seasonality and the Impact of Weather
Gas Utilities and Infrastructure's costs and revenues are influenced by seasonal patterns due to peak natural gas sales occurring during the winter months. Residential customers are the most impacted by weather. There are certain regulatory mechanisms for the North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee service territories that normalize the margins collected from certain customer classes during the winter, providing for an adjustment either up or down. In North Carolina, rate design provides protection from both weather and other usage variations such as conservation, whileconservation. In South Carolina and Tennessee, revenues are adjusted solely based on weather.weather during the periods of November through March and October through April, respectively. Rate design for the Ohio service territory also mitigates the impacts of weather on customer bills. 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.
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. The methodology used to estimate the applicable impact of weather does not consider all variables that may impact customer response to weather conditions, such as wind chill. The precision of this estimate may also be impacted by applying long-term weather trends to shorter-term periods.
Competition
Gas Utilities and Infrastructure’s businesses operate as the sole supplier of natural gas within their retail service territories, with the exception of Ohio, which has a competitive natural gas supply market for distribution service. Gas Utilities and Infrastructure owns and operates facilities necessary to transport and distribute natural gas. Gas Utilities and Infrastructure earns retail margin on the transmission and distribution of natural gas and not on the cost of the underlying commodity. 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 natural gas service at fair prices.

PART I

In residential, commercial and industrial customer markets, natural gas distribution operations compete with other companies that supply energy, primarily electric companies, propane and fuel oil dealers, renewable energy providers and coal companies in relation to sources of energy for electric power plants, as well as nuclear energy. A significant competitive factor is price. Gas Utilities and Infrastructure's primary product competition is with electricity for heating, water heating and cooking. Increases in the price of natural gas or decreases in the price of other energy sources could negatively impact competitive position by decreasing the price benefits of natural gas to the consumer. In the case of industrial customers, such as manufacturing plants, adverse economic or market conditions, including higher natural gas costs, could cause these customers to suspend business operations or to use alternative sources of energy in favor of energy sources with lower per-unit costs.
Higher natural gas costs or decreases in the price of other energy sources may allow competition from alternative energy sources for applications that have traditionally used natural gas, encouraging some customers to move away from natural gas-fired equipment to equipment fueled by other energy sources. Competition between natural gas and other forms of energy is also based on efficiency, performance, reliability, safety and other non-price factors. Technological improvements in other energy sources and events that impair the public perception of the non-price attributes of natural gas could erode our competitive advantage. These factors in turn could decrease the demand for natural gas, impair our ability to attract new customers and cause existing customers to switch to other forms of energy or to bypass our systems in favor of alternative competitive sources. This could result in slow or no customer growth and could cause customers to reduce or cease using our product, thereby reducing our ability to make capital expenditures and otherwise grow our business, and adversely affecting our earnings.
Pipeline and Storage Investments
Duke Energy, through its Gas Utilities and Infrastructure segment, is a 47 percent equity member of Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC (ACP) that plans to build and own the proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP Pipeline), an approximately 600-mile interstate natural gas pipeline.pipeline, regulated by FERC. Prior to the Piedmont acquisition, Duke Energy owned a 40 percent equity ownership in ACP. The ACP pipeline is intended to transport diverse natural gas supplies into southeastern markets. Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Piedmont, among others, will be customers of the ACP pipeline. The estimatedtargeted in-service date of the pipeline is in the second half oflate 2019.
Gas Utilities and Infrastructure also has a 7.5 percent equity ownership interest in Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC (Sabal Trail). Sabal Trail is a joint venture that is constructingowns a 515-mile natural gas pipeline (Sabal Trail pipeline) to transport natural gas to Florida.Florida, regulated by FERC. The Sabal Trail pipeline has received regulatory approvalsphase one mainline was placed into service in July 2017 and initiated construction oftraverses Alabama, Georgia and Florida. A request to place in-service a lateral line to the pipelineDuke Energy Florida's Citrus County Combined Cycle facility is pending with an expected in-service date in mid-2017. TheFERC. Current legal challenges to the Sabal Trail pipeline will traverse Alabama, Georgia and Florida.
As a resultare ongoing, which may have an impact on continuing operations of the Piedmont acquisition, Duke Energy, through its pipeline.
Gas Utilities and Infrastructure segment, has a 21.49 percent equity ownership interest in Cardinal Pipeline Company, LLC (Cardinal), an intrastate pipeline located in North Carolina regulated by the NCUC, and a 24 percent equity ownership interest in Constitution Pipeline Company, LLC (Constitution), an interstate pipeline development company formed to develop, construct, own and operate a 124-mile natural gas pipeline and related facilities connecting shale natural gas supplies and gathering systems in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania, to Iroquois Gas Transmission and Tennessee Gas Pipeline systems in New York, regulated by the FERC. As a result of permitting delays and project uncertainty, Constitution is unable to approximate an in-service date.
Duke Energy, as
17


PART I

As a result of the Piedmont acquisition, alsoDuke Energy, through its Gas Utilities and Infrastructure segment, has a 21.49 percent equity ownership interest in Cardinal Pipeline Company, LLC (Cardinal), an intrastate pipeline located in North Carolina regulated by the NCUC, a 45 percent equity ownership in Pine Needle LNG Company, LLC (Pine Needle), an interstate liquefied natural gas storage facility located in North Carolina and a 50 percent equity ownership interest in Hardy Storage Company, LLC (Hardy Storage), an underground interstate natural gas storage facility located in Hardy and Hampshire counties in West Virginia, bothVirginia. Pine Needle and Hardy Storage are regulated by the FERC.
KO Transmission Company (KO Transmission), a wholly owned subsidiary of Duke Energy Ohio, is an interstate pipeline company engaged in the business of transporting natural gas and is subject to the rules and regulations of FERC. KO Transmission's 90-mile pipeline supplies natural gas to Duke Energy Ohio and interconnects with the Columbia Gulf Transmission pipeline and Tennessee Gas Pipeline. An approximately 70-mile portion of KO Transmission's pipeline facilities is co-owned by Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation.
See Notes 4, 12 and 17 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Regulatory Matters," "Investments in Unconsolidated Affiliates" and "Variable Interest Entities," respectively, for further information on Duke Energy's pipeline investments.
Inventory
Gas Utilities and Infrastructure must maintain adequate natural gas inventory in order to provide reliable delivery to customers. As of December 31, 20162017, the inventory balance for Gas Utilities and Infrastructure was $108$106 million. For more information on inventory, see Note 1 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Summary of Significant Accounting Policies."
Regulation
State
The NCUC, PSCSC, PUCO, TRATPUC and KPSC (collectively, the state gas utility commissions) approve rates for Duke Energy's retail natural gas service within their respective states. The state gas utility commissions, to varying degrees, have authority over the construction and operation of Gas Utilities and Infrastructure’s natural gas distribution facilities. Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity or Certificates of Environmental Compatibility and Public Necessity issued by the state gas utility commissions or other government agencies, as applicable, authorize Gas Utilities and Infrastructure to construct and operate its natural gas distribution facilities and to sell natural gas to retail and wholesale customers. Prior approval from the relevant state gas utility commission is required for Gas Utilities and Infrastructure 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 a reasonable rate of return on its invested capital, including equity.
In addition to amounts collected from customers though approved base rates, each of the state gas 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.

PART I

Natural gas costs are eligible for recovery by Gas Utilities and Infrastructure. Due to the associated regulatory treatment and the method allowed for recovery, changes in natural gas costs from year to year have no material impact on operating results of Gas Utilities and Infrastructure, unless a commission finds a portion of such costs to have not been prudent. However, delays between the expenditure for natural gas and recovery from customers can adversely impact the timing of cash flows of Gas Utilities and Infrastructure.
The following table summarizes certain components underlying recently approved and effective base rates during 2016.or rate stabilization filings in the last three years.
Annual
 Return
 Equity
 Annual
 Return
 Equity
 
Increase
 on
 Component of
 Increase
 on
 Component of
 
(in millions)
 Equity
 Capital Structure
 Effective Date(in millions)
 Equity
 Capital Structure
 Effective Date
Piedmont 2013 North Carolina Rate Case$31
 10.0% 50.7% January 2014
Piedmont 2016 South Carolina Rate Stabilization Adjustment Filing(a)
8
 10.2% 53.0% November 20168
 10.2% 53.0% November 2016
Piedmont 2017 South Carolina Rate Stabilization Adjustment Filing(a)
6
 10.2% 53.0% November 2017
(a)Under the rate stabilization adjustment mechanism, Piedmont resets rates in South Carolina based on updated costs and revenues on an annual basis.
Gas Utilities and Infrastructure has integrity management rider (IMR) mechanisms in North Carolina and Tennessee designed to separately track and recover certain costs associated with capital investments incurred to comply with federal pipeline safety and integrity programs, as well as additional state safety and integrity requirements in Tennessee. The following table summarizes information related to recently approved or pending IMR filings.
 Cumulative
Annual Margin
Effective
(in millions)Investment
Revenues
Date
Piedmont 2016 IMR Filing - North Carolina(a)
$513
$56
December 2016
Piedmont 2016 IMR Filing - Tennessee(b)(c)
173
21
January 2016
 Cumulative
 Annual Margin
 Effective
(in millions)Investment
 Revenues
 Date
Piedmont 2017 IMR Filing – North Carolina(a)
$738
 $77
 December 2017
Piedmont 2016 IMR Filing – Tennessee(b)
193
 23
 January 2017
      
Pending Filing:    Proposed Effective Date
Piedmont 2017 IMR Filing – Tennessee(c)
$231
 $23.4
 January 2018

18


PART I

(a)    Cumulative investment amounts through September 30, 2016.2017.
(b)    Cumulative investment amounts through October 31, 2015.2016.
(c)In November 2016, Piedmont filed a petition with the TRA seeking authority to collect an additional $1.7 million in annual margin revenue effective January 2017 based on approximately $20 million of capital investments over the twelve month period endingCumulative investment amounts through October 31, 2016.2017. A ruling from the TRATPUC is pending.
For more information on rate matters and other regulatory proceedings, see Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters.”
Federal
Gas Utilities and Infrastructure is subject to various federal regulations, including regulations that are particular to the natural gas industry. These federal regulations include but are not limited to the following:
Regulations of the FERC affect the certification and siting of new interstate natural gas pipeline projects, the purchase and sale of, the prices paid for, and the terms and conditions of service for the interstate transportation and storage of natural gas.
Regulations of the U.S. Department of TransportationPHMSA affect the design, construction, operation, maintenance, integrity, safety and security of natural gas distribution and transmission systems.
Regulations of the EPA relate to the environment including proposed air emissions regulations that would expand to include emissions of methane. For a discussion of environmental regulation, see “Environmental Matters” in this section. Refer to “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.
Regulations of FERC and the state gas utility commissions govern access to regulated natural gas and other data by nonregulated entities and services provided between regulated and nonregulated energy affiliates. These regulations affect the activities of nonregulated affiliates with Gas Utilities and Infrastructure.
COMMERCIAL RENEWABLES
Commercial Renewables primarily acquires, builds, develops and operates wind and solar renewable generation throughout the continental U.S. The portfolio includes nonregulated renewable energy and energy storage businesses.
Commercial Renewables' renewable energy includes utility-scale wind and solar generation assets, which total 2,9002,907 MW across 14 states from 21 wind farmsfacilities and 63 commercial solar farms.facilities. Revenues are primarily generated by selling the power produced from renewable generation through long-term contracts to utilities, electric cooperatives, municipalities and commercial and industrial customers. In most instances, these customers 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. In addition, as eligible wind and solar projects are placed in service, Commercial Renewables recognizes either investment tax credits (ITC)(ITCs) when the renewable solar or wind project achieves commercial availability or production tax credits (PTC) as power is generated by the projectwind projects over 10 years. Renewable ITCITCs are recognized over the useful life of the asset as a reduction to depreciation expense with the benefit of the tax basis adjustment due to the ITC recognized in income in the year of commercial availability.

PART I

As part of its growth strategy, Commercial Renewables has expanded its investment portfolio through the addition of distributed solar companies and projects, energy storage systems and energy management solutions specifically tailored to commercial businesses. These investments include the 2015 acquisition of a controlling interest in REC Solar Corp., a California-based provider of solar installations for retail, manufacturing, agriculture, technology, government and nonprofit customers across the U.S. and Phoenix Energy Technologies Inc., a California-based provider of enterprise energy management and information software to commercial businesses. In 2017, Duke Energy acquired the remaining interest in REC Solar.
For additional information on Commercial Renewables' generation facilities, see Item 2, “Properties.”
Regulation
Commercial Renewables is subject to regulation at the federal level, primarily from the FERC. Regulations of the FERC govern access to regulated market information by nonregulated entities and services provided between regulated and nonregulated utilities.
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 Renewables' main competitors include other nonregulated generators and wholesale power providers.
Sources of Electricity
Commercial Renewables 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 certainon holding company debt, unallocated corporate costs including costs to achieve strategic acquisitions, amounts related to certain companywide initiatives and contributions made to the Duke Energy Foundation. Other also includes Bison Insurance Company Limited (Bison), contributions to the and an investment in NMC.

19


PART I

The Duke Energy Foundation Duke Energy's 25 percent equity interest in NMC and immaterial investments in businessesis a nonprofit organization funded by Duke Energy has retained from previous divestituresshareholders that are no longer part of its current operating segments.makes charitable contributions to selected nonprofits and government subdivisions.
Bison, is a wholly owned captive insurance subsidiary of Duke Energy, is a captive insurance company with the principal activities that include theactivity of providing Duke Energy subsidiaries with indemnification of various business risks andfor financial losses such asprimarily related to property, workers’ compensation and general liability of Duke Energy subsidiaries and affiliates.liability.
NMC is a joint venture that operates in Jubail, Saudi Arabia, as a large regional producer of methanol and methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), an additive to gasoline. Duke Energy has an effective economic ownership interestIn 2017, NMC produced approximately 934,000 metric tons of methanol and approximately 1,087,000 metric tons of MTBE. Approximately 40 percent of methanol is normally used in NMC of 25 percent and records activity of the investment using the equity method of accounting.MTBE production. Upon the successful startup of NMC's polyacetal production facility which is expected to occur induring the secondfourth quarter of 2017, Duke Energy’s economicEnergy's ownership interest in NMC will decreasedecreased from 25 percent to 17.5 percent whilepercent. Duke Energy will retainrecords the investment activity of NMC using the equity method of accounting and retains 25 percent of the NMC's board of directors representation and voting rights.
Regulation
Certain entities within Other are subject to the jurisdiction of federal, state and local agencies.
Employees
On December 31, 2016,2017, Duke Energy had a total of 28,79829,060 employees on its payroll. The total includes 5,5095,483 employees who are represented by labor unions under various collective bargaining agreements that generally cover wages, benefits, working practices, and other terms and conditions of employment.

PART I

Executive Officers of the Registrants
The following table sets forth the individuals who currently serve as executive officers. Executive officers serve until their successors are duly elected or appointed.
Name 
Age(a)
 Current and Recent Positions Held
Lynn J. Good 5758
 
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer. Ms. Good was elected as Chairman of the Board, effective January 1, 2016, and assumed her position as President and Chief Executive Officer in July 2013. Prior to that, she served as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer since 2009.
Steven K. Young 5859
 
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Mr. Young assumed his current position in August 2013. Prior to that, he had served as Senior Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer and Controller since April 2006.
Douglas F Esamann 5960
 
Executive Vice President, Energy Solutions and President, Midwest and Florida Regions. Mr. Esamann assumed his current position in September 2016 and was Executive Vice President and President, Midwest and Florida Regions since June 2015. Prior to that, he was President, Duke Energy Indiana since November 2010.
Lloyd M. Yates 5657
 
Executive Vice President, Customer and Delivery Operations and President, Carolinas Region. Mr. Yates assumed his current position in September 2016 and was Executive Vice President, Market Solutions and President, Carolinas Region since 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 was President and Chief Executive Officer of Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc., which is now known as Duke Energy Progress, LLC.LLC since July 2007.
Dhiaa M. Jamil 6061
 
Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer. Mr. Jamil assumed the role of Chief Operating Officer in May 2016. Prior to his current position, he had held the title Executive Vice President and President, Regulated Generation and Transmission since June 2015. Prior to that, he had served as Executive Vice President and President, Regulated Generation since August 2014. He served as Executive Vice President and President of Duke Energy Nuclear from March 2013 to August 2014, and Chief Nuclear Officer from February 2008 to February 2013. He also served as Chief Generation Officer for Duke Energy from July 2009 to June 2012.
Franklin H. Yoho 5758
 
Executive Vice President and President, Natural Gas. Mr. Yoho assumed his current position in October 2016 upon the acquisition of Piedmont by Duke Energy. Prior to this appointment, he served as Senior Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer of Piedmont since August 2011. Prior to that, he served as Senior Vice President-CommercialPresident, Commercial Operations since March 2002.
Julia S. Janson 5253
 
Executive Vice President, External Affairs, Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary. Ms. Janson assumed her current position in December 2012 and, in February 2016,May 2017, assumed the interim responsibilities for the External Affairs and Strategic Policy organization. Prior to that, she had held the position of President of Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky since 2008.
Melissa H. Anderson 5253
 
Executive Vice President, Administration and Chief Human Resources Officer. Ms. Anderson assumed her position in May 2016 and had been Executive Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer since January 2015. Prior to joining Duke Energy, she served as Senior Vice President of Human Resources at Domtar Inc. since 2010.
William E. Currens Jr. 4748
 
Senior Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer and Controller. Mr. Currens assumed his current position in May 2016. Prior to that, he had held the position of Vice President, Investor Relations since 2008.2009.
(a)    The ages of the officers provided are as of December 31, 2016.2017.
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.

20


PART I

Environmental Matters
The Duke Energy Registrants are subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations with regard to air and water quality, hazardous and solid waste disposal and other environmental matters. Environmental laws and regulations affecting the Duke Energy Registrants include, but are not limited to:
The Clean Air Act (CAA), as well as state laws and regulations impacting air emissions, including State Implementation Plans related to existing and new national ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter. Owners and/or operators of air emission sources are responsible for obtaining permits and for annual compliance and reporting.
The Clean Water Act (CWA), which requires permits for facilities that discharge wastewaters into navigable waters.
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, which can require any individual or entity that currently owns or in the past owned or operated a disposal site, as well as transporters or generators of hazardous substances sent to a disposal site, to share in remediation costs.
The National Environmental Policy Act, which requires federal agencies to consider potential environmental impacts in their permitting and licensing decisions, including siting approvals.

PART I

Coal Ash Act, as amended, which establishes requirements regarding the use and closure of existing ash basins, the disposal of ash at active coal plants and the handling of surface water and groundwater water impacts from ash basins in North Carolina.
RCRA,The Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which creates thea framework for the proper management of hazardous and nonhazardous solid waste,waste; classifies CCR as nonhazardous wastewaste; and establishes requirements regardingstandards for landfill and surface impoundment placement, design, operation and managementclosure, groundwater monitoring, corrective action, and monitoring of CCR, including ash basins.post-closure care.
The Solid Waste DisposalToxic Substances Control Act as amended by(TSCA), which gives EPA the RCRA, which requires certain solid wastes,authority to require reporting, recordkeeping and testing requirements, and to place restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or mixtures, including hazardous wastes, to be managed pursuant to a comprehensive regulatory oversight program.polychlorinated biphenyls.
For more information on environmental matters, see Notes 5 and 9 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Commitments and Contingencies – Environmental” and "Asset Retirement Obligations," respectively, and the “Other Matters” section of MD&A. Except as otherwise described in these sections, costs to comply with current federal, state and local provisions regulating the discharge of materials into the environment or other potential costs related to protecting the environment are incorporated into the routine cost structure of our various business segments and are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the competitive position, consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position of the Duke Energy Registrants.
The "Other Matters" section of MD&A includes an estimate of future capital expenditures required to comply with environmental regulations and a discussion of Global Climate Change including the potential impact of current and future legislation related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on the Duke Energy Registrants' operations. Recently passed and potential future environmental statutes and regulations could have a significant impact on the Duke Energy Registrants’ results of operations, cash flows or financial position. However, if and when such statutes and regulations become effective, the Duke Energy Registrants will seek appropriate regulatory recovery of costs to comply within its regulated operations.
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS
 
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’ service area covers approximately 24,000 square miles and supplies electric service to 2.5 million residential, commercial and industrial customers. For information about Duke Energy Carolinas’ generating facilities, see Item 2, “Properties.” Duke Energy Carolinas is subject to the regulatory provisions of the NCUC, 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, Electric Utilities and Infrastructure. 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 primarily engaged in the regulated 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, Electric Utilities and Infrastructure. For additional information regarding this business segment, including financial information, see Note 3 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Business Segments.”
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS
 
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’ 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 facilities, see Item 2, “Properties.” Duke Energy Progress is subject to the regulatory provisions of the NCUC, PSCSC, NRC and FERC.

21


PART I

Substantially all of Duke Energy Progress’ operations are regulated and qualify for regulatory accounting. Duke Energy Progress operates one reportable business segment, Electric Utilities and Infrastructure. For additional information regarding this business segment, including financial information, see Note 3 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Business Segments.”
DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA
 
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’s service area covers approximately 13,000 square miles and supplies electric service to approximately 1.8 million residential, commercial and industrial customers. For information about Duke Energy Florida’s generating facilities, see Item 2, “Properties.” Duke Energy Florida is subject to the regulatory provisions of 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, Electric Utilities and Infrastructure. For additional information regarding this business segment, including financial information, see Note 3 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Business Segments.”

PART I

DUKE ENERGY OHIO
 
Duke Energy Ohio is a regulated public utility primarily engaged in the transmission and distribution of electricity in portions of Ohio and Kentucky, in the generation and sale of electricity in portions of Kentucky and the transportation and sale of natural gas in portions of Ohio and Kentucky. Duke Energy Ohio also conducts competitive auctions for retail electricity supply in Ohio whereby recovery of the energy price is from retail customers. Operations in Kentucky are conducted through its wholly owned subsidiary, Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc. (Duke Energy Kentucky). 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 PUCO, KPSC and FERC.
Duke Energy Ohio’s service area covers approximately 3,000 square miles and supplies electric service to approximately 850,000 residential, commercial and industrial customers and provides transmission and distribution services for natural gas to approximately 529,000 customers. For information about Duke Energy Ohio's generating facilities, see Item 2, “Properties.”
KO Transmission, a wholly owned subsidiary of Duke Energy Ohio, is an interstate pipeline company engaged in the business of transporting natural gas and is subject to the rules and regulations of FERC. KO Transmission's 90-mile pipeline supplies natural gas to Duke Energy Ohio and interconnects with the Columbia Gulf Transmission pipeline and Tennessee Gas Pipeline. An approximately 70-mile portion of KO Transmission's pipeline facilities is co-owned by Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation.
On April 2, 2015, Duke Energy completed the sale of its nonregulated Midwest generation business, which sold power into wholesale energy markets, to a subsidiary of Dynegy. For further information about the sale of the Midwest Generation business, refer to Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Acquisitions and Dispositions."
Substantially all of Duke Energy Ohio's operations that remain after the sale qualify for regulatory accounting.
Business Segments
Duke Energy Ohio has two reportable operating segments, Electric Utilities and Infrastructure and Gas Utilities and Infrastructure. For additional information on these business segments, including financial information, see Note 3 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Business Segments.”
DUKE ENERGY INDIANA
 
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’s service area covers 23,000 square miles and supplies electric service to 820,000 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 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, Electric Utilities and Infrastructure. For additional information regarding this business segment, including financial information, see Note 3 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Business Segments.”
PIEDMONT
Piedmont is a regulated public utility primarily engaged in the distribution of natural gas to over 1 million residential, commercial, industrial and power generation customers in portions of North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee, including customers served by municipalities who are wholesale customers. Piedmont is subject to the regulatory provisions of the NCUC, PSCSC, TPUC and FERC.
Substantially all of Piedmont’s operations are regulated and qualify for regulatory accounting. Piedmont operates one reportable business segment, Gas Utilities and Infrastructure. For additional information regarding this business segment, including financial information, see Note 3 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Business Segments.”

22


PART I

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS
 
In addition to other disclosures within this Form 10-K, including "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Matters Impacting Future Results" for each registrant in Item 7, and other documents filed with the SEC from time to time, 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 Duke Energy Registrants. Risks identified at the Subsidiary Registrant level are generally applicable to Duke Energy.
Business Strategy Risks
Duke Energy’s future results could be adversely affected if it is unable to implement its business strategy.
Duke Energy’s future results of operations depend, in significant part, on the extent to which it can implement its business strategy successfully. Duke Energy's strategy, including transforming the customer experience, modernizing the energy grid, generating cleaner energy, expansion of natural gas infrastructure, modernizing the regulatory construct and engaging employees and stakeholders to accomplish these priorities, is subject to business, economic and competitive uncertainties and contingencies, many of which are beyond its control. As a consequence, Duke Energy may not be able to fully implement or realize the anticipated results of its strategy.

PART I

Regulatory, Legislative and Legal Risks
The Duke Energy Registrants’ regulated utility revenues, earnings and results are dependent on state legislation and regulation that affect electric generation, electric and natural gas transmission, distribution and related activities, which may limit their ability to recover costs.
The Duke Energy Registrants’ regulated electric and natural gas 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, Tennessee, Indiana and Kentucky. If the Duke Energy Registrants’ regulated utility earnings exceed the returns established by the state utility commissions, retail electric and natural gas rates may be subject to review and possible reduction by the commissions, which may decrease the Duke Energy Registrants’ 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 structures were to evolve in such a way that the Duke Energy Registrants’ exclusive rights to serve their regulated customers were eroded, their future earnings could be negatively impacted. Federal and state regulations, laws and other efforts designed to promote and expand the use of energy efficiency measures and distributed generation technologies, such as private solar and battery storage, in Duke Energy service territories could result in customers leaving the electric distribution system and an increase in customer net energy metering, which allows customers with private solar to receive bill credits for surplus power at the full retail amount. Over time, customer adoption of these technologies and increased energy efficiency could result in excess generation resources as well as stranded costs if Duke Energy is not able to fully recover the costs and investment in generation.
State regulators have approved various mechanisms to stabilize natural gas utility margins, including margin decoupling in North Carolina, rate stabilization in South Carolina and uncollectible natural gas cost recovery in all states. State regulators have approved other margin stabilizing mechanisms that, for example, allow for recovery of margin losses associated with negotiated transactions designed to retain large volume customers that could use alternative fuels or that may otherwise directly access natural gas supply through their own connection to an interstate pipeline. If regulators decided to discontinue the Duke Energy Registrants' use of tariff mechanisms, it would negatively impact results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. In addition, regulatory authorities also review whether natural gas costs are prudent and can disallow the recovery of a portion of natural gas costs that the Duke Energy Registrants seek to recover from customers, which would adversely impact earnings.
The electric rates that the Duke Energy Registrants’ regulated utility businesses are allowed to charge are established by state utility commissions in rate case proceedings, which may limit their ability to recover costs and earn an appropriate return on investment.
The rates that the Duke Energy Registrants’ regulated utility business are allowed to charge significantly influences the results of operations, financial position and liquidity of the Duke Energy Registrants. The regulation of the rates that the regulated utility businesses charge customers is determined, in large part, by state utility commissions in rate case proceedings. Negative decisions made by these regulators could have a material adverse effect on the Duke Energy Registrants’ results of operations, financial position or liquidity and affect the ability of the Duke Energy Registrants to recover costs and an appropriate return on the significant infrastructure investments being made. Duke Energy cannot predict the outcome of these rate case proceedings.
Deregulation or restructuring in the electric industry may result in increased competition and unrecovered costs that could adversely affect the Duke Energy Registrants’ financial position, results of operations or cash flows and their utility businesses.
Increased competition resulting from deregulation or restructuring legislation could have a significant adverse impact on the Duke Energy Registrants’ results of operations, financial position or cash flows. Retail competition and the unbundling of regulated electric service could have a significant adverse financial impact on the Duke Energy Registrants due to an impairment of assets, a loss of retail customers, lower profit margins or increased costs of capital. The Duke Energy Registrants cannot predict the extent and timing of entry by additional competitors into the electric 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 impact of these changes on their financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

23


PART I

The Duke Energy Registrants’ businesses are subject to extensive federal regulation and a wide variety of laws and governmental policies, including taxes, that may change over time in ways that affect operations and costs.
Duke Energy is subject to regulations under a wide variety of U.S. federal and state regulations and policies. There can be no assurance that laws, regulations and policies will not be changed in ways that result in material modifications of business models and objectives or affect returns on investment by restricting activities and products, subjecting them to escalating costs or prohibiting them outright. In particular, a substantial revision
On December 22, 2017, President Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Acts (the Tax Act) into law which, among other provisions, reduces the maximum federal corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent and limits interest deductions outside of regulated utility operations effective January 1, 2018. The resulting revaluation of existing deferred tax assets and liabilities to the U.S. tax code, such as changes to thelower federal corporate tax rate were recognized in Duke Energy’s December 31, 2017, financial statements. Guidance issued by the SEC indicates that additional adjustments for items that were estimated may be recorded during 2018 if new information becomes available. The Tax Act also could be amended or a materialsubject to technical correction, which could change the financial impacts that were recorded at December 31, 2017, or are expected to be recorded in future periods. The FERC and state utility commissions will determine the deductibilityregulatory treatment of interest could significantly changethe impacts of the Tax Act. Duke Energy's effective tax rate, the cost of capital and have an impact onEnergy’s future results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.flows could be adversely impacted by the Tax Act, subsequent amendments or corrections, or the actions of the FERC, state utility commissions or credit rating agencies related to the Tax Act.
The Duke Energy Registrants are subject to regulation by FERC, NRC, EPA and various other federal agencies as well as the North American Electric Reliability Corporation. Regulation affects almost every aspect of the Duke Energy Registrants’ businesses, including, among other things, their ability to: take fundamental business management actions; determine the terms and rates 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 Duke 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. However, changes in regulation can cause delays in or affect business planning and transactions and can substantially increase the Duke Energy Registrants’ costs.

PART I

The Duke Energy Registrants are subject to numerous environmental laws and regulations requiring significant capital expenditures that can increase the cost of operations, and which may impact or limit business plans, or cause exposure to environmental liabilities.
The Duke Energy Registrants are subject to numerous environmental laws and regulations affecting many aspects of their present and future operations, including CCRs, air emissions, water quality, wastewater discharges, solid waste and hazardous waste. These laws and regulations can result in increased capital, operating and other costs. These laws and regulations generally require the Duke Energy Registrants to obtain and comply with a wide variety of environmental licenses, permits, inspections and other approvals. Compliance with environmental laws and regulations can require significant expenditures, including expenditures for cleanup costs and damages arising from contaminated properties. Failure to comply with environmental regulations may result in the imposition of fines, penalties and injunctive 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 rate 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 the costs to comply with current environmental regulations will have 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 the 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 CO2 emissions. These regulations may require the Duke Energy Registrants to make additional capital expenditures and increase operating and maintenance costs.
The Duke Energy Registrants' operations, capital expenditures and financial results may be affected by regulatory changes related to the impacts of global climate change.
There is continued concern, both nationally and internationally, about climate change. Although there is no federal climate change legislation, in 2016, the United States signed the Paris Agreement on climate change by which the signatories agreed to pursue efforts to limit the increase in the global average temperature by less than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. If the United States honors the Paris accord, theThe EPA may adopt and implement regulations to further restrict emissions of GHGs. Increased regulation of GHG emissions could impose significant additional costs on the Duke Energy Registrants' operations, their suppliers and customers. Regulatory changes could also result in generation facilities to be retired early and result in stranded costs if Duke Energy is not able to fully recover the costs and investment in generation. At this time, the effect that climate change regulation may have in the future on Duke Energy's business, financial condition or results of operations is not able to be predicted.

24


PART I

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 operations. Declines in demand for electricity or natural gas as a result of economic downturns in the Duke Energy Registrants’ regulated service territories will reduce overall sales and lessen cash flows, especially as industrial customers reduce production and, therefore, consumption of electricity and the use of natural gas. Although the Duke Energy Registrants’ regulated electric and natural gas businesses are subject to regulated allowable rates of return and recovery of certain costs, such as fuel and purchased natural gas costs, under periodic adjustment clauses, overall declines in electricity or natural gas 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 guaranteed 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 and natural gas are as follows:
weather conditions, including abnormally mild winter or summer weather that cause lower energy or natural gas usage for heating or cooling purposes, as applicable, and periods of low rainfall that decrease the ability to operate 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 natural gas plants, and customer usage of energy-efficient equipment that reduces energy demand;
natural gas, crude oil and refined products production levels and prices;

PART I

ability to procure satisfactory levels of inventory, such as coal, natural gas and uranium; and
capacity and transmission service into, or out of, the Duke Energy Registrants’ markets.
Duke Energy’s acquisition of Piedmont may not achieve its intended results.
Duke Energy and Piedmont completed the merger agreement with the expectation that the transaction will result in various benefits, including, among other things, being accretive to earnings and foundational to establishing a broader natural gas infrastructure business within Duke Energy. Achieving the anticipated benefits of the transaction is subject to a number of uncertainties, including whether the business of Piedmont is integrated in an efficient and effective manner. Failure to achieve these anticipated benefits could result in increased costs, decreases in the amount of expected revenues generated by the combined company and diversion of management’s time and energy, all of which could have an adverse effect on the combined company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
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.
The reputation and financial condition of the Duke Energy Registrants could be negatively impacted due to their obligations to comply with federal and state regulations, laws, and other legal requirements that govern the operations, assessments, storage, closure, remediation, disposal and monitoring relating to CCR, the high costs and new rate impacts associated with implementing these new CCR-related requirements and the strategies and methods necessary to implement these requirements in compliance with these legal obligations.
As a result of electricity produced for decades at coal-fired power plants, the Duke Energy Registrants manage large amounts of CCR that are primarily stored in dry storage within landfills or combined with water in other surface impoundments, all in compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. However, the potential exists for another CCR-related incident, such as the one that occurred during the 2014 Dan River Steam Station ash basin release, that could raise environmental or general public health concerns. Such a CCR-related incident could have a material adverse impact on the reputation and financial condition of the Duke Energy Registrants.
During 2015, EPA regulations were enacted related to the management of CCR from power plants. These regulations classify CCR as nonhazardous waste under the RCRA and apply to electric generating sites with 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, protection and remedial procedures and other operational and reporting procedures for the disposal and management of CCR. In addition to the federal regulations, CCR landfills and surface impoundments will continue to be independently regulated by existing state laws, regulations and permits, as well as additional legal requirements that may be imposed in the future. These federal and state laws, regulations and other legal requirements may require or result in additional expenditures, increased operating and maintenance costs and/or result in closure of certain power generating facilities, which could affect the financial position, results of operations and cash flows of the Duke Energy Registrants. The Duke Energy Registrants intend to seek full cost recovery for expenditures through the normal ratemaking process with state and federal utility commissions, who permit recovery in rates of necessary and prudently incurred costs associated with the Duke Energy Registrants’ regulated operations, and through other wholesale contracts with terms that contemplate recovery of such costs, although there is no guarantee of full cost recovery. In addition, the timing for recovery of such costs could have a material adverse impact on Duke Energy's cash flows.

25


PART I

The Duke Energy Registrants have recognized significant asset retirement obligations related to these CCR-related requirements. Closure activities began in 2015 at the four sites specified as high priority by the Coal Ash Act and at the W.S. Lee Steam Station site in South Carolina in connection with other legal requirements. Excavation at these sites involves movement of large amounts of CCR materials to off-site locations for use as structural fill, to appropriate engineered off-site or onsiteon-site lined landfills or conversion of the ash for beneficial use. At other sites, preliminary planning and closure methods have been studied and factored into the estimated retirement and management costs. The Coal Ash Act requires CCR surface impoundments in North Carolina to be closed, with the closure method and timing based on a risk ranking classification determined by legislation or state regulators. Additionally, the RCRA required closure timing depends upon meeting or continuing to meet certain criteria. As the closure and CCR management work progresses and final closure plans and corrective action measures are developed and approved at each site, the scope and complexity of work and the amount of CCR material could be greater than estimates and could, therefore, materially increase compliance expenditures and rate impacts.
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 natural gas 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,microturbines, 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.

PART I

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 significant capital investments and expenditures, which could have a material adverse effect on their financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
Furthermore, 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, Indiana, Ohio and Kentucky. Should the Duke Energy Registrants be required to invest in conservation measures that result in reduced sales from effective conservation, regulatory lag in adjusting rates for the impact of these measures could have a negative financial impact.
The Duke Energy Registrants’ operating results may fluctuate on a seasonal and quarterly basis and can be negatively affected by changes in weather conditions and severe weather, including extreme weather conditions associated with climate change.
Electric power generation and natural gas distribution are generally seasonal businesses. In most parts of the U.S., the demand for power peaks during the warmer summer months, with market prices also typically peaking at that time. In other areas, demand for power peaks during the winter. Demand for natural gas peaks during the winter months. Further, extreme weather conditions such as heat waves, winter storms and severe weather associated with climate change could cause these seasonal fluctuations to be more pronounced. As a result, the overall operating results of the Duke Energy Registrants’ businesses may fluctuate substantially on a seasonal and quarterly basis and thus make period-to-period comparison less relevant.
Sustained severe drought conditions could impact generation by hydroelectric plants, as well as 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. The cost of storm restoration efforts may not be fully recoverable through the regulatory process.
The Duke Energy Registrants’ sales may decrease if they are unable to gain adequate, reliable and affordable access to transmission assets.
The Duke Energy Registrants depend on transmission and distribution facilities owned and operated by utilities and other energy companies to deliver electricity sold to the wholesale market. The FERC’s power transmission regulations require wholesale electric transmission services to be 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 performance in these regions. In addition, the ISOs 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 Duke Energy Registrants’ wholesale power marketing business.

26


PART I

Duke Energy may be unable to complete necessary or desirable pipeline expansion or infrastructure development or maintenance projects, which may delay or prevent the Duke Energy Registrants from serving natural gas customers or expanding the natural gas business.
In order to serve current or new natural gas customers or expand the service to existing customers, the Duke Energy Registrants need to maintain, expand or upgrade distribution, transmission and/or storage infrastructure, including laying new pipeline and building compressor stations. Duke Energy Registrants have made significant investments in a number of pipeline development projects, which are being operated and constructed by third party joint venture partners. Various factors, such as the inability to obtain required approval from local, state and/or federal regulatory and governmental bodies, public opposition to projects, inability to obtain adequate financing, competition for labor and materials, construction delays, cost overruns and the inability to negotiate acceptable agreements relating to rights of way, construction or other material development components, may prevent or delay the completion of projects or increase costs. As a result, the Duke Energy Registrants may be unable to adequately serve existing natural gas customers or support customer growth or could incur higher than anticipated costs, which could have a negative financial impact.
The availability of adequate interstate pipeline transportation capacity and natural gas supply may decrease.
The Duke Energy Registrants purchase almost all of their natural gas supply from interstate sources that must be transported to the applicable service territories. Interstate pipeline companies transport the natural gas to the Duke Energy Registrants' systems under firm service agreements that are designed to meet the requirements of their core markets. A significant disruption to interstate pipelines capacity or reduction in natural gas supply due to events including, but not limited to, operational failures or disruptions, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, freeze off of natural gas wells, terrorist or cyberattacks or other acts of war or legislative or regulatory actions or requirements, including remediation related to integrity inspections, could reduce the normal interstate supply of natural gas and thereby reduce earnings. Moreover, if additional natural gas infrastructure, including, but not limited to, exploration and drilling rigs and platforms, processing and gathering systems, off-shore pipelines, interstate pipelines and storage, cannot be built at a pace that meets demand, then growth opportunities could be limited and earnings negatively impacted.
Fluctuations in commodity prices or availability may adversely affect various aspects of the Duke Energy Registrants’ operations as well as their financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
The 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 as a result of their ownership of energy-related assets. Fuel costs are recovered primarily through cost-recovery clauses, subject to the approval of state utility commissions.

PART I

Additionally, the Duke Energy Registrants are exposed to risk that counterparties will not be able to fulfill 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' ability to operate their facilities. Should counterparties fail to perform, the Duke Energy Registrants might be forced to replace the underlying commitment at prevailing market prices possibly resulting in losses in addition to the amounts, if any, already paid to the counterparties.
Certain of the Duke Energy Registrants’ hedge agreements may result in the receipt of, or posting of, derivative collateral with counterparties, depending on the daily derivative position. Fluctuations in commodity prices that lead to the return of collateral received and/or the posting of collateral with counterparties negatively impact liquidity. Downgrades in the Duke Energy Registrants’ credit ratings could lead to additional collateral posting requirements. The Duke Energy Registrants continually monitor derivative positions in relation to market price activity.
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 prices for natural 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. 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.

27


PART I

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 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 increase. 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 and new skills required to operate a modernized, technology-enabled power grid. If the Duke Energy Registrants are unable to successfully attract and retain an appropriately qualified workforce, their financial position, results of operations or cash flows could be negatively affected.
The costs of retiring Duke Energy Florida’s Crystal River Unit 3 could prove to be more extensive than is currently identified.
Costs to retire and decommission the plant could exceed estimates and, if not recoverable through the regulatory process, could adversely affect Duke Energy’s, Progress Energy’s and Duke Energy Florida’s financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
Duke Energy Ohio’s and Duke Energy Indiana’s membership in an RTO presents risks that 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 Duke Energy Ohio and 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.

The Duke Energy Registrants may not recover costs incurred to begin construction on projects that are canceled.
PART IDuke Energy’s long-term strategy requires the construction of new projects, either wholly owned or partially owned, which involve a number of risks, including construction delays, nonperformance by equipment and other third party suppliers, and increases in equipment and labor costs. To limit the risks of these construction projects, the Duke Energy Registrants enter into equipment purchase orders and construction contracts and incur engineering and design service costs in advance of receiving necessary regulatory approvals and/or siting or environmental permits. If any of these projects are canceled for any reason, including failure to receive necessary regulatory approvals and/or siting or environmental permits, significant cancellation penalties under the equipment purchase orders and construction contracts could occur.  In addition, if any construction work or investments have been recorded as an asset, an impairment may need to be recorded in the event the project is canceled.

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.
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 current or past 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 or shut down a unit 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 outside 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,third party, could necessitate substantial capital and other expenditures, as well as assessments to cover third-party losses. In addition, if a serious nuclear incident were to occur, it could have a material adverse effect on the results of operations, financial condition, cash flows and reputation of the Duke Energy Registrants.

28


PART I

Liquidity, Capital Requirements and Common Stock Risks
The Duke Energy Registrants rely on access to short-term borrowings and longer-term capitaldebt and equity 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 significantly financed through issuances of debt.debt and equity. The maturity and repayment profile of debt used to finance investments often does not correlate to cash flows from their assets. Accordingly, as a source of liquidity for capital requirements not satisfied by the cash flows 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 capitaldebt or equity 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 capitaldebt and equity 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, unfavorable capital market conditions, market prices for electricity and natural 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.
Duke 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 Duke 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, they would be required under credit agreements to provide collateral in the form of letters of credit or cash, which may materially adversely affect their liquidity.
Each of the Duke Energy Registrants’ senior long-term debt issuances is currently rated investment grade by various rating agencies. The Duke Energy Registrants cannot ensure their senior long-term debt will be rated investment grade in the future.
If the rating agencies were to rate the Duke Energy Registrants below investment grade, borrowing costs would 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 the commercial paper market could be significantly limited.
A downgrade below investment grade could also require the posting of additional collateral 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 material effect on their financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
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 agreements contain various financial and other covenants. Failure to meet those covenants beyond applicable grace periods could result in accelerated due dates and/or termination of the agreements.

PART I

Market performance and other changes may decrease the value of the NDTF investments of Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and 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. Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida have significant obligations in this area and hold significant assets in these trusts. These assets are subject to market fluctuations and will yield uncertain returns, which may fall below projected rates of return. Although a number of factors impact funding requirements, a decline in the market value of the assets may increase the funding requirements of the obligations for decommissioning nuclear plants. If Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida are unable to successfully manage their NDTF assets, their financial condition, results of operations and cash flows could be negatively affected.

29


PART I

Poor investment performance of the Duke Energy pension plan holdings and other factors impacting pension plan costs could unfavorably impact the Duke Energy Registrants’ liquidity and results of operations.
The costs of providing non-contributory defined benefit pension plans are dependent upon a number of factors, such as the 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 funding obligations, and the Subsidiary Registrants’ proportionate share of such cash funding obligations, could have a material impact on the Duke Energy Registrants’ financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
Duke Energy is a holding company and depends on the cash flows from its subsidiaries to meet its financial obligations.
Because Duke Energy is a holding company with no operations or cash flows of its own, its ability to meet its financial obligations, including making interest and principal payments on outstanding indebtedness and to pay dividends on its common stock, is primarily dependent on the net income and cash flows of its subsidiaries and the ability of those subsidiaries to pay upstream dividends or to repay borrowed funds. Prior to funding Duke Energy, its subsidiaries have regulatory restrictions and financial obligations that must be satisfied. These subsidiaries are separate legal entities and have no obligation to provide Duke Energy with funds. In addition, Duke Energy may provide capital contributions or debt financing to its subsidiaries under certain circumstances, which would reduce the funds available to meet its financial obligations, including making interest and principal payments on outstanding indebtedness and to pay dividends on Duke Energy’s common stock.
ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS
 
None.

30


PART I

ITEM 2. PROPERTIES
 
ELECTRIC UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
The following table provides information related to the Electric Utilities and Infrastructure's generation stations as of December 31, 2016.2017. The MW displayed in the table below are based on summer capacity. Ownership interest in all facilities is 100 percent unless otherwise indicated.
    Owned MW
FacilityPlant TypePrimary FuelLocationCapacity
Duke Energy Carolinas    
OconeeNuclearUraniumSC2,554
McGuireNuclearUraniumNC2,316
Catawba(a)
NuclearUraniumSC441445
Belews CreekFossilCoalNC2,220
MarshallFossilCoalNC2,0782,058
J.E. Rogers FossilCoalNC1,3961,388
Lincoln Combustion Turbine (CT)FossilGas/OilNC1,2671,193
AllenFossilCoalNC1,1271,098
Rockingham CTFossilGas/OilNC825
Buck Combined Cycle (CC)FossilGasNC668
Dan River CCFossilGasNC651662
Mill Creek CTFossilGas/OilSC596563
W.S. LeeFossilGasSC170
W.S. Lee CTFossilGas/OilSC8284
Bad CreekHydroWaterSC1,360
JocasseeHydroWaterSC780
Cowans FordHydroWaterNC325324
KeoweeHydroWaterSC152
Other small facilities (25 plants)HydroWaterNC/SC666669
Distributed generationRenewableSolarNC1139
Total Duke Energy Carolinas   19,68519,568
    Owned MW
FacilityPlant TypePrimary FuelLocationCapacity
Duke Energy Progress    
BrunswickNuclearUraniumNC1,870
HarrisNuclearUraniumNC928
RobinsonNuclearUraniumSC741
RoxboroFossilCoalNC2,439
Smith CCFossilGas/OilNC1,0881,073
H.F. Lee CCFossilGas/OilNC910888
Wayne County CTFossilGas/OilNC863857
Smith CTFossilGas/OilNC780772
Darlington CTFossilGas/OilSC735664
MayoFossilCoalNC727
L.V. Sutton CCFossilGas/OilNC622607
AshevilleFossilCoalNC378
Asheville CTFossilGas/OilNC324320
Weatherspoon CTFossilGas/OilNC128124
L.V. Sutton CT (Black Start)FossilGas/OilNC6180
Blewett CTFossilOilNC52
WaltersHydroWaterNC112
Other small facilities (3(three plants)HydroWaterNC115
Distributed generationRenewableSolarNC62
Total Duke Energy Progress   12,93512,809

31


PART I

    Owned MW
FacilityPlant TypePrimary FuelLocationCapacity
Duke Energy Florida    
Crystal RiverFossilCoalFL2,2912,188
Hines CCFossilGas/OilFL1,9122,032
Bartow CCFossilGas/OilFL1,1051,080
AncloteFossilGasFL1,0411,013
Intercession City CTFossilGas/OilFL984951
Osprey CCFossilGas/OilFL582
DeBary CTFossilGas/OilFL583561
Tiger Bay CCFossilGas/OilFL205200
Bartow CTFossilGas/OilFL175168
Bayboro CTFossilOilFL174171
Suwannee River CTFossilGasFL155149
Higgins CTFossilGas/OilFL114107
Avon Park CTFossilGas/OilFL5048
University of Florida CoGen CTFossilGasFL4647
Distributed generationRenewableSolarFL48
Total Duke Energy Florida   8,8399,305
    Owned MW
FacilityPlant TypePrimary FuelLocationCapacity
Duke Energy Ohio    
East BendFossilCoalKY600
Woodsdale CTFossilGas/PropaneOH462476
Beckjord Battery StorageRenewableStorageOH4
Total Duke Energy Ohio   1,0621,080
    Owned MW
FacilityPlant TypePrimary FuelLocationCapacity
Duke Energy Indiana    
Gibson(b)
FossilCoalIN2,822
Cayuga(c)
FossilCoal/OilIN1,005
EdwardsportFossilCoalIN595
Madison CTFossilGasOH576566
Vermillion CT(d)
FossilGasIN355360
Wheatland CTFossilGasIN460450
Noblesville CCFossilGas/OilIN285264
GallagherFossilCoalIN280
Henry County CTFossilGas/OilIN129
Cayuga CTFossilGas/OilIN9980
Connersville CTFossilOilIN8674
Miami Wabash CTFossilOilIN8064
MarklandHydroWaterIN45
Distributed generationRenewableSolarIN10
Total Duke Energy Indiana   6,8176,744

32


PART I

    Owned MW
Totals by Type   Capacity
Total Electric Utilities   49,33849,506
Totals By Plant Type    
Nuclear   8,8508,854
Fossil   36,85636,972
Hydro   3,5553,557
Renewable   77123
Total Electric Utilities   49,33849,506

PART I

(a)Jointly owned with North Carolina Municipal Power Agency Number 1, North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation and Piedmont Municipal Power Agency. Duke Energy Carolinas' ownership is 19.25 percent of the facility.
(b)Duke Energy Indiana owns and operates Gibson Station Units 1 through 4 and is a joint owner of unit 5 with Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc. (WVPA) and Indiana Municipal Power Agency. Duke Energy Indiana operates unit 5 and owns 50.05 percent.
(c)     Includes Cayuga Internal Combustion.
(d)    Jointly owned with WVPA. Duke Energy Indiana's ownership is 62.5 percent of the facility.
The following table provides information related to Electric Utilities and Infrastructure's electric transmission and distribution properties as of December 31, 2016.2017.
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
Duke
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
Carolinas
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Energy
Carolinas
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Electric Transmission Lines  
Miles of 500 to 525 kilovolt (kV)1,100
600
300
200


1,100
600
300
200


Miles of 345 kV1,700



1,000
700
1,700



1,000
700
Miles of 230 kV8,500
2,700
3,400
1,700

700
8,400
2,700
3,400
1,600

700
Miles of 100 to 161 kV12,500
6,800
2,600
1,000
700
1,400
12,300
6,800
2,500
900
700
1,400
Miles of 13 to 69 kV8,400
3,000

2,300
700
2,400
8,400
3,000

2,200
700
2,500
Total conductor miles of electric transmission lines32,200
13,100
6,300
5,200
2,400
5,200
31,900
13,100
6,200
4,900
2,400
5,300
Electric Distribution Lines  
Miles of overhead lines172,300
66,600
45,000
24,600
13,700
22,400
174,300
66,600
46,400
25,200
13,700
22,400
Miles of underground line96,400
37,100
24,600
20,000
5,900
8,800
102,800
37,800
29,400
20,800
5,900
8,900
Total conductor miles of electric distribution lines268,700
103,700
69,600
44,600
19,600
31,200
277,100
104,400
75,800
46,000
19,600
31,300
Number of electric transmission and distribution substations3,300
1,500
500
500
300
500
3,300
1,500
500
500
300
500
Substantially all of Electric Utilities and Infrastructure's electric plant in service is 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 First Mortgage Bonds.
GAS UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Gas Utilities and Infrastructure owns transmission pipelines and distribution mains that are generally underground, located near public streets and highways, or on property owned by others for which Duke Energy Ohio and Piedmont have obtained the necessary legal rights to place and operate facilities on such property located within the Gas Utilities and Infrastructure service territories. The following table provides information related to Gas Utilities and Infrastructure's natural gas distribution as of December 31, 2016.distribution.
  Duke
 Duke
Energy
 Energy
Ohio
Miles of gas distribution and transmission pipelines32,900
7,200
Miles of gas service lines26,600
6,200
  Duke
 
 Duke
Energy
 
 Energy
Ohio
Piedmont
Miles of natural gas distribution and transmission pipelines33,100
7,200
25,900
Miles of natural gas service lines27,400
6,900
20,500

33


PART I

COMMERCIAL RENEWABLES
The following table provides information related to Commercial Renewables' electric generation facilities as of December 31, 2016.2017. The MW displayed in the table below are based on summernameplate capacity. Ownership interest in all facilities is 100 percent unless otherwise indicated.
    Owned MW
FacilityPlant TypePrimary FuelLocationCapacity
Duke EnergyCommercial Renewables – Wind    
Los Vientos Windpower (five sites)RenewableWindTX912
Top of the WorldRenewableWindWY200
FrontierRenewableWindOK200
NotreesRenewableWindTX153
Campbell HillRenewableWindWY99
North AlleghenyRenewableWindPA70
Laurel Hill Wind EnergyRenewableWindPA69
OcotilloRenewableWindTX59
Kit CarsonRenewableWindCO51
Silver SageRenewableWindWY42
Happy JackRenewableWindWY29
ShirleyRenewableWindWI20
Sweetwater IV(a)
RenewableWindTX113
Sweetwater V(a)
RenewableWindTX38
Ironwood(a)
RenewableWindKS84
Cimarron II(a)
RenewableWindKS66
Mesquite Creek(a)
RenewableWindTX106
Total Renewables – Wind   2,311
Duke EnergyCommercial Renewables – Solar    
Conetoe IIRenewableSolarNC80
Seville I & IIRenewableSolarCA50
Rio Bravo I & IIRenewableSolarCA40
Wildwood I & IIRenewableSolarCA35
CaprockRenewableSolarNM25
KelfordRenewableSolarNC22
HighlanderRenewableSolarCA21
DogwoodRenewableSolarNC20
Halifax AirportRenewableSolarNC20
PasquotankRenewableSolarNC20
PumpjackRenewableSolarCA20
WildwoodRenewableSolarCA20
ShawboroRenewableSolarNC20
LongboatRenewableSolarCA20
BagdadRenewableSolarAZ15
TX SolarRenewableSolarTX14
Creswell AlligoodRenewableSolarNC14
VictoryRenewableSolarCO13
Washington White PostRenewableSolarNC12
WhitakersRenewableSolarNC12
Other small solarRenewableSolarVarious125123
Total Renewables – Solar   583596
Total Commercial Renewables   2,8942,907
(a) Commercial Renewables owns 47 percent of Sweetwater IV and V and 50 percent of Ironwood, Cimarron II and Mesquite Creek.
OTHER
Duke Energy owns approximately 8 million square feet and leases 2.3approximately 2 million square feet of corporate, regional and district office space spread throughout its service territories.
Duke Energy also owns a 25 percent equity interest in NMC. In 2016, NMC produced approximately 765,000 metric tons of methanol and approximately 974,000 metric tons of MTBE. Approximately 40 percent of methanol is normally used in the MTBE production.
34


PART I

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
 
For information regarding legal proceedings, including regulatory and environmental matters, see Note 4, “Regulatory Matters,” and Note 5, “Commitments and Contingencies,” to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
MTBE Litigation
On June 19, 2014, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania filed suit against, among others, Duke Energy Merchants, alleging contamination of “waters of the state” by MTBE from leaking gasoline storage tanks. MTBE is a gasoline additive intended to increase the oxygen level in gasoline and make it burn cleaner. The caselawsuit was moved to federal court and consolidated ininto an existing multidistrict litigation docket of pending MTBE cases. This suit was settled for an immaterial amount in December 2017.
In December 2017, the state of Maryland filed a lawsuit in Baltimore City Circuit Court against Duke Energy Merchants and other defendants alleging contamination of its water supplies from MTBE. Discovery inis underway. Duke Energy cannot predict the outcome of this case continues.matter.
ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES
 
This is not applicable for any of the Duke Energy Registrants.

35


PART II

 
ITEM 5. MARKET FOR REGISTRANT'S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES
 
The common stock of Duke Energy is listed and traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) (ticker symbol DUK). As of January 31, 2017,2018, there were 165,640166,271 Duke Energy common stockholders of record.
There is no market for common stock of the Subsidiary Registrants, all of which is owned by Duke Energy.
Common Stock Data by Quarter
The following chart provides Duke Energy common stock trading prices as reported on the NYSE and information on common stock dividends declared. Stock prices represent the intra-dayintraday high and low stock price.
Duke 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 Duke Energy Board of Directors.
Duke Energy’s operating subsidiaries have certain restrictions on their ability to transfer funds in the form of dividends or loans 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
 
See Item 12 of Part III within this Annual Report for information regarding Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans.
Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities for Fourth Quarter 20162017
 
There were no repurchases of equity securities during the fourth quarter of 2016.2017.

36


PART II

Stock Performance Graph
 
The following performance graph compares the cumulative total shareholder return from Duke Energy Corporation common stock, as compared with the Standard & Poor's 500 Stock Index (S&P 500) and the Philadelphia Utility Sector Index (Philadelphia Utility Index) for the past five years. The graph assumes an initial investment of $100 on December 31, 2011,2012, in Duke Energy common stock, in the S&P 500 and in the Philadelphia Utility Index and that all dividends were reinvested. The stockholder return shown below for the five-year historical period may not be indicative of future performance.
NYSE CEO Certification
 
Duke Energy has filed the certification of its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 as exhibits to this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016.2017.

37


PART II

ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA
 
The following table provides selected financial data for the years of 20122013 through 2016.2017. See also Item 7.
(in millions, except per-share amounts)2016
 
2015(a)

 
2014(a)

 
2013(a)

 
2012(a)

(in millions, except per share amounts)2017
 2016
 2015
 2014
 2013
Statement of Operations(b)(a)
                  
Total operating revenues$22,743
 $22,371
 $22,509
 $21,211
 $16,363
$23,565
 $22,743
 $22,371
 $22,509
 $21,211
Operating income5,341
 5,078
 4,842
 4,305
 2,403
5,781
 5,341
 5,078
 4,842
 4,305
Income from continuing operations2,578
 2,654
 2,538
 2,278
 1,289
3,070
 2,578
 2,654
 2,538
 2,278
(Loss) Income from discontinued operations, net of tax(408) 177
 (649) 398
 493
(6) (408) 177
 (649) 398
Net income2,170
 2,831
 1,889
 2,676
 1,782
3,064
 2,170
 2,831
 1,889
 2,676
Net income attributable to Duke Energy Corporation2,152
 2,816
 1,883
 2,665
 1,768
3,059
 2,152
 2,816
 1,883
 2,665
Common Stock Data                  
Income from continuing operations attributable to Duke Energy Corporation common stockholders(c)
                  
Basic$3.71
 $3.80
 $3.58
 $3.21
 $2.23
$4.37
 $3.71
 $3.80
 $3.58
 $3.21
Diluted3.71
 3.80
 3.58
 3.21
 2.23
4.37
 3.71
 3.80
 3.58
 3.21
(Loss) Income from discontinued operations attributable to Duke Energy Corporation common stockholders(c)
                  
Basic$(0.60) $0.25
 $(0.92) $0.56
 $0.84
$(0.01) $(0.60) $0.25
 $(0.92) $0.56
Diluted(0.60) 0.25
 (0.92) 0.55
 0.84
(0.01) (0.60) 0.25
 (0.92) 0.55
Net income attributable to Duke Energy Corporation common stockholders(c)
                  
Basic$3.11
 $4.05
 $2.66
 $3.77
 $3.07
$4.36
 $3.11
 $4.05
 $2.66
 $3.77
Diluted3.11
 4.05
 2.66
 3.76
 3.07
4.36
 3.11
 4.05
 2.66
 3.76
Dividends declared per share of common stock(c)
3.36
 3.24
 3.15
 3.09
 3.03
3.49
 3.36
 3.24
 3.15
 3.09
Balance Sheet                  
Total assets$132,761
 $121,156
 $120,557
 $114,779
 $113,856
$137,914
 $132,761
 $121,156
 $120,557
 $114,779
Long-Term debt including capital leases, less current maturities45,576
 36,842
 36,075
 37,065
 35,512
Long-term debt including capital leases, less current maturities49,035
 45,576
 36,842
 36,075
 37,065
(a)Prior year data has been recast to reflect the classification of the International Disposal Group as discontinued operations.
(b)Significant transactions reflected in the results above include: (i) the sale of the International Disposal Group in 2016, including a loss on sale recorded within discontinued operations (see Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Acquisitions and Dispositions”) (ii) the acquisition of Piedmont in 2016, including losses on interest rate swaps related to the acquisition financing (see Note 2); (iii) 2014 impairment related to the disposal of the Midwest Generation Disposal Group (see Note 2);Group; (iv) 2014 incremental tax expense resulting from the decision to repatriate all cumulative historical undistributed foreign earnings (see Note 22, "Income Taxes");earnings; (v) 2014 increase in the litigation reserve related to thea criminal investigation of the Dan River coal ash release (see Note 5, “Commitments and Contingencies”);release; (vi) 2013 pretax charges of $360 million related to Crystal River Unit 3 and nuclear development costs; and (vii) the 2012 merger with Progress Energy; (viii) costs to achieve mergers in 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013 and 2012; and (ix) 2012 pretax impairment and other charges related to the Edwardsport Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) project of $628 million.all periods.
(c)On July 2, 2012, immediately prior to the merger with Progress Energy, Duke Energy executed a one-for-three reverse stock split. All share and earnings per share amounts are presented as if the one-for-three reverse stock split had been effective at the beginning of the earliest period presented.

38


PART II

ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
 
Management’s Discussion and Analysis includes financial information prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) in the United States (U.S.), as well as certain non-GAAP financial measures such as adjusted earnings and adjusted earnings per share 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, LLC (Duke Energy Progress), Duke Energy Florida, LLC (Duke Energy Florida), Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. (Duke Energy Ohio) and, Duke Energy Indiana, LLC (Duke Energy Indiana) and Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc. (Piedmont). However, none of the registrants make any representation as to information related solely to Duke Energy or the subsidiary registrants of Duke Energy other than itself. Subsequent to Duke Energy's acquisition of Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc. (Piedmont) on October 3, 2016, Piedmont is a wholly owned subsidiary of Duke Energy. The financial information for Duke Energy includes results of Piedmont subsequent to October 3, 2016. See Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Acquisitions and Dispositions," for additional information regarding the acquisition.
DUKE ENERGY
Duke 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, Duke Energy Indiana and Piedmont. 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 Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 2015 and 2014.2015.
Executive Overview
Acquisition of Piedmont Natural Gas
On October 3, 2016, Duke Energy completed the acquisition of Piedmont,With our multiyear portfolio transition complete, we operated in 2017 as a North Carolina corporation primarily engaged indomestic, regulated natural gas distribution to residential, commercial, industrial and power generation customers in portions of North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee. Piedmont is also invested in joint-venture, energy-related businesses, including regulated interstate natural gas transportation and storage and regulated intrastate natural gas transportation. The acquisitionenergy infrastructure business. Our long-term view provides a foundation for Duke Energycompelling vision to establishadvance our strategy, leveraging scale and a broader,focused portfolio to deliver a reliable dividend with 4 to 6 percent earnings per share (EPS) growth during our five year planning horizon. We have made progress advancing our long-term strategicstrategy to invest in our growth drivers of cleaner energy, grid modernization and natural gas infrastructure, platform to complement its existing natural gas pipeline investments and regulated natural gas business in the Midwest. Cost savings, efficiencies and other benefits are expected from combined operations.
Duke Energy acquired all of Piedmont's outstanding common stock for a total cash purchase price of $5.0 billion and assumed Piedmont's existing long-term debt, which had an estimated fair value of approximately $2.0 billion at the time of the acquisition. The excess of the purchase price over the estimated fair value of Piedmont's assets and liabilities on the acquisition date was recorded as goodwill. The transaction resulted in incremental goodwill of approximately $3.4 billion.
Duke Energy financed the transaction with a combination of debt, equity issuances and other cash sources. Financings to fund the transaction included $3.75 billion of long-term debt issued in August 2016, $750 million borrowed under a short-term loan facility (Term Loan) in September 2016, as well as the issuance of 10.6 million shares of common stock in October 2016. The share issuance resulted in net cash proceeds of approximately $723 million. See Note 6 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Debt and Credit Facilities," for additional information related to the debt issuance and Note 18, "Common Stock," for additional information related to the equity issuance.
Duke Energy recorded pretax non-recurring transaction and integration costs associated with the acquisition of $439 million in 2016, including interest expense of $234 million related to the acquisition financing. The interest expense primarily relates to losses on forward-starting interest rate swaps. The remaining charges include commitments made in conjunction with the transaction, such as charitable contributions and a one-time bill credit to Piedmont customers, as well as professional fees and severance. Duke Energywhile also expects to incur system integration and other acquisition-related transition costs, primarily through 2018, that are necessary to achieve certain anticipated cost savings, efficiencies and other benefits.
See Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Acquisitions and Dispositions," for additional information regarding the transaction.
Sale of International Energy
In February 2016, Duke Energy announced it had initiated a process to divest its Latin American generation businesses and, in October 2016, reached agreements to sell the businesses in two separate transactions for a combined enterprise value of $2.4 billion. Both deals closed ahead of schedule in December 2016. Duke Energy sold its Brazilian business to China Three Gorges for approximately $1.2 billion, including the assumption of debt, and its remaining Central and South American businesses to I Squared Capital in a deal also valued at approximately $1.2 billion. The transactions generated cash proceeds of $1.9 billion, excluding transaction costs, which were primarily used to reduce Duke Energy holding company debt. Existing favorable tax attributes result in no immediate U.S. federal-level cash tax impacts.
As a result of the transactions, the International Energy Disposal Group was classified as held for sale and as discontinued operations in the fourth quarter of 2016.

PART II

In conjunction with the advancement of marketing efforts, in the second quarter of 2016 Duke Energy performed recoverability tests of the asset groups of the International Disposal Group, and as a result recorded an after-tax impairment charge of $145 million related to certain assets in Central America. In the fourth quarter of 2016, Duke Energy recorded an after-tax loss on disposal of $640 million, which includes the recognition of cumulative foreign currency translation losses of $620 million. Both charges are included within Loss from Discontinued Operations, net of tax on the Consolidated Statements of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2016. See Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Acquisitions and Dispositions" for additional information.improving customer satisfaction.
Financial Results
(a)See Results of Operations below for Duke Energy’s definition of adjusted earnings and adjusted earnings per 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.
2016Duke Energy's 2017 GAAP reported earnings were impacted by charges related tounfavorable weather and the absence of International Energy sale described above, which were recorded to discontinued operations.partially offset by growth in the electric and gas businesses, including the addition of a full year's earnings contribution from Piedmont and ongoing cost management efforts. 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.
2016
39


PART II

2017 Areas of Focus and Accomplishments
Duke Energy advanced a number of important strategic initiatives to transform its energy future with a focus on customers, employees, operations and growth. The company has responded to an environment of changing customer demands by investing in electric and natural gas infrastructure that customers value and that provide an opportunity for sustainable growth.
Portfolio Transition. On October 3, 2016, Duke Energy completed the acquisition of Piedmont, a North Carolina corporation primarily engaged in regulated natural gas distribution to residential, commercial, industrial and power generation customers in portions of North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee. In December 2016, Duke Energy completed the sale of its Latin American generation businesses in two separate transactions. See Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Acquisitions and Dispositions," for additional information regarding these transactions.
With the acquisition of Piedmont and the sale of International Energy, Duke Energy completed a multi-yearmultiyear portfolio transition. The Piedmont acquisition reflects the growing importance of natural gas to the future of the energy infrastructure within the company's service territory and throughout the U.S., and establishes a strategic platform for future growth in natural gas infrastructure. Duke Energy's exit ofThe growth opportunities reflected in our 10-year strategy are expected to increase the Latin American market results in a portfolio of domestic electric andearnings contributions from the natural gas infrastructure businesses with a lower risk profile and enhances the abilitybusiness from 8 percent to generate more consistent earnings and cash flows over time.15 percent.
Operational Excellence. Duke Energy continues to focus on the safe and efficient operation of its generation fleet. During the year Duke Energy's2017, we delivered strong overall safety and environmental performance, metrics led the utilities industry,with our key employee safety metric, total incident case rate, and its regulated fuel costs averaged $2.22/kwh, which is the lowest in the past several years. Additionally, theour reportable environmental events both improving from last year. Our nuclear fleet increased its capacity factor for a fourth consecutive year to approximately 96 percent, with several units setting all-timeand fossil/hydro generation records.fleets demonstrated strong performance, exceeding their respective reliability targets.
Storm Response and System Restoration. Duke Energy’s service territories experienced numerousHurricane Irma, in October 2017, was one of the most powerful storms during 2016, including Winter Storm Jonas and Hurricane Matthew.ever to hit the southern U.S. During Hurricane Matthew,Irma, over 1.71.3 million customers in Florida and the Carolinas were without power. In the Carolinas, 1.4 million outages were Our restoration efforts involved coordination and communication with more than 12,000 line and fieldworkers and our team restored in record time, helping communities start the rebuilding process. Power was restoredpower to 99 percent of customers through the commitment and resolve of employees and contractors.within eight days.
Customer Satisfaction. Higher J.D. Power residential customer satisfaction scores in 20162017 reflect progress in the Company'scompany's efforts to improve customer satisfaction. In Florida, scores improved more than 30 points.meet customers’ expectations. The work to improve customer satisfaction will continue, but all jurisdictions remain on track to make steady gains in the years ahead as Duke Energy continues to transform the customer experience.experience through its Customer Connect Program.
Constructive Regulatory Outcomes. Through constructive stakeholder engagement, Duke Energy reached settlementsOne of our long-term strategic goals is to achieve modernized regulatory constructs in all of our jurisdictions within 10 years. Modernized constructs provide a number of benefits, including improved earnings and cash flows through more timely recovery of investments, as well as stable pricing for the Edwardsport IGCC facility in Indiana and Duke Energy Progress South Carolinacustomers. We filed several base rate case. These settlements have been approved by the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) and Public Service Commissioncases during 2017 to recover a range of South Carolina (PSCSC), respectively. Duke Energy will also save its Florida customers more than $800 million over approximately 20 years through the successful securitization financing of its regulatory asset related to Crystal River 3.

PART II

Coal Ash Management. Duke Energy continued to make significant progress on the safe storage ofstrategic investments, such as customer service technologies, coal ash in 2016. Closure activities are underway at five sites and comprehensive closure plans for all Duke Energy coal ash sites were developed and disclosed publicly during 2016, consistent with Federal Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) requirements. In May 2016, Duke Energy received preliminary risk rankings for its coal ash sites in North Carolina from the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), and in July 2016 new legislation was passed that provided clarity on the risk ranking framework. The legislation also required the completion of dam improvement projects and the installation of water lines for residents within a half mile of coal ash sitescosts in the state. Work was completed on all required deadlines under the new legislation.Carolinas, smart meters, natural gas and solar generation. We continue to pursue additional legislative and regulatory outcomes, both in Washington and across our service territories, that make sense for our customers and investors.
Cost Management and Efficiencies. Duke Energy has a demonstrated track record of driving efficiencies and productivity, including merger integration.integration and continuous improvement efforts. These efficiencies will help in Duke Energy's objective to keep overall customer rates below the national average, while moderating customer bill increases over time. In June 2016, Duke Energy achievedWe are on track to exceed targeted Piedmont merger cost synergies without significant disruptions to the $687 million of guaranteed savings for customers inbusiness or culture, integrating the Carolinas fromPiedmont and Midwest natural gas operations, and moving to a shared services model. We continue to leverage new technology and data analytics to drive additional efficiencies across the 2012 merger with Progress Energy, a full year ahead of its original commitment.business.
Dividend Growth in the Dividend. In 2016,2017, Duke Energy continued to grow the dividend payment to shareholders by approximately 4 percent. 20162017 represented the 90th91st consecutive year Duke Energy paid a cash dividend on its common stock.
Duke Energy Objectives – 20172018 and Beyond
Duke Energy will continue to deliver exceptional value to customers, be an integral part of the communities in which it does business, and provide attractive returns to investors. Duke Energy is committed to lead the way to cleaner, smarter energy solutions that customers value through a strategy focused on:
Transformation of the customer experience to meet changing customer expectations through enhanced convenience, control and choice in energy supply and usage.
Modernization of the electric grid, including smart meters, storm hardening, self-healing and targeted undergrounding to ensure the system is better prepared for severe weather and to improve the system's reliability and flexibility, as well as to provide better information and services for customers.
Generation of cleaner energy through an increased amount of natural gas, renewables generation and the continued safe and reliable operation of nuclear plants.
Expansion of natural gas infrastructure, from midstream gas pipelines to local distribution systems.
Operational excellence through engagement with employees and being an industry leader in safety performance and efficient operations.
Stakeholder engagement to ensure the regulatory rules in the states in which Duke Energy operates benefit customers and allow Duke Energy to recover its significant investments in a timely manner.manner while maintaining affordable rates.
Engagement with regulatory commissions to determine the regulatory treatment of the impact of the Tax Act.

40


PART II

Primary objectives toward the implementation of this strategy include:
Growth Initiatives. Growth in the Electric Utilities and Infrastructure business is expected to be supported by the investment of significant capital in the electric transmission and distribution grid, and in cleaner, more efficient generation. Duke Energy expects to invest approximately $30 billion in Electric Utilities and Infrastructure growth projects over the next five years (2018-2022), continuing its efforts to generate cleaner energy. Duke Energy intends to work constructively with regulators to evaluate the current regulatory construct and seek modernized recovery solutions, such as riders, rate decoupling and multiyear rate plans, that benefit both customers and shareholders.
Investment projects at Electric Utilities and Infrastructure currently underway that will support growth initiatives include:
Duke Energy Indiana's $1.4 billion grid modernization plan, which was approved by the IURC in 2016, is aimed at improving reliability, including fewer outages and quicker restoration. The plan allows for recovery of Duke Energy's investment through a rider. As part of the settlement, Duke Energy also received approval to install AMI meters, deferring the costs for future recovery in a rate case.
Significant investments in combined-cycle natural gas-fired combined cyclegas plants, including completing the $1.5 billion Citrus CountryCounty plant in Florida, the $600 million W.S. Lee facility in South Carolina and the $1 billion$900 million investment in the Western Carolinas Modernization Project. These investments will allow Duke Energy to replace older, less efficient coal units early.units.
Duke Energy expects to continue to advance other cleaner energy sources within its regulated electric jurisdictions, including hydro, wind, solar and combined heat-and-powerheat and power projects, increasing the flexibility of the system and allowing Duke Energy to continue lowering carbon emissions.
Electric Utilities and Infrastructure will also invest significantly in modernizing the electric grid to provide greater flexibility, better reliability and power quality, as well as more valuable products and services for its customers.
These significant investments will result in the need to file rate cases with regulators to update customer rates. Duke Energy will also focus on modernizing the regulatory constructs in its jurisdictions to minimize rate impacts to customers and recover costs in a more timely manner.
In North Carolina, HB 589 provides a timely cost recovery mechanism for any solar investments we are able to make through a competitive market process.
In Florida, as part of the comprehensive multi-year rate settlement, we committed to invest in approximately 700 MW of solar capacity over the next five years and will be authorized to recover the cost of that investment through a single issue base rate increase. We also advanced our strategic priority of energy grid investment, establishing a multiyear recovery method for $1 billion of grid investments.
Duke Energy expects to invest around $6$7 billion ingrowing its Gas Utilities and Infrastructure business over the next five years. Growth in Gas Utilities and Infrastructure will be focused on the following:
With the acquisition of Piedmont, Duke Energy now operates natural gas distribution businesses across five states. The continued integration of Piedmont, as well as additional investments in the natural gas Local Distribution Company (LDC) system, will help maintain system integrity and expand natural gas distribution to new customers.
Duke Energy will continue to grow its midstream pipeline business, underpinned by investments in the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, Sabal Trail and Constitution pipeline projects. These highly-contractedhighly contracted pipelines will bring much needed, low-cost natural gas supplies to the eastern U.S., spurring economic growth and helping Duke Energy to grow its customer base in the Southeast.

PART II

For Commercial Renewables, Duke Energy will continue to pursue long-term highly-contractedcontracted wind and solar projects that meet its return criteria.
Cost Management. Duke Energy has a demonstrated track record of driving efficiencies and productivity into the business, leveraging its scale through competitive procurement initiatives, deploying digital transformation and continuescontinuing to identify sustainable cost savings as an essential element in response to a transforming industry.
Execute on Coal Ash Management Strategy. Duke Energy will continue the company's compliance strategy with the North Carolina Coal Ash Management Act of 2014 (Coal Ash Act) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Duke Energy will update ash management plans to comply with the appropriate regulations and expand excavation and other compliance work at additional sites once plans and permits are approved.
Results of Operations
Non-GAAP Measures
Management evaluates financial performance in part based on non-GAAP financial measures, including adjusted earnings and adjusted diluted EPS. These items represent income from continuing operations attributable to Duke Energy, adjusted for the dollar and per-shareper share impact of special items. As discussed below, special items include certain charges and credits, which management believes are not indicative of Duke Energy's ongoing performance. Management believes the presentation of adjusted earnings and adjusted diluted EPS provides useful information to investors, as it provides them with an additional relevant comparison of Duke Energy’s performance across periods.
Management uses these non-GAAP financial measures for planning and forecasting, and for reporting financial results to the Duke Energy Board of Directors (Board of Directors), employees, stockholders, analysts and investors. Adjusted diluted EPS is also used as a basis for employee incentive bonuses. The most directly comparable GAAP measures for adjusted earnings and adjusted diluted EPS are Net Income Attributable to Duke Energy Corporation (GAAP Reported Earnings) and Diluted EPS Attributable to Duke Energy Corporation common stockholders (GAAP Reported EPS)., respectively.
Special items included in the periods presented include the following, items which management believes do not reflect ongoing costs:
Costs to Achieve Mergers represents charges that result from potential or completed strategic acquisitions.
Cost Savings Initiatives representsrepresent severance charges related to company-wide initiatives, excluding merger integration, to standardize processes and systems, leverage technology and workforce optimization.

41


PART II

Regulatory Settlements in 2017 represent charges related to the Levy nuclear project in Florida and the Mayo Zero Liquid Discharge and Sutton combustion turbine projects in North Carolina. The 2015 amount represents charges related to the IGCC Settlement.
Commercial Renewables Impairment and Asset ImpairmentImpairments represent other-than-temporary, asset and goodwill impairments.
Edwardsport Settlement, Impacts of the Tax Act represent estimated amounts recognized related to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
Ash Basin Settlement and Penalties and Coal Ash Plea Agreements Reserve represent charges related to Plea Agreements and settlement agreements with regulators and other governmental entities.
Adjusted earnings also include the operating results of the nonregulated Midwest generation business and Duke Energy Retail Sales (collectively, the Midwest Generation Disposal Group) and the International Disposal Group, which have been classified as discontinued operations. Management believes inclusion of the operating results of the Disposal Groups within adjusted earnings and adjusted diluted EPS results in a better reflection of Duke Energy's financial performance during the period.
Duke Energy’s adjusted earnings and adjusted diluted EPS may not be comparable to similarly titled measures of another company because other companies may not calculate the measures in the same manner.
Reconciliation of GAAP Reported Amounts to Adjusted Amounts
The following table presents a reconciliation of adjusted earnings and adjusted diluted EPS to the most directly comparable GAAP measures.
 Years Ended December 31,
 2016 2015 2014
(in millions, except per share amounts)Earnings EPS Earnings EPS Earnings EPS
GAAP Reported Earnings/EPS$2,152
 $3.11
 $2,816
 $4.05
 $1,883
 $2.66
Adjustments to Reported:           
Costs to Achieve Mergers329
 0.48
 60
 0.09
 127
 0.18
Cost Savings Initiatives57
 0.08
 88
 0.13
 
 
Commercial Renewables Impairment45
 0.07
 
 
 
 
Edwardsport Settlement
 
 58
 0.08
 
 
Ash Basin Settlement and Penalties
 
 11
 0.02
 
 
Asset Impairment
 
 
 
 59
 0.08
Coal Ash Plea Agreements Reserve
 
 
 
 102
 0.14
Asset Sales
 
 
 
 (9) (0.01)
Economic Hedges (mark-to-market)
 
 
 
 6
 0.01
Discontinued Operations(a)(b)(c)
661
 0.95
 119
 0.17
 1,050
 1.49
Adjusted Earnings/Adjusted Diluted EPS$3,244
 $4.69
 $3,152
 $4.54
 $3,218
 $4.55

PART II

 Years Ended December 31,
 2017 2016 2015
(in millions, except per share amounts)Earnings EPS Earnings EPS Earnings EPS
GAAP Reported Earnings/EPS$3,059
 $4.36
 $2,152
 $3.11
 $2,816
 $4.05
Adjustments to Reported:           
Costs to Achieve Mergers64
 0.09
 329
 0.48
 60
 0.09
Regulatory Settlements98
 0.14
 
 
 58
 0.08
Commercial Renewables Impairments74
 0.11
 45
 0.07
 
 
Impacts of the Tax Act(c)
(102) (0.14) 
 
 
 
Cost Savings Initiatives
 
 57
 0.08
 88
 0.13
Ash Basin Settlement and Penalties
 
 
 
 11
 0.02
Discontinued Operations(a)(b)
6
 0.01
 661
 0.95
 119
 0.17
Adjusted Earnings/Adjusted Diluted EPS$3,199
 $4.57
 $3,244
 $4.69
 $3,152
 $4.54
(a)For 2016, includes a loss on sale of the International Disposal Group. Represents the GAAP reported Loss from Discontinued Operations, less the International Disposal Group operating results, which are included in adjusted earnings.
(b)For 2015, includes the impact of a litigation reserve related to the Midwest Generation Disposal Group. Represents (i) GAAP reported Income from Discontinued Operations, less the International Disposal Group operating results and Midwest Generation Disposal Group operating results, which are included in adjusted earnings, and (ii) a state tax charge resulting from the completion of the sale of the Midwest Generation Disposal Group but not reported as discontinued operations.
(c)The Tax Act reduced the corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, effective January 1, 2018. As the tax change was enacted in 2017, Duke Energy is required to remeasure its existing deferred tax assets and liabilities at the lower rate. For 2014, includes an impairment ofDuke Energy's regulated operations, where the Midwest Generation Disposal Group andreduction in the net accumulated deferred income tax liability is expected to be returned to customers in future rates, the remeasurement has been deferred as a tax charge related to the repatriation of foreign earnings of the International Disposal Group. Represents the GAAP reported Loss from Discontinued Operations, less the International Disposal Group operating results and Midwest Generation Disposal Group operating results, which are included in adjusted earnings.regulatory liability.
Year Ended December 31, 2017, as compared to 2016
Duke Energy’s full-year 2017 GAAP Reported EPS was $4.36 compared to $3.11 for full-year 2016. In addition to the adjusted diluted EPS drivers discussed below, GAAP Reported EPS in 2017 was higher primarily due to a $0.14 benefit per share related to the Tax Act in 2017, lower costs to achieve the Piedmont merger and a loss on sale and impairments associated with the sale of the International Disposal Group in 2016, partially offset by charges of $0.14 related to regulatory settlements in Electric Utilities and Infrastructure.
As discussed, management also evaluates financial performance based on adjusted earnings. Duke Energy’s full-year 2017 adjusted diluted EPS was $4.57 compared to $4.69 for full-year 2016. The decrease in adjusted diluted EPS was primarily due to:
Lower regulated electric revenues of $0.26 per share due to less favorable weather in the current year, including lost revenues related to Hurricane Irma;
The prior year operating results from the International Disposal Group, which was sold in December 2016. The 2016 operating results included a benefit from the valuation of deferred income taxes. See Note 22 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, Income Taxes," for additional information;
Higher financing costs, primarily due to the Piedmont acquisition; and

42


PART II

Higher depreciation and amortization expense at Electric Utilities and Infrastructure primarily due to higher depreciable base.
Partially offset by:
Higher regulated electric revenues from increased pricing and riders driven by new rates in Duke Energy Progress South Carolina, base rate adjustments in Florida and energy efficiency rider revenues in North Carolina, as well as growth in weather-normal retail volumes;
Lower operations, maintenance and other expenses, net of amounts recoverable in rates, at Electric Utilities and Infrastructure resulting from ongoing cost efficiency efforts and lower year-to-date storm costs than the prior year; and
Additional earnings from incremental investments in Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC (ACP) and Sabal Trail natural gas pipelines.
Year Ended December 31, 2016, as compared to 2015
Duke Energy’s full-year 2016 GAAP Reported EPS was $3.11 compared to $4.05 for full-year 2015. GAAP Reported EPS was lower primarily due to a $0.93 loss on sale of the International business, which has been presented as discontinued operations. Duke Energy also recorded $0.40 of after-tax costs to achieve the Piedmont merger in 2016, including losses on interest rate swaps related to the acquisition financing. See Note 2, "Acquisitions and Dispositions," for additional information on the Piedmont and International transactions.
As discussed, management also evaluates financial performance based on adjusted earnings. Duke Energy’s full-year 2016 adjusted diluted EPS was $4.69 compared to $4.54 for full-year 2015. The variance in adjusted diluted EPS was primarily due to:
More favorable weather in 2016 compared to 2015;
Increased retail revenues from pricing and riders, including energy efficiency programs;
Strong operations and maintenance cost control at Electric Utilities and Infrastructure; and
Piedmont’s earnings contribution subsequent to the acquisition in October 2016.
Partially offset by:
Higher storm costs at Electric Utilities and Infrastructure due to significant 2016 storms;
Higher interest expense related to additional debt outstanding; and
Higher depreciation and amortization expense at Electric Utilities and Infrastructure primarily due to higher depreciable base.
Year Ended December 31, 2015 as compared to 2014
Duke Energy’s full-year 2015 GAAP Reported EPS was $4.05 compared to $2.66 for full-year 2014. GAAP Reported EPS in 2015 was higher primarily due to a $0.92 loss per share from discontinued operations in 2014, which included an impairment of the Midwest Generation Disposal Group and a tax charge on repatriated foreign earnings related to the International Disposal Group.
As discussed, management also evaluates financial performance based on adjusted earnings. Duke Energy’s full-year 2015 adjusted diluted EPS was $4.54 compared to $4.55 for full-year 2014. The variance in adjusted diluted EPS was primarily due to:
Lower results in Latin America primarily due to lower demand, unfavorable hydrology in Brazil, changes in foreign currency exchange rates, a tax benefit in 2014 related to the reorganization of Chilean operations and lower dispatch in Central America due to increased competition;
Higher operations and maintenance expense primarily due to a 2014 benefit associated with the adoption of nuclear outage levelization, amounts related to additional ownership interest in assets acquired from North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency (NCEMPA), and higher planned fossil generation outage costs, partially offset by lower storm restoration costs;
Higher depreciation and amortization expense primarily due to higher depreciable base; and
Lower equity in earnings of unconsolidated affiliates due to lower margins at National Methanol Company (NMC), largely driven by lower MTBE prices, partially offset by lower butane costs.
Partially offset by:
Increased retail pricing primarily due to rate riders in most jurisdictions, including increased revenues related to energy efficiency programs, equity returns related to additional ownership interest in assets acquired from NCEMPA and higher base rates;
Increased wholesale net margins largely due to increases in contracted amounts and prices and a new wholesale contract with NCEMPA;
Retail sales growth of 0.6 percent;
Higher results at the nonregulated Midwest generation business prior to its sale on April 2, 2015, due to higher PJM Interconnection LLC (PJM) capacity revenues and increased generation margins; and
Reduction in shares outstanding due to the Duke Energy accelerated stock repurchase (only impacts per share amounts).

PART II

Segment Results
The remaining information presented in this discussion of results of operations is on a GAAP basis. Management 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 includes intercompany revenues and expenses that are eliminated in the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Due to the Piedmont acquisition and the sale of International Energy in the fourth quarter of 2016, Duke Energy's segment structure has been realigned to includeincludes the following segments: Electric Utilities and Infrastructure, Gas Utilities and Infrastructure and Commercial Renewables. The remainder of Duke Energy’s operations is presented as Other. Prior period information has been recast to conform to the current segment structure. See Note 23 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Acquisitions and Disposition," for further information on the Piedmont acquisition and International Energy sale and Note 3, “Business Segments,” for additional information on Duke Energy’s segment structure.
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the Tax Act)
On December 22, 2017, President Trump signed the Tax Act into law. Among other provisions, the Tax Act lowers the corporate federal income tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, limits interest deductions outside of regulated utility operations, and eliminates bonus depreciation for regulated utilities, effective January 1, 2018. The Tax Act also could be amended or subject to technical correction, which could change the financial impacts that were recorded at December 31, 2017, or are expected to be recorded in future periods. See Note 22 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Income Taxes," for additional information on the Tax Act. The FERC and state utility commissions will determine the regulatory treatment of the impacts of the Tax Act for the Subsidiary Registrants. Duke Energy's segments’ future results of operations, financial condition and cash flows could be adversely impacted by the Tax Act, subsequent amendments or corrections, or the actions of the FERC, state utility commissions or credit rating agencies related to the Tax Act. Duke Energy is reviewing orders to address the rate treatment of the Tax Act by each state utility commission in which the Subsidiary Registrants operate. See Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters,” for additional information. Beginning in January 2018, the Subsidiary Registrants will defer the estimated ongoing impacts of the Tax Act that are expected to be returned to customers. See the Credit Ratings section below for additional information on the impact of the Tax Act on the Duke Energy Registrants' credit ratings.

43


PART II

As a result of the Tax Act, Duke Energy revalued its existing deferred tax assets and deferred tax liabilities as of December 31, 2017, to account for the estimated future impact of lower corporate tax rates on these deferred tax amounts. For Duke Energy's regulated operations, where the net reduction in the net accumulated deferred income tax liability is expected to be returned to customers in future rates, the remeasurement has been deferred as a regulatory liability. See Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Regulatory Matters," for additional information on the Tax Act's impact to the regulatory asset and liability accounts. The following table shows the expense (benefit) recorded on Duke Energy's Consolidated Statement of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2017.
 Impacts of
(in millions)
the Tax Act(a)(b)
Electric Utilities and Infrastructure(c)
$(231)
Gas Utilities and Infrastructure(d)(e)
(26)
Commercial Renewables(442)
Other(f)
597
Total impact of the Tax Act(d)
$(102)
(a)Except where noted below, amounts are included within Income Tax Expense From Continuing Operations on the Consolidated Statement of Operations.
(b)See Note 4 and Note 22 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Regulatory Matters" and "Income Taxes," for information about the Tax Act's impact on Duke Energy's Consolidated Balance Sheets.
(c)Amount primarily relates to the remeasurement of net deferred tax liabilities that are excluded for ratemaking purposes related to abandoned or impaired assets and certain wholesale fixed rate contracts.
(d)Includes a $16 million expense recorded within Equity in earnings (losses) of unconsolidated affiliates on the Consolidated Statement of Operations.
(e)Amount primarily relates to the remeasurement of net deferred tax liabilities that relates to equity method investments and certain wholesale fixed rate contracts.
(f)Amount primarily relates to the remeasurement of Foreign Tax Credits, federal net operating losses and non-regulated deferred tax assets.
Electric Utilities and Infrastructure
Years Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
    Variance
   Variance
    Variance
   Variance
    2016 vs.
   2015 vs.
    2017 vs.
   2016 vs.
(in millions)2016
 2015
 2015
 2014
 2014
2017
 2016
 2016
 2015
 2015
Operating Revenues$21,366
 $21,521
 $(155) $21,691
 $(170)$21,331
 $21,366
 $(35) $21,521
 $(155)
Operating Expenses15,821
 16,295
 (474) 16,609
 (314)    

   

Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power6,379
 6,595
 (216) 7,308
 (713)
Operations, maintenance and other5,196
 5,292
 (96) 5,138
 154
Depreciation and amortization3,010
 2,897
 113
 2,735
 162
Property and other taxes1,079
 1,021
 58
 1,013
 8
Impairment charges176
 16
 160
 101
 (85)
Total operating expenses15,840
 15,821
 19
 16,295
 (474)
Gains on Sales of Other Assets and Other, net
 5
 (5) 4
 1
6
 
 6
 5
 (5)
Operating Income5,545
 5,231
 314
 5,086
 145
5,497
 5,545
 (48) 5,231
 314
Other Income and Expenses303
 264
 39
 267
 (3)308
 303
 5
 264
 39
Interest Expense1,136
 1,074
 62
 1,057
 17
1,240
 1,136
 104
 1,074
 62
Income Before Income Taxes4,712
 4,421
 291
 4,296
 125
4,565
 4,712
 (147) 4,421
 291
Income Tax Expense1,672
 1,602
 70
 1,582
 20
1,355
 1,672
 (317) 1,602
 70
Segment Income$3,040
 $2,819
 $221
 $2,714
 $105
$3,210
 $3,040
 $170
 $2,819
 $221
                  
Duke Energy Carolinas Gigawatt-Hours (GWh) sales88,545
 86,950
 1,595
 88,070
 (1,120)87,305
 88,545
 (1,240) 86,950
 1,595
Duke Energy Progress GWh sales69,049
 64,881
 4,168
 62,871
 2,010
66,822
 69,049
 (2,227) 64,881
 4,168
Duke Energy Florida GWh sales40,404
 40,053
 351
 38,703
 1,350
40,591
 40,404
 187
 40,053
 351
Duke Energy Ohio GWh sales25,163
 25,439
 (276) 24,735
 704
24,639
 25,163
 (524) 25,439
 (276)
Duke Energy Indiana GWh sales34,368
 33,518
 850
 33,433
 85
33,145
 34,368
 (1,223) 33,518
 850
Total Electric Utilities and Infrastructure GWh sales257,529
 250,841
 6,688
 247,812
 3,029
252,502
 257,529
 (5,027) 250,841
 6,688
Net proportional MW capacity in operation49,295
 50,170
 (875) 49,600
 570
48,828
 49,295
 (467) 50,170
 (875)

44


PART II

Year Ended December 31, 2017, as Compared to 2016
Electric Utilities and Infrastructure's results were impacted by the Tax Act, growth from investments, lower operations and maintenance expense and higher weather-normal retail sales volumes, partially offset by less favorable weather, impairment charges due to regulatory settlements, increased depreciation and amortization, higher interest expense and higher property and other taxes. The following is a detailed discussion of the variance drivers by line item.
Operating Revenues. The variance was driven primarily by:
a $292 million decrease in retail sales, net of fuel revenue, due to less favorable weather in the current year; and
a $235 million decrease in fuel revenues driven by lower retail sales volumes, lower fuel prices included in rates and changes in the generation mix.
Partially offset by:
a $364 million increase in rider revenues including increased revenues related to energy efficiency programs, Duke Energy Florida’s nuclear asset securitization, Midwest transmission and distribution capital investments and Duke Energy Indiana’s Edwardsport Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plant, as well as an increase in retail pricing due to base rate adjustments for Duke Energy Florida’s Osprey acquisition and Hines Chillers and the Duke Energy Progress South Carolina rate case;
an $86 million increase in weather-normal sales volumes to customers; and
a $26 million increase in other revenues primarily due to favorable transmission revenues.
Operating Expenses. The variance was driven primarily by:
a $160 million increase in impairment charges primarily due to the write-off of remaining unrecovered Levy Nuclear Project costs in the current year at Duke Energy Florida and the disallowance from rate base of certain projects at the Mayo and Sutton plants in the current year at Duke Energy Progress related to the partial settlement in the North Carolina rate case;
a $113 million increase in depreciation and amortization expense primarily due to additional plant in service; and
a $58 million increase in property and other taxes primarily due to higher property taxes.
Partially offset by:
a $216 million decrease in fuel expense (including purchased power) primarily due to lower retail sales and changes in the generation mix; and
a $96 million decrease in operation, maintenance and other expense primarily due to lower plant outage, storm restoration and labor and benefits costs partially offset by higher operational costs that are recoverable in rates.
Interest Expense. The variance was due to higher debt outstanding in the current year and Duke Energy Florida's Crystal River 3 (CR3) regulatory asset debt return ending in June 2016 upon securitization.
Income Tax Expense. The variance was primarily due to a decrease in pretax income and the impact of the Tax Act. The effective tax rates for the years ended December 31, 2017, and 2016 were 29.7 percent and 35.5 percent, respectively. The decrease in the effective tax rate was primarily due to the impact of the Tax Act. See the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act section above for additional information on the Tax Act.
Year Ended December 31, 2016, as Compared to 2015
Electric Utilities and Infrastructure's higher earnings were primarily due to increased pricing and rider revenues, favorable weather, a prior year impairment charge associated with the 2015 Edwardsport IGCC settlement and an increase in wholesale power margins. These impacts were partially offset by increased depreciation and amortization expense, higher interest expense and higher operations and maintenance expense. The following is a detailed discussion of the variance drivers by line item.
Operating Revenues. The variance was driven primarily by:
a $768 million decrease in fuel revenues driven by lower fuel prices included in rates.
Partially offset by:
a $414 million increase in rider revenues including increased revenues related to energy efficiency programs, the additional ownership interest in generating assets acquired from NCEMPA in the third quarter of 2015 and increased revenues related to Duke Energy Indiana’s clean coal equipment, and increased retail electric pricing primarily due to the expiration of the North Carolina cost of removal decrement rider;
a $101 million increase in retail sales, net of fuel revenue, due to favorable weather compared to the prior year; and
a $76 million increase in wholesale power revenues primarily due to additional volumes and capacity charges for customers served under long-term contracts, including the NCEMPA wholesale contract.

45


PART II

Operating Expenses. The variance was driven primarily by:
a $713 million decrease in fuel expense (including purchased power and natural gas purchases for resale) primarily due to lower natural gas and coal prices, and lower volumes of coal and oil, partially offset by higher volumes of natural gas; and
an $88$85 million decrease in pretax impairment chargecharges in the prior year relatedprimarily due to the 2015 Edwardsport IGCC settlement.

PART II

Partially offset by:
a $162 million increase in depreciation and amortization expense primarily due to additional plant in service, including the additional ownership interest in generating assets acquired from NCEMPA, as well as the expiration of the North Carolina cost of removal decrement rider; and
a $154 million increase in operations and maintenance expense primarily due to higher environmental and operational costs that are recoverable in rates, increased employee benefit costs, and higher storm restoration costs, partially offset by lower costs due to effective cost control efforts.
Other Income and Expenses. The variance was primarily driven by higher AFUDC equity.
Interest Expense. The variance was due to higher debt outstanding in the current year.
Income Tax Expense. The variance was primarily due to an increase in pretax income. The effective tax rates for the years ended December 31, 2016, and 2015 were 35.5 percent and 36.2 percent, respectively.
Year Ended December 31, 2015 as Compared to 2014
Electric Utilities and Infrastructure’s higher earnings were primarily due to an increase in wholesale power margins, growth in retail sales, and increased retail pricing primarily due to rate riders in most jurisdictions, including increased revenues related to energy efficiency programs, and higher base rates primarily due to phasing of 2013 rate cases. These drivers were partially offset by an impairment charge associated with the 2015 Edwardsport IGCC settlement, higher operations and maintenance expense and increased depreciation and amortization expense. The following is a detailed discussion of the variance drivers by line item.
Operating Revenues. The variance was driven primarily by:
a $296 million decrease in fuel revenues due to lower overall fuel prices included in rates; and
a $131 million decrease in revenues to recover gross receipts taxes due to the North Carolina Tax Simplification and Rate Reduction Act, which terminated the collection of the North Carolina gross receipts tax effective July 1, 2014 (offset in Operating Expenses).
Partially offset by:
a $175 million increase in wholesale power revenues, primarily due to additional volumes and capacity charges for customers served under long-term contracts, including the NCEMPA wholesale contract; and
an $81 million increase from retail sales growth (net of fuel revenue) due to increased demand.
Operating Expenses. The variance was driven primarily by:
a $378 million decrease in fuel expense (including purchased power) primarily due to lower natural gas and coal prices and lower volumes of coal and oil, partially offset by higher volumes of natural gas; and
a $131 million decrease in property and other taxes primarily due to the termination of the collection of the North Carolina gross receipts tax (offset in Operating Revenues) and the partial reversal of a sales tax reserve recorded in 2014 at Duke Energy Indiana, partially offset by higher property taxes across multiple jurisdictions.
Partially offset by:
an $88 million pretax impairment charge related to the 2015 Edwardsport IGCC settlement. See Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters,” for additional information;
a $49 million increase in depreciation and amortization expense primarily due to additional plant in service; and
a $47 million increase in operations and maintenance expense primarily due to planned nuclear spending and the 2014 benefit of the adoption of nuclear outage levelization, higher costs for customer programs and distribution projects, and higher maintenance costs at fossil generation stations primarily due to increased ownership interest in assets acquired from NCEMPA, partially offset by a 2014 litigation reserve related to the Dan River coal ash spill (see Note 5 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Commitments and Contingencies,” for additional information) and lower storm restoration costs.
Income Tax Expense. The variance was primarily due to an increase in pretax income. The effective tax rates for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014 were 36.2 percent and 36.8 percent, respectively.
Matters Impacting Future Electric Utilities and Infrastructure Results
An order from regulatory authorities disallowing recovery of costs related to closure of ash impoundments could have an adverse impact on Electric Utilities and Infrastructure's financial position, results of operations and cash flows. See NotesNote 4 and Note 9 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters” and "Asset Retirement Obligations," respectively, for additional information.

PART II

On May 18, 2016, the NCDEQNorth Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) issued proposed risk classifications for all coal ash surface impoundments in North Carolina. All ash impoundments not previously designated as high priority by the North Carolina Coal Ash Management Act of 2014 (Coal Ash Act) were designated as intermediate risk. Certain impoundments classified as intermediate risk, however, may be reassessed in the future as low risk pursuant to legislation signed by the former North Carolina governorenacted on July 14, 2016. Electric Utilities and Infrastructure's estimated asset retirement obligations (AROs) related to the closure of North Carolina ash impoundments are based upon the mandated closure method or a probability weighting of potential closure methods for the impoundments that may be reassessed to low risk. As the final risk ranking classifications in North Carolina are delineated, final closure plans and corrective action measures are developed and approved for each site, the closure work progresses and the closure method scope and remedial methods are determined, the complexity of work and the amount of coal combustion material could be different than originally estimated and, therefore, could materially impact Electric Utilities and Infrastructure's financial position. See Note 9 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Asset"Asset Retirement Obligations," for additional information.
Duke Energy is a party to multiple lawsuits and could be subject to fines and other penalties related to the Dan River coal ash release and operations at othercertain North Carolina facilities with ash basins. The outcome of these lawsuits and potential fines and penalties could have an adverse impact on Electric Utilities and Infrastructure's financial position, results of operations and cash flows. See Note 5 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Commitments and Contingencies,” for additional information.
In the fourth quarter of 2016, Hurricane Matthew caused historic flooding, extensive damage and widespread power outages within the Duke Energy Progress service territory. Duke Energy Progress filed a petition with the North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC) requesting an accounting order to defer approximately $140 million of incremental operation and maintenance and capital costs incurred in response to Hurricane Matthew and other significant 2016 storms. The NCUC has not ruled on the petition.will address this request in Duke Energy Progress' currently pending rate case. A final order from the NCUC that disallows the deferral and future recovery of all or a significant portion of the incremental storm restoration costs incurred could result in an adverse impact on Electric Utilities and Infrastructure's financial position, results of operations and cash flows. See Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters,” for additional information.
Duke Energy has several rate cases pending. Duke Energy Kentucky filed an electric rate case with the Kentucky Public Service Commission (KPSC) on September 1, 2017, to recover costs of capital investments in generation, transmission and distribution systems and to recover other incremental expenses since its previous rate case. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress intend to filefiled general rate cases in North Carolina inwith the NCUC on August 25, 2017, and June 1, 2017, respectively, to recover costs of complying with CCRCoal Combustion Residuals (CCR) regulations and the Coal Ash Act, as well as costs of capital investments in generation, transmission and distribution systems and any increase in expenditures subsequent to previous rate cases. In March 2017, Duke Energy Ohio has notifiedfiled an electric distribution base rate case application and supporting testimony with the Public UtilitiesUtility Commission of Ohio (PUCO) of its intent to file an electric distribution rate case in Ohio to address recovery of electric distribution system capital investments and any increase in expenditures subsequent to previous rate cases.. Electric Utilities and Infrastructure's earnings could be impacted adversely impacted if these rate casesincreases are delayed or denied by the KPSC, NCUC or PUCO. See Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Regulatory Matters," for additional information.
On August 29, 2017, Duke Energy Florida filed a 2017 Second Revised and Restated Settlement Agreement (2017 Settlement) with the FPSC. On November 20, 2017, the FPSC issued an order to approve the 2017 Settlement. See Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters,” for additional information about the 2017 Settlement. In accordance with the 2017 Settlement, Duke Energy Florida will not seek recovery of any costs associated with the ongoing Westinghouse contract litigation, which is currently being appealed. See Note 5 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Commitments and Contingencies,” for additional information about the litigation. An unfavorable appeals ruling on that matter could have an adverse impact on Electric Utilities and Infrastructure’s financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
Within this Item 7, see the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act above as well as Liquidity and Capital Resources below for risks associated with the Tax Act.

46


PART II

Gas Utilities and Infrastructure
Years Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
    Variance
   Variance
    Variance
   Variance
    2016 vs.
   2015 vs.
    2017 vs.
   2016 vs.
(in millions)2016
 2015
 2015
 2014
 2014
2017
 2016
 2016
 2015
 2015
Operating Revenues$901
 $541
 $360
 $578
 $(37)$1,836
 $901
 $935
 $541
 $360
Operating Expenses636
 408
 228
 419
 (11)    

   

Cost of natural gas632
 265
 367
 141
 124
Operation, maintenance and other393
 186
 207
 126
 60
Depreciation and amortization231
 115
 116
 79
 36
Property and other taxes106
 70
 36
 62
 8
Total operating expenses1,362

636
 726
 408
 228
(Loss) Gains on Sales of Other Assets and Other, net(1) 6
 (7) 
 6

 (1) 1
 6
 (7)
Operating Income264
 139
 125
 159
 (20)474
 264
 210
 139
 125
Other Income and Expenses24
 3
 21
 3
 
66
 24
 42
 3
 21
Interest Expense46
 25
 21
 37
 (12)105
 46
 59
 25
 21
Income Before Income Taxes242
 117
 125
 125
 (8)435
 242
 193
 117
 125
Income Tax Expense90
 44
 46
 45
 (1)116
 90
 26
 44
 46
Segment Income$152
 $73
 $79
 $80
 $(7)$319
 $152
 $167
 $73
 $79
                  
Piedmont LDC throughput (dekatherms) (a)
120,908,508
 
 120,908,508
 
 
468,259,777
 120,908,508
 347,351,269
 
 120,908,508
Duke Energy Midwest LDC throughput (MCF)81,870,489
 84,523,814
 (2,653,325) 93,275,895
 (8,752,081)80,934,836
 81,870,489
 (935,653) 84,523,814
 (2,653,325)
(a)    Only includes
(a)Includes throughput subsequent to Duke Energy's acquisition of Piedmont on October 3, 2016.
Year Ended December 31, 2017, as Compared to 2016
Gas Utilities and Infrastructure's higher results were primarily due to the inclusion of Piedmont's earnings in the current year as a result of Duke Energy's acquisition of Piedmont on October 3, 2016, as well as additional equity earnings from investments in the ACP and Sabal Trail pipelines.
Operating Revenues. The variance was driven primarily by:
an $884 million increase in operating revenues due to the inclusion of Piedmont's operating revenues beginning in October 2016; and
a $47 million increase in Piedmont's fourth quarter results due to colder weather, higher natural gas prices, Integrity Management Rider (IMR) rate adjustments, customer growth and new power generation customers.
Operating Expenses. The variance was driven primarily by:
a $686 million increase in operating expenses due to the inclusion of Piedmont's operating expenses beginning in October 2016; and
a $34 million increase in Piedmont's fourth quarter results primarily due to higher natural gas costs passed through to customers due to the higher price per dekatherm of natural gas.
Other Income and Expenses. The increase was driven primarily by higher equity earnings from pipeline investments.
Interest Expense. The variance was primarily due to the inclusion of Piedmont's interest expense beginning in October 2016.
Income Tax Expense. The variance was primarily due to an increase in pretax income due to the inclusion of Piedmont's earnings beginning in October 2016, partially offset by prior period true-ups. The effective tax rates for the years ended December 31, 2017, and 2016 were 26.7 percent and 37.2 percent, respectively. The decrease in the effective tax rate was primarily due to the prior period true-ups and the impact of the Tax Act. See the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act section above for additional information on the Tax Act.
Year Ended December 31, 2016, as Compared to 2015
Gas Utilities and Infrastructure's higher results were primarily due to the inclusion of Piedmont's earnings subsequent to the merger on October 3, 2016, and higher equity earnings from pipeline investments. Piedmont's earnings included in Gas Utilities and Infrastructure's results were $67 million for the year ended December 31, 2016.
Operating Revenues. The variance was driven primarily by by:
a $398 million increase in operating revenues due to the inclusion of PiedmontPiedmont's operating revenues beginning in October 2016, partially

47


PART II

Partially offset by by:
a $38 million decrease in fuel revenues driven by lower natural gas prices and decreased sales volumes for Midwest operations.
Operating Expenses. The variance was driven primarily by by:
a $276 million increase in operating expenses due to the inclusion of PiedmontPiedmont's operating expenses beginning in October 2016, partially2016.
Partially offset by by:
a $38 million decrease in the cost of natural gas, primarily due to decreased volumes and lower natural gas prices for Midwest operations.
Other Income and Expenses. The increase was driven primarily by higher equity earnings from pipeline investments.
Interest Expense. The variance was primarily due to the inclusion of PiedmontPiedmont's interest expenses beginning in October 2016.

PART II

Income Tax Expense. The variance was primarily due to an increase in pretax income. The effective tax rates for the years ended December 31, 2016, and 2015 were 37.2 percent and 37.6 percent, respectively.
Year Ended December 31, 2015 as Compared to 2014
Gas Utilities and Infrastructure's lower earnings were primarily due to unfavorable weather.
Operating Revenues. The variance was driven primarily by:
a $43 million decrease in fuel revenues primarily driven by lower natural gas prices and decreased sales volumes; and
a $7 million decrease in sales to retail customers due to unfavorable weather.
Partially offset by:
a $19 increase in regulated natural gas rider revenues primarily due to rate increases.
Operating Expenses. The variance is driven primarily by:
a $43 million decrease in the cost of natural gas, primarily due to decreased volumes and lower natural gas prices.
Partially offset by:
a $16 million increase due to a favorable gas excise tax settlement in June 2014; and
an $8 million increase due to amortization of the manufactured gas plant (MGP) regulatory asset.
Income Tax Expense. The variance was primarily due to lower pretax income, partially offset by an increase in effective tax rate. The effective tax rates for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014 were 37.6 percent and 36.0 percent, respectively.
Matters Impacting Future Gas Utilities and Infrastructure Results
Gas Utilities and Infrastructure has a 24 percent ownership interest in Constitution Pipeline Company, LLC (Constitution), a natural gas pipeline project slated to transport natural gas supplies to major northeastern markets. On April 22, 2016, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation denied Constitution’s application for a necessary water quality certification for the New York portion of the Constitution pipeline. Constitution has stopped construction and discontinued capitalization of future development costs until the project's uncertainty is resolved. As a result of the permitting delays and project uncertainty, total anticipated contributions by Duke Energy can no longer be reasonably estimated. To the extent the legal and regulatory proceedings have unfavorable outcomes, or if Constitution concludes that the project is not viable or does not go forward, an impairment charge of up to the recorded investment in the project, net of salvage value and any cash and working capital returned, may be recorded. Due to the FERC’s January 2018 ruling and the resulting increase in uncertainty, Duke Energy is evaluating the potential to recognize a pretax impairment charge on its investment in Constitution during the first quarter of 2018 of up to the current carrying amount of the investment, net of salvage value and any cash and working capital returned. With the project on hold, funding of project costs has ceased until resolution of legal actions. At December 31, 2017, Duke Energy is contractually obligated to provide funding of required operating costs, including the ownership percentage of legal expenses to obtain the necessary permitting for the projectEnergy's investment in Constitution was $81 million. See Note 4 and project costs incurred priorNote 12 to the denial of the water permit. If the legal actions resultConsolidated Financial Statements, "Regulatory Matters," and "Investments in an outcome where the project is abandoned, Constitution is obligated under various contracts to pay breakage fees that Unconsolidated Affiliates," respectively, for additional information.
Gas Utilities and Infrastructure would be obligatedhas a 47 percent ownership interest in ACP, which is building an approximately 600-mile interstate natural gas pipeline intended to fund uptransport diverse natural gas supplies into southeastern markets. Affected states (West Virginia, Virginia and North Carolina) have issued certain necessary permits; the project remains subject to other pending federal and state approvals, which will allow full construction activities to begin. In early 2018, the ownership percentage, or potentially upFERC issued series of Partial Notices to $10 million.
In 2013,Proceed which authorized the PUCO issued an order (PUCO order) approving Duke Energy Ohio’s recoveryproject to begin limited construction-related activities along the pipeline route. The project has a targeted in-service date of costs incurred between 2008late 2019. Due to delays in obtaining the required permits to commence construction and 2012 for environmental investigation and remediation of two former MGP sites. At December 31, 2016, Duke Energy Ohio had recorded in Regulatory assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheet approximately $99 million of estimated MGP remediation costs not yet recovered throughconditions imposed upon the MGP rider mechanism. Intervenors have appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court the PUCO order authorizing recovery of these amounts. That appeal remains pending. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of the appeal before the Ohio Supreme Court or future actionproject by the PUCO. If Duke Energy Ohio is not ablepermits, ACP's project manager estimates the project pipeline development costs have increased from a range of $5.0 billion to recover these remediation$5.5 billion to a range of $6.0 billion to $6.5 billion, excluding financing costs. Project construction activities, schedule and final costs are still subject to uncertainty due to potential additional permitting delays, construction productivity and other conditions and risks that could result in rates,potential higher project costs and a potential delay in the costs could have an adverse impact on Gas Utilities and Infrastructure's financial position, results of operations and cash flows.targeted in-service date. See Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Regulatory Matters," for additional information.
Rapidly rising interest rates without timely or adequate updates to the regulated allowed return on equity or failure to achieve the anticipated benefits of the Piedmont merger, including cost savings and growth targets, could significantly impact the estimated fair value of reporting units in Gas Utilities and Infrastructure. In the event of a significant decline in the estimated fair value of the reporting units, goodwill impairment charges could be recorded. The carrying value of goodwill within Gas Utilities and Infrastructure was approximately $1,924 million at December 31, 2017.
Within this Item 7, see the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act above as well as Liquidity and Capital Resources below for risks associated with the Tax Act.

48


PART II

Commercial Renewables
Years Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
    Variance
   Variance
    Variance
   Variance
    2016 vs.
   2015 vs.
    2017 vs.
   2016 vs.
(in millions)2016
 2015
 2015
 2014
 2014
2017
 2016
 2016
 2015
 2015
Operating Revenues$484
 $286
 $198
 $236
 $50
$460
 $484
 $(24) $286
 $198
Operating Expenses492
 322
 170
 231
 91
    

   

Operation, maintenance and other267
 337
 (70) 197
 140
Depreciation and amortization155
 130
 25
 104
 26
Property and other taxes33
 25
 8
 18
 7
Impairment charges99
 
 99
 3
 (3)
Total operating expenses554
 492
 62
 322
 170
Gains on Sales of Other Assets and Other, net5
 1
 4
 
 1
1
 5
 (4) 1
 4
Operating (Loss) Income(3) (35) 32
 5
 (40)
Operating Loss(93) (3) (90) (35) 32
Other Income and Expenses(83) 2
 (85) 11
 (9)(12) (83) 71
 2
 (85)
Interest Expense53
 44
 9
 50
 (6)87
 53
 34
 44
 9
Loss Before Income Taxes(139) (77) (62) (34) (43)(192) (139) (53) (77) (62)
Income Tax Benefit(160) (128) (32) (88) (40)(628) (160) (468) (128) (32)
Less: (Loss) Income Attributable to Noncontrolling Interests(2) (1) (1) 1
 (2)
Less: Loss Attributable to Noncontrolling Interests(5) (2) (3) (1) (1)
Segment Income$23
 $52
 $(29) $53
 $(1)$441
 $23
 $418
 $52
 $(29)
                  
Renewable plant production, GWh 7,565
 5,577
 1,988
 5,462
 115
8,260
 7,446
 814
 5,577
 1,869
Net proportional MW capacity in operation2,892
 1,943
 949
 1,370
 573
2,907
 2,892
 15
 1,943
 949
Year Ended December 31, 2017, as Compared to 2016
Commercial Renewables' higher earnings were primarily due to the Tax Act, partially offset by pretax impairment charges. The following is a detailed discussion of the variance drivers by line item.
Operating Revenues. The decrease was primarily due to lower engineering, procurement and construction revenues from REC Solar, a California-based provider of solar installations acquired by Duke Energy in 2015.
Operating Expenses. The increase was primarily due to $99 million in pretax impairment charges in the current year related to a wholly owned non-contracted wind project and other investments and higher expenses associated with new wind and solar projects, partially offset by lower operations and maintenance expense at REC Solar due to fewer projects under construction. See Notes 10 and 11 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Property, Plant and Equipment” and "Goodwill and Intangible Assets," respectively, for additional information.
Other Income and Expenses. The variance was primarily due to a $71 million pretax impairment charge in the prior year related to certain equity method investments. For additional information, see Note 12 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Investments in Unconsolidated Affiliates.”
Interest Expense. The variance was primarily due to new project financings and less capitalized interest due to fewer projects under construction.
Income Tax Benefit.The variance was primarily due to the impact of the Tax Act and higher production tax credits (PTCs), partially offset by lower investment tax credits (ITCs). See the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act section above for additional information on the Tax Act and the impact on the effective tax rate.
Year Ended December 31, 2016, as Compared to 2015
Commercial Renewables' lower earnings were primarily due to an impairment charge related to certain equity method investments in wind projects, partially offset by new wind and solar generation placed in service and improved wind production. The following is a detailed discussion of variance drivers by line item.
Operating Revenues. The variance was driven primarily by:
due to a $135 million increase due to growth of REC Solar a California-based provider of solar installations acquired by Duke Energy in 2015; and
a $66 million increase from new wind and solar generation placed in service and improved wind production.
Operating Expenses. The variance was driven primarily by:
due to a $130 million increase in operating expenses due to growth of REC Solar;Solar and
a $36 million increase in operating expenses due to new wind and solar generation placed in service.
Other Income and Expenses. The variance was due to a $71 million pretax impairment charge related to certain equity method investments in wind projects. See Note 12 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Investments in Unconsolidated Affiliates," for additional information.
Income Tax Benefit. The variance was primarily due to a decrease in pretax income and the impact of production tax credits (PTCs)PTCs for the renewables portfolio.
Year Ended December 31, 2015 as Compared to 2014
Commercial Renewables' results were impacted by new solar and wind generation placed in service, partially offset by unfavorable wind patterns. The following is a detailed discussion of variance drivers by line item.
49
Operating Revenues. The variance was driven primarily by:
a $41 million increase due to the acquisition of REC Solar; and
a $27 million increase from new solar and wind generation placed in service.
Partially offset by:
an $18 million decrease due to lower wind production.
Operating Expenses. The variance was driven primarily by:
a $48 million increase in operating expenses due to the acquisition of REC Solar; and
a $33 million increase in operating expenses due to new wind and solar generation placed in service.
Other Income and Expenses. The variance was primarily due to lower equity earnings due to lower wind production.
Interest Expense. The variance was primarily due to an increase in capitalized interest in 2015 from higher spending on wind and solar projects.


PART II

Income Tax Benefit.The variance was primarily due to a decrease in pretax income and the impact of PTCs.
Matters Impacting Future Commercial Renewables Results
Changes or variability in assumptions used in calculating the fair value of the Commercial Renewables reporting units for goodwill testing purposes, including but not limited to legislative actions related to tax credit extensions, long-term growth rates and discount rates could significantly impact the estimated fair value of the Commercial Renewables reporting units. In the event of a significant decline in the estimated fair value of the Commercial Renewables reporting units, goodwill or other asset impairment charges could be recorded. The carrying value of goodwill within Commercial Renewables was approximately $122$93 million at December 31, 2016.

2017.
Persistently low market pricing for wind resources, primarily in the EnergyElectric Reliability Council of Texas West market and the future expiration of tax incentives including Investment Tax Credits (ITCs)ITCs and PTCs could result in adverse impacts to the future results of Commercial Renewables.
Within this Item 7, see the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act above as well as Liquidity and Capital Resources below for risks associated with the Tax Act.
Other
Years Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
    Variance
   Variance
    Variance
   Variance
    2016 vs.
   2015 vs.
    2017 vs.
   2016 vs.
(in millions)2016
 2015
 2015
 2014
 2014
2017
 2016
 2016
 2015
 2015
Operating Revenues$117
 $135
 $(18) $116
 $19
$138
 $117
 $21
 $135
 $(18)
Operating Expenses604
 409
 195
 528
 (119)    

   

Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power58
 51
 7
 48
 3
Operation, maintenance and other44
 371
 (327) 188
 183
Depreciation and amortization131
 152
 (21) 135
 17
Property and other taxes14
 28
 (14) 35
 (7)
Impairment charges7
 2
 5
 3
 (1)
Total operating expenses254
 604
 (350) 409
 195
Gains on Sales of Other Assets and Other, net23
 18
 5
 6
 12
21
 23
 (2) 18
 5
Operating Loss(464) (256) (208) (406) 150
(95) (464) 369
 (256) (208)
Other Income and Expenses75
 98
 (23) 174
 (76)127
 75
 52
 98
 (23)
Interest Expense693
 393
 300
 409
 (16)574
 693
 (119) 393
 300
Loss Before Income Taxes(1,082) (551) (531) (641) 90
(542) (1,082) 540
 (551) (531)
Income Tax Benefit(446) (262) (184) (314) 52
Income Tax Expense (Benefit)353
 (446) 799
 (262) (184)
Less: Income attributable to Noncontrolling Interests9
 10
 (1) 5
 5
10
 9
 1
 10
 (1)
Net Expense$(645) $(299) $(346) $(332) $33
$(905) $(645) $(260) $(299) $(346)
Year Ended December 31, 2017, as Compared to 2016
Other’s higher net expense was driven by the Tax Act, partially offset by prior year losses on forward-starting interest rate swaps and other costs related to the Piedmont acquisition, decreased severance expenses, prior year donations to the Duke Energy Foundation and insurance proceeds resulting from settlement of the shareholder litigation related to the Progress Energy merger. The following is a detailed discussion of the variance drivers by line item.
Operating Revenues. The increase was primarily due to higher OVEC (Ohio Valley Electric Corporation) revenues and prior year customer credits related to Piedmont merger commitments. See Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Acquisitions and Dispositions," for additional information.
Operating Expenses. The decrease was primarily due to lower transaction and integration costs associated with the Piedmont acquisition, prior year severance expenses related to cost savings initiatives, donations to the Duke Energy Foundation in 2016 as well as prior year depreciation expense and other integration costs related to the Progress Energy merger. The Duke Energy Foundation is a nonprofit organization funded by Duke Energy shareholders that makes charitable contributions to selected nonprofits and government subdivisions.
Other Income and Expenses. The increase was primarily driven by insurance proceeds resulting from settlement of the shareholder litigation related to the Progress Energy merger, higher earnings from the equity method investment in NMC and increased returns on investments that fund certain employee benefit obligations.
Interest Expense. The decrease was primarily due to prior year losses on forward-starting interest rate swaps related to Piedmont pre-acquisition financing, partially offset by higher interest costs on $3.75 billion of debt issued in August 2016 to fund the acquisition. For additional information see Notes 2, 6 and 14 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Acquisitions and Dispositions," "Debt and Credit Facilities" and "Derivatives and Hedging," respectively.
Income Tax Benefit. The variance was primarily due to the impact of the Tax Act and a decrease in pretax loss. See the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act section above for additional information on the Tax Act and the impact on the effective tax rate.

50


PART II

Year Ended December 31, 2016, as Compared to 2015
Other’s higher net expense was driven by higher costs related to the Piedmont acquisition, higher charitable donations and higher interest expense related to the Piedmont acquisition financing. The following is a detailed discussion of the variance drivers by line item.
Operating Revenues. The decrease was primarily due to customer credits recorded in the fourth quarter related to Piedmont merger commitments. See Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Acquisitions and Dispositions," for additional information.
Operating Expenses. The increase was primarily due to transaction and integration costs associated with the Piedmont acquisition and increased donations to the Duke Energy Foundation, partially offset by a decrease in severance accruals. The Duke Energy Foundation is a nonprofit organization funded by Duke Energy shareholders that makes charitable contributions to selected nonprofits and government subdivisions.
Other Income and Expenses. The variance was primarily due to lower earnings from NMC, which was recast to Other following the sale of the International disposal group (See Note 3 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Business Segments"), partially offset by higher returns on investments that support employee benefit obligations.
Interest Expense. The increase was primarily due to Piedmont acquisition financing, including bridge facility costs and losses on forward-starting interest rate swaps. For additional information see Notes 2 and 14 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Acquisitions and Dispositions" and "Derivatives and Hedging," respectively.
Income Tax Benefit. The variance was primarily due to an increase in pretax losses, partially offset by a decrease in the effective tax rate. The effective tax rates for the years ended December 31, 2016, and 2015 were 41.2 percent and 47.5 percent, respectively. The decrease in the effective tax rate was primarily due to the benefit from legal entity restructuring recorded in 2015.
Year Ended December 31, 2015 as Compared to 2014
Other’s lower net expense was driven by an impairment charge in 2014 related to the Ohio Valley Electric Corporation (OVEC) and lower Progress Energy merger costs, partially offset by lower earnings from NMC. The following is a detailed discussion of the variance drivers by line item.
Operating Revenues. The increase was primarily due to higher revenues from OVEC.
Operating Expenses. The decrease was primarily due to an impairment charge in 2014 related to OVEC, lower charges related to the Progress Energy merger, and higher prior year captive insurance losses, partially offset by severance accruals and higher North Carolina franchise taxes.
Gains on Sales of Other Assets and Other, net. The variance was primarily due to a gain on sale of telecommunication leases.

PART II

Other Income and Expenses, net. The variance was primarily due to lower earnings from NMC, lower returns on investments that support employee benefit obligations and a gain on an investment sale in 2014, partially offset by interest income from the resolution of an income tax matter.
Income Tax Benefit. The variance was primarily due to a decrease in pretax losses. The effective tax rates for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014 were 47.5 percent and 49.0 percent, respectively.
Matters Impacting Future Other Results
Included in Other is Duke Energy Ohio's 9 percent ownership interest in OVEC,the Ohio Valley Electric Corporation (OVEC), which owns 2,256 MW of coal firedcoal-fired generation capacity. As a counterparty to an inter-company power agreement (ICPA), Duke Energy Ohio has a contractual arrangement to receive entitlements to capacity and energy from OVEC’s power plants through June 2040 commensurate with its power participation ratio, which is equivalent to Duke Energy Ohio's ownership interest. Costs, including fuel, operating expenses, fixed costs, debt amortization and interest expense, are allocated to counterparties to the ICPA, including Duke Energy Ohio, based on their power participation ratio. The value of the ICPA is subject to variability due to fluctuations in power prices and changes in OVEC’s costs of business. Deterioration in the credit quality or bankruptcy of one or more parties to the ICPA could increase the costs of OVEC. In addition, certain proposed environmental rulemaking costs could result in future increased cost allocations. For information on Duke Energy's regulatory filings related to OVEC, see Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters.”
The retired Beckjord generating station (Beckjord), a nonregulated facility retired during 2014, is not subject to the EPAU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule related to the disposal of CCR from electric utilities. However, if costs are incurred as a result of environmental regulations or to mitigate risk associated with on-site storage of coal ash, the costs could have an adverse impact on Other's financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
Earnings from an equity method investment in NMC reflect sales of methanolWithin this Item 7, see the Tax Cuts and MTBE, which generate margins that are directionally correlatedJobs Act above as well as Liquidity and Capital Resources below for risks associated with Brent crude oil prices. The recent decline in crude oil prices have reduced the earnings realized from NMC. Further weakness in the market price of Brent crude oil and related commodities may result in a further decline in earnings. Duke Energy's economic ownership interest will decrease from 25 percent to 17.5 percent upon successful startup of NMC's polyacetal production facility, which is expected to occur in the second quarter of 2017.Tax Act.
U.S. federal tax reform has become an important priority of the current Congress and Administration. Any substantial revision to the U.S. tax code, including a loss of the ability to deduct interest expense, could adversely impact Duke Energy's future earnings, cash flows or financial position.
(LOSS) INCOME FROM DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS, NET OF TAX
 Years Ended December 31,
     Variance
   Variance
     2017 vs.
   2016 vs.
(in millions)2017
 2016
 2016
 2015
 2015
(Loss) Income From Discontinued Operations, net of tax$(6) $(408) $402
 $177
 $(585)
Year Ended December 31, 20162017, as Compared to 20152016
The variance was primarily driven by the prior year loss on the disposal of Duke Energy's Latin American generation business and an impairment charge related to certain assets in Central America, partially offset by a tax benefit related to historic unremitted foreign earnings and immaterial out of period tax adjustments unrelated to the Disposal Groups. See Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Acquisitions and Dispositions," for additional information.
Year Ended December 31, 20152016, as Compared to 20142015
The variance was primarily duedriven by the 2016 loss on the disposal of Duke Energy's Latin American generation business and an impairment charge related to the 2014 impairment of the Midwest Generation Disposal Group andcertain assets in Central America, partially offset by a 2014 tax chargebenefit related to historic unremitted foreign earnings partially offset byand immaterial out of period tax adjustments unrelated to the Disposal Groups. See Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Acquisitions and Dispositions," for additional information.

51


PART II

SUBSIDIARY REGISTRANTS
As a result of the Tax Act, the Subsidiary Registrants revalued their deferred tax assets and deferred tax liabilities, as of December 31, 2017, to account for the future impact of lower operatingcorporate tax rates on these deferred tax amounts. For the Subsidiary Registrants regulated operations, where the reduction is expected to be returned to customers in future rates, the remeasurement has been deferred as a regulatory liability. See Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Regulatory Matters" for additional information on the Tax Act's impact to the regulatory asset and liability accounts. The FERC and state utility commissions will determine the regulatory treatment of the impacts of the Tax Act for the Subsidiary Registrants. The Subsidiary Registrants’ future results of the International Disposal Group in 2015 compared to 2014. Operating results for the International Disposal Group in 2015 wereoperations, financial condition and cash flows could be adversely impacted by lower demand, unfavorable hydrology in Brazil, changes in foreign currency exchange rates, the absenceTax Act, subsequent amendments or corrections, or the actions of a 2014 tax benefitthe FERC, state utility commissions or credit rating agencies related to the reorganization of Chilean operations and lower dispatchTax Act. The change in Central Americaeach Subsidiary Registrant's effective tax rate for the year ended December 31, 2017, was primarily due to increased competition.the impact of the Tax Act, unless noted below. The following table shows the expense (benefit) recorded on the Subsidiary Registrant's Consolidated Statement of Operations and Comprehensive Income for the year ended December 31, 2017, and the effective tax rate for each Subsidiary Registrant.
   Effective Tax Rate
 Impacts of Years Ended December 31, 
(in millions)
the Tax Act(a)(b)
 2017
 2016
Duke Energy Carolinas$15
 34.9% 35.2%
Progress Energy(246)
(c) 
17.2% 33.7%
Duke Energy Progress(40)
(d) 
29.0%
(h) 
33.4%
Duke Energy Florida(226)
(c) 
6.1% 36.9%
Duke Energy Ohio(23)
(e) 
23.4% 28.9%
Duke Energy Indiana55
(f) 
46.0% 37.1%
Piedmont(2)
(d)(g) 
30.8% 38.3%
(a)
Except where noted below, amounts are included within Income Tax Expense From Continuing Operations or Income Tax Expense on the Consolidated Statement of Operations and Comprehensive Income.
(b)See Notes 4 and 22 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Regulatory Matters" and "Income Taxes," for information about the Tax Act's impact on Duke Energy's Consolidated Balance Sheets.
(c)Amount primarily relates to the remeasurement of deferred tax liabilities that are excluded for ratemaking purposes related to abandoned assets and certain wholesale fixed rate contracts.
(d)Amount primarily relates to the remeasurement of deferred tax liabilities of certain wholesale fixed rate contracts.
(e)Amount primarily relates to the remeasurement of deferred tax assets that are excluded for ratemaking purposes related to a prior transfer of certain electric generating assets.
(f)Amount primarily relates to the remeasurement of deferred tax liabilities that are excluded for ratemaking purposes related to impaired assets.
(g)Includes a $16 million expense recorded within Equity in earnings (losses) of unconsolidated affiliates on the Consolidated Statement of Operations and Comprehensive Income.
(h)The decrease in the effective tax rate was primarily due to the impact of the Tax Act and lower North Carolina corporate tax rates.

52


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, 2017, 2016 2015 and 2014.2015.
Basis of Presentation
The results of operations and variance discussion for Duke Energy Carolinas is presented in a reduced disclosure format in accordance with General Instruction (I)(2)(a) of Form 10-K.

PART II

Results of Operations
Years Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2016
 2015
 Variance
2017
 2016
 Variance
Operating Revenues$7,322
 $7,229
 $93
$7,302
 $7,322
 $(20)
Operating Expenses5,255
 5,268
 (13)    

Loss on Sales of Other Assets and Other, net(5) (1) (4)
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power1,822
 1,797
 25
Operation, maintenance and other1,961
 2,106
 (145)
Depreciation and amortization1,090
 1,075
 15
Property and other taxes281
 276
 5
Impairment charges
 1
 (1)
Total operating expenses5,154
 5,255
 (101)
Gain (Loss) on Sales of Other Assets and Other, net1
 (5) 6
Operating Income2,062
 1,960
 102
2,149
 2,062
 87
Other Income and Expenses162
 160
 2
Other Income and Expenses, net139
 162
 (23)
Interest Expense424
 412
 12
422
 424
 (2)
Income Before Income Taxes1,800
 1,708
 92
1,866
 1,800
 66
Income Tax Expense634
 627
 7
652
 634
 18
Net Income$1,166
 $1,081
 $85
$1,214
 $1,166
 $48
The following table shows the percent changes in GWh sales and average 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.weather-normalized.
Increase (Decrease) over prior year2016 20152017 2016
Residential sales0.1 % (0.2)%(4.8)% 0.1 %
General service sales0.7 % 1.0 %(1.8)% 0.7 %
Industrial sales(0.9)% 2.6 %(0.8)% (0.9)%
Wholesale power sales9.8 % 1.5 %6.3 % 9.8 %
Joint dispatch sales(2.3)% (44.8)%18.2 % (2.3)%
Total sales1.8 % (1.3)%(1.4)% 1.8 %
Average number of customers1.4 % 1.3 %1.5 % 1.4 %
Year Ended December 31, 20162017, as Compared to 20152016
Operating Revenues. The variance was driven primarily by:
a $91$179 million increase in retail pricing and rider revenues, including increased revenues related to energy efficiency programs and the expiration of the North Carolina cost of removal decrement rider;
a $58 million increasedecrease in retail sales, net of fuel revenues, due to less favorable weather in the current year.
Partially offset by:
a $74 million increase in rider revenues and retail pricing primarily related to energy efficiency programs;
a $41 million increase in weather-normal sales volumes to retail customers, net of fuel revenues;
a $30 million increase in fuel revenues primarily due to more favorable weather compared to the prior year;changes in generation mix partially offset by lower retail sales; and
a $45$7 million increase in wholesale power revenues, net of sharing and fuel, primarily due to additional demand fromvolumes for customers served under long-term contracts.
Partially offset by:
a $106 million decrease in fuel revenues, driven primarily by lower fuel prices included in electric retail and wholesale rates.
53


PART II

Operating Expenses. The variance was driven primarily by:
an $84a $145 million decrease in fueloperations, maintenance and other expense (including purchased power) primarily due to lower natural gas and coal prices, as well as changes in generation mix.
Partially offset by:
a $41 million increase in operations and maintenance expense primarily due toexpenses at generating plants, lower costs associated with merger commitments related to the Piedmont acquisition in 2016, increasedlower severance expenses, and lower employee benefit costs, partially offset by higher energy efficiency program costs, and higher storm restoration costs,costs.
Partially offset by:
a $25 million increase in fuel expense (including purchased power) primarily due to changes in generation mix, partially offset by lower severance expenses, lower expenses at generating plants, lower costs associated with the Progress Energy mergerretail sales; and decreased corporate costs;
a $24$15 million increase in depreciation and amortization expense primarily due to additional plant in service; and
a $7 million increase in property and other taxes primarily due to higher property taxes.service, partially offset by lower amortization of certain regulatory assets.
Interest ExpenseOther Income and Expenses.. The variance was primarily due to higher debt outstandinga decrease in the current year.recognition of 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 partially offset by a lower effective tax rate. The effective tax rate for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 were 35.2 percent and 36.7 percent, respectively. The decrease in the effective tax rate was primarily due to audit settlements and the impact of favorablethe Tax Act, offset by the impact of research credits and the manufacturing deduction. See the Subsidiary Registrants section above for additional information on the Tax Act and the impact on the effective tax return true-ups.rate.

PART II

Matters Impacting Future Results
An order from regulatory authorities disallowing recovery of costs related to closure of ash impoundments could have an adverse impact on Duke Energy Carolinas' financial position, results of operations and cash flows. See Notes 4 and 9 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters” and "Asset Retirement Obligations," respectively, for additional information.
On May 18, 2016, the NCDEQ issued proposed risk classifications for all coal ash surface impoundments in North Carolina. All ash impoundments not previously designated as high priority by the Coal Ash Act were designated as intermediate risk. Certain impoundments classified as intermediate risk, however, may be reassessed in the future as low risk pursuant to legislation signed by the former North Carolina governorenacted on July 14, 2016. Duke Energy Carolinas' estimated AROs related to the closure of North Carolina ash impoundments are based upon the mandated closure method or a probability weighting of potential closure methods for the impoundments that may be reassessed to low risk. As the final risk ranking classifications in North Carolina are delineated, final closure plans and corrective action measures are developed and approved for each site, the closure work progresses, and the closure method scope and remedial action methods are determined, the complexity of work and the amount of coal combustion material could be different than originally estimated and, therefore, could materially impact Duke Energy Carolinas' financial position. See Note 9 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Asset"Asset Retirement Obligations," for additional information.
Duke Energy Carolinas is a party to multiple lawsuits and subject to fines and other penalties related to the Dan River coal ash release and operations at othercertain North Carolina facilities with ash basins. The outcome of these lawsuits, fines and penalties could have an adverse impact on 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.
Duke Energy Carolinas intends to filefiled a general rate case in North Carolina inon August 25, 2017, to recover costs of complying with CCR regulations and the Coal Ash Act, as well as costs of capital investments in generation, transmission and distribution systems and any increase in expenditures subsequent to previous rate cases. Duke Energy Carolinas' earnings could be adversely impacted if the rate caseincrease is delayed or denied by the NCUC.
Within this Item 7, see the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act above as well as Liquidity and Capital Resources below for risks associated with the Tax Act.

54


PART II

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, 2017, 2016 2015 and 2014.2015.
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,Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2016
 2015
 Variance
2017
 2016
 Variance
Operating Revenues$9,853
 $10,277
 $(424)$9,783
 $9,853
 $(70)
Operating Expenses7,737
 8,142
 (405)     
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power3,417
 3,644
 (227)
Operation, maintenance and other2,220
 2,386
 (166)
Depreciation and amortization1,285
 1,213
 72
Property and other taxes503
 487
 16
Impairment charges156
 7
 149
Total operating expenses7,581
 7,737
 (156)
Gains on Sales of Other Assets and Other, net25
 25
 
26
 25
 1
Operating Income2,141
 2,160
 (19)2,228
 2,141
 87
Other Income and Expenses114
 97
 17
Other Income and Expenses, net128
 114
 14
Interest Expense689
 670
 19
824
 689
 135
Income Before Income Taxes1,566
 1,587
 (21)
Income Tax Expense527
 522
 5
Income From Continuing Operations Before Income Taxes1,532
 1,566
 (34)
Income Tax Expense From Continuing Operations264
 527
 (263)
Income from Continuing Operations1,039
 1,065
 (26)1,268
 1,039
 229
Income (Loss) from Discontinued Operations, net of tax2
 (3) 5
Income from Discontinued Operations, net of tax
 2
 (2)
Net Income1,041
 1,062
 (21)1,268
 1,041
 227
Less: Net Income Attributable to Noncontrolling Interests10
 11
 (1)10
 10
 
Net Income Attributable to Parent$1,031
 $1,051
 $(20)$1,258
 $1,031
 $227
Year Ended December 31, 20162017, as Compared to 20152016
Operating Revenues. The variance was driven primarily by:
a $638$231 million decrease in fuel revenues primarily due to lower fuel pricesretail sales and changes in generation mix partially offset by increased capacity rates to retail customers at Duke Energy Florida;Progress; and
a $17
an $87 million decrease in retail sales, net of fuel revenue,revenues, due to unfavorableless favorable weather compared toin the priorcurrent year at Duke Energy Florida..
Partially offset by:
a $188$108 million increase in retail pricing primarily due to Duke Energy Florida’s base rate adjustment for the Osprey Acquisition and the completion of the Hines Energy Complex Chiller Uprate Project, as well as the Duke Energy Progress South Carolina rate case;
a $76 million increase in rider revenues, including increased revenues related to energy efficiency programs the additional ownership interest in certain generating assets acquired from NCEMPA in the third quarter of 2015, nuclear asset securitization revenues beginning in 2016, and an increase in energy conservation and environmental cost recovery clause revenues, partially offset by lower nuclear cost recovery clause (NCRC) rider revenues due to suspending recovery for the Levy nuclear project in 2015; and
a $34 million increase in wholesale power revenues primarily due to the NCEMPA contract, partially offset by lower peak demand at Duke Energy Progress, as well as nuclear asset securitization beginning in July 2016 and contracts that expiredextended uprate project revenues beginning in the prior year2017 at Duke Energy Florida.Florida; and
a $51 million increase in weather-normal sales volumes to retail customers.
Operating Expenses. The variance was driven primarily by:
a $581$227 million decrease in fuel expense and purchased power primarily due to lower natural gas prices,retail sales and changes in generation mix at Duke Energy Progress; and
a $166 million decrease in operations, maintenance and other expense primarily due to lower deferred fuel expense,plant outage, storm restoration and lower generation costs, partially offset by increased purchased power.labor costs.

55


PART II

Partially offset by:
a $96$149 million increase in impairment charges primarily due to the write-off of remaining unrecovered Levy Nuclear Project costs in the current year at Duke Energy Florida and the disallowance from rate base of certain projects at the Mayo and Sutton plants in the current year at Duke Energy Progress related to the partial settlement in the North Carolina rate case; and
a $72 million increase in depreciation and amortization expense primarily due to additional plant in service, including the additional ownership interest in generation assets acquired from NCEMPA; and
an $84 million increase in operations and maintenance expense due to costs associated with merger commitments related to the Piedmont acquisition in 2016, higher employee benefit costs, and higher storm restoration costsas well as nuclear regulatory asset amortization at Duke Energy Progress, partially offset by lower nuclear costs and severance costsFlorida.
Interest Expense. The variance was due to higher debt outstanding, as well as interest charges on North Carolina fuel over collections at Duke Energy Progress and lower costs related to fleet maintenance work at Duke Energy Florida.
Other Income and Expenses. The variance is due to higher AFUDC equity return on certain projects at Duke Energy Florida.

PART II

Interest Expense. The variance is due to higher debt outstanding, partially offsetreturns driven by higher AFUDCthe CR3 regulatory asset debt return on certain projectsending in June 2016 upon securitization at Duke Energy Florida.
Income Tax Expense. The variance was primarily due to a higherthe impact of the Tax Act. See the Subsidiary Registrants section above for additional information on the Tax Act and the impact on the effective tax rate, partially offset by lower pretax income. The effective tax rate for the twelve months ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 were 33.7 percent and 32.9 percent, respectively.rate.
Matters Impacting Future Results
An order from regulatory authorities disallowing recovery of costs related to closure of ash impoundments could have an adverse impact on Progress Energy’s financial position, results of operations and cash flows. See Notes 4 and 9 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters” and "Asset Retirement Obligations," respectively, for additional information.
On May 18, 2016, the NCDEQ issued proposed risk classifications for all coal ash surface impoundments in North Carolina. All ash impoundments not previously designated as high priority by the Coal Ash Act were designated as intermediate risk. Certain impoundments classified as intermediate risk, however, may be reassessed in the future as low risk pursuant to legislation signedenacted on July 14, 2016. Progress Energy's estimated AROs related to the closure of North Carolina ash impoundments are based upon the mandated closure method or a probability weighting of potential closure methods for the impoundments that may be reassessed to low risk. As the final risk ranking classifications in North Carolina are delineated, final closure plans and corrective action measures are developed and approved for each site, the closure work progresses, and the closure method scope and remedial action methods are determined, the complexity of work and the amount of coal combustion material could be different than originally estimated and, therefore, could materially impact Progress Energy's financial position. See Note 9 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Asset Retirement Obligations," for additional information.
Duke Energy Progress is a party to multiple lawsuits and subject to fines and other penalties related to operations at certain North Carolina facilities with ash basins. The outcome of these lawsuits, fines and penalties could have an adverse impact on 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.
In the fourth quarter of 2016, Hurricane Matthew caused historic flooding, extensive damage and widespread power outages within the Duke Energy Progress service territory. Duke Energy Progress filed a petition with the North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC) requesting an accounting order to defer incremental operation and maintenance and capital costs incurred in response to Hurricane Matthew and other significant 2016 storms. The NCUC will address this request in Duke Energy Progress' currently pending rate case. A final order from the NCUC that disallows the deferral and future recovery of all or a significant portion of the incremental storm restoration costs incurred could result in an adverse impact on Electric Utilities and Infrastructure's financial position, results of operations and cash flows. See Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters,” for additional information.
Duke Energy Progress filed a general rate case with the NCUC on June 1, 2017. Duke Energy Progress will seek to recover costs of complying with CCR regulations and the Coal Ash Act, as well as costs of capital investments in generation, transmission and distribution systems and any increase in expenditures subsequent to previous rate cases. Progress Energy's earnings could be adversely impacted if the rate increase is delayed or denied by the formerNCUC.
On August 29, 2017, Duke Energy Florida filed the 2017 Settlement with the FPSC. On November 20, 2017, the FPSC issued an order to approve the 2017 Settlement. See Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters,” for additional information about the 2017 Settlement. In accordance with the 2017 Settlement, Duke Energy Florida will not seek recovery of any costs associated with the ongoing Westinghouse contract litigation, which is currently being appealed. See Note 5 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Commitments and Contingencies” for additional information about the litigation. An unfavorable appeals ruling on that matter could have an adverse impact on Electric Utilities and Infrastructure’s financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
Within this Item 7, see the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act above as well as Liquidity and Capital Resources below for risks associated with the Tax Act.

56


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, 2017, 2016 and 2015.
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)2017
 2016
 Variance
Operating Revenues$5,129
 $5,277
 $(148)
Operating Expenses     
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power1,609
 1,830
 (221)
Operation, maintenance and other1,389
 1,504
 (115)
Depreciation and amortization725
 703
 22
Property and other taxes156
 156
 
Impairment charges19
 1
 18
Total operating expenses3,898
 4,194
 (296)
Gains on Sales of Other Asset and Other, net4
 3
 1
Operating Income1,235
 1,086
 149
Other Income and Expenses, net65
 71
 (6)
Interest Expense293
 257
 36
Income Before Income Taxes1,007
 900
 107
Income Tax Expense292
 301
 (9)
Net Income$715
 $599
 $116
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 year2017
 2016
Residential sales(2.6)% (1.5)%
General service sales(1.3)% 0.2 %
Industrial sales1.1 % (0.1)%
Wholesale power sales(2.9)% 18.4 %
Joint dispatch sales(17.1)% 17.7 %
Total sales(3.2)% 6.4 %
Average number of customers1.4 % 1.3 %
Year Ended December 31, 2017, as Compared to 2016
Operating Revenues.The variance was driven primarily by:
a $238 million decrease in fuel revenues due to lower retail sales and changes in generation mix; and
a $37 million decrease in retail sales, net of fuel revenues, due to less favorable weather in the current year, partially offset by lower lost revenues related to hurricanes in the current year.
Partially offset by:
a $40 million increase in rider revenues primarily due to energy efficiency programs;
a $38 million increase in retail sales due to the South Carolina rate case; and
a $31 million increase in wholesale power revenues, net of fuel, primarily due to higher peak demand.
Operating Expenses.The variance was driven primarily by:
a $221 million decrease in fuel used in electric generation and purchased power primarily due to lower retail sales and changes in generation mix; and

57


PART II

a $115 million decrease in operation, maintenance and other expense primarily due to lower nuclear outage costs and lower storm restoration costs.
Partially offset by:
a $22 million increase in depreciation and amortization expense primarily due to additional plant in service; and
an $18 million increase in impairment charges primarily due to the disallowance from rate base of certain projects at the Mayo and Sutton plants in the current year related to the partial settlement in the North Carolina governorrate case.
Interest Expense. The variance was due to higher debt outstanding, as well as interest charges on North Carolina fuel overcollections.
Income Tax Expense. The variance was primarily due to the impact of the Tax Act and lower North Carolina corporate tax rates, partially offset by an increase in pretax net income. See the Subsidiary Registrants section above for additional information on the Tax Act and the impact on the effective tax rate.
Matters Impacting Future Results
An order from regulatory authorities disallowing recovery of costs related to closure of ash impoundments could have an adverse impact on Duke Energy Progress’ financial position, results of operations and cash flows. See Notes 4 and 9 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters” and "Asset Retirement Obligations," respectively, for additional information.
On May 18, 2016, the NCDEQ issued proposed risk classifications for all coal ash surface impoundments in North Carolina. All ash impoundments not previously designated as high priority by the Coal Ash Act were designated as intermediate risk. Certain impoundments classified as intermediate risk, however, may be reassessed in the future as low risk pursuant to legislation enacted on July 14, 2016. Duke Energy Progress' estimated AROs related to the closure of North Carolina ash impoundments are based upon the mandated closure method or a probability weighting of potential closure methods for the impoundments that may be reassessed to low risk. As the final risk ranking classifications in North Carolina are delineated, final closure plans and corrective action measures are developed and approved for each site, the closure work progresses, and the closure method scope and remedial action methods are determined, the complexity of work and the amount of coal combustion material could be different than originally estimated and, therefore, could materially impact Duke Energy Progress' financial position. See Note 9 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Asset Retirement Obligations,” for additional information.
Duke Energy Progress is a party to multiple lawsuits and subject to fines and other penalties related to operations at certain North Carolina facilities with ash basins. The outcome of these lawsuits, fines and penalties could have an adverse impact on 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.
In the fourth quarter of 2016, Hurricane Matthew caused historic flooding, extensive damage and widespread power outages within the Duke Energy Progress service territory. Duke Energy Progress filed a petition with the NCUC requesting an accounting order to defer approximately $140 million of incremental operation and maintenance and capital costs incurred in response to Hurricane Matthew and other significant 2016 storms. The NCUC has not ruled on the petition. A final order from the NCUC that disallows the deferral and future recovery of all or a significant portion of the incremental storm restoration costs incurred could result in an adverse impact on Progress Energy's financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
Duke Energy Progress intends to file a rate case in North Carolina in 2017 to recover costs of complying with CCR regulations and the Coal Ash Act, as well as costs of capital investments in generation, transmission and distribution systems and any increase in expenditures subsequent to previous rate cases. Progress Energy's earnings could be adversely impacted if the rate case is delayed or denied by the NCUC.

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, 2016, 2015 and 2014.
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)2016
 2015
 Variance
Operating Revenues$5,277
 $5,290
 $(13)
Operating Expenses4,194
 4,269
 (75)
Gains on Sales of Other Asset and Other, net3
 3
 
Operating Income1,086
 1,024
 62
Other Income and Expenses71
 71
 
Interest Expense257
 235
 22
Income Before Income Taxes900
 860
 40
Income Tax Expense301
 294
 7
Net Income$599
 $566
 $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 year2016
 2015
Residential sales(1.5)% (1.4)%
General service sales0.2 % 0.9 %
Industrial sales(0.1)% (0.3)%
Wholesale power sales18.4 % 13.0 %
Joint dispatch sales17.7 % 14.1 %
Total sales6.4 % 3.2 %
Average number of customers1.3 % 1.4 %
Year Ended December 31, 2016 as Compared to 2015
Operating Revenues.The variance was driven primarily by:
a $206 million decrease in fuel revenues driven by lower natural gas prices and changes in generation mix;
a $17 million decrease in intercompany Joint Dispatch Agreement (JDA) revenues; and
a $5 million decrease in transmission revenues due to a settlement with customers that reduced the rate of return on equity.
Partially offset by:
a $150 million increase in rider revenues due to the purchase of NCEMPA’s ownership interest in certain generating assets and energy efficiency programs; and
a $65 million increase in wholesale power revenues primarily due to the NCEMPA contract effective August 1, 2015, partially offset by lower peak demand.
Operating Expenses.The variance was driven primarily by:
a $199 million decrease in fuel expense primarily due to lower natural gas prices and changes in generation mix.

PART II

Partially offset by:
a $61 million increase in depreciation and amortization expense primarily due to additional plant in service, including the additional ownership interest in generating assets acquired from NCEMPA;
a $51 million increase in operations and maintenance expense primarily due to a favorable pension expense adjustment recorded in 2015, costs associated with merger commitments related to the Piedmont acquisition in 2016, higher storm restoration costs, and higher employee benefit costs, partially offset by lower nuclear costs (net of nuclear levelization) due to fewer outages in 2016 and lower severance costs; and
a $15 million increase in property and other taxes due to a 2015 North Carolina Franchise Tax refund and increases in current year property taxes in North Carolina and South Carolina.
Interest Expense. The variance was due to higher debt outstanding.
Income Tax Expense. The variance was primarily due to an increase in pretax income, partially offset by a lower effective tax rate. The effective tax rate for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 were 33.4 percent and 34.2 percent, respectively. The decrease in the effective tax rate was primarily due to the impact of favorable tax return true-ups and a rate change in North Carolina.
Matters Impacting Future Results
An order from regulatory authorities disallowing recovery of costs related to closure of ash impoundments could have an adverse impact on Duke Energy Progress’ financial position, results of operations and cash flows. See Notes 4 and 9 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters” and "Asset Retirement Obligations," respectively, for additional information.
On May 18, 2016, the NCDEQ issued proposed risk classifications for all coal ash surface impoundments in North Carolina. All ash impoundments not previously designated as high priority by the Coal Ash Act were designated as intermediate risk. Certain impoundments classified as intermediate risk, however, may be reassessed in the future as low risk pursuant to legislation signed by the former North Carolina governor on July 14, 2016. Duke Energy Progress' estimated AROs related to the closure of North Carolina ash impoundments are based upon the mandated closure method or a probability weighting of potential closure methods for the impoundments that may be reassessed to low risk. As the final risk ranking classifications in North Carolina are delineated, final closure plans and corrective action measures are developed and approved for each site, the closure work progresses, and the closure method scope and remedial action methods are determined, the complexity of work and the amount of coal combustion material could be different than originally estimated and, therefore, could materially impact Duke Energy Progress' financial position. See Note 9 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Asset Retirement Obligations,” for additional information.
Duke Energy Progress is a party to multiple lawsuits and subject to fines and other penalties related to operations at certain North Carolina facilities with ash basins. The outcome of these lawsuits, fines and penalties could have an adverse impact on 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.
In the fourth quarter of 2016, Hurricane Matthew caused historic flooding, extensive damage and widespread power outages within the Duke Energy Progress service territory. Duke Energy Progress filed a petition with the NCUCNorth Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC) requesting an accounting order to defer approximately $140 million of incremental operation and maintenance and capital costs incurred in response to Hurricane Matthew and other significant 2016 storms. The NCUC has not ruled on the petition.will address this request in Duke Energy Progress' currently pending rate case. A final order from the NCUC that disallows the deferral and future recovery of all or a significant portion of the incremental storm restoration costs incurred could result in an adverse impact on Duke Energy Progress'Electric Utilities and Infrastructure's financial position, results of operations and cash flows. See Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters,” for additional information.
Duke Energy Progress intends to filefiled a general rate case in North Carolina in 2017with the NCUC on June 1, 2017. Duke Energy Progress will seek to recover costs of complying with CCR regulations and the Coal Ash Act, as well as costs of capital investments in generation, transmission and distribution systems and any increase in expenditures subsequent to previous rate cases. Duke Energy Progress' earnings could be adversely impacted if the rate caseincrease is delayed or denied by the NCUC. See Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters,” for additional information.
Within this Item 7, see the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act above as well as Liquidity and Capital Resources below for risks associated with the Tax Act.

58


PART II

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, 2017, 2016 2015 and 2014.2015.
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,Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2016
 2015
 Variance
2017
 2016
 Variance
Operating Revenues$4,568
 $4,977
 $(409)$4,646
 $4,568
 $78
Operating Expenses3,527
 3,862
 (335)     
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power1,808
 1,814
 (6)
Operation, maintenance and other818
 865
 (47)
Depreciation and amortization560
 509
 51
Property and other taxes347
 333
 14
Impairment charges138
 6
 132
Total operating expenses3,671
 3,527
 144
Gains on Sales of Other Asset and Other, net1
 
 1
Operating Income1,041
 1,115
 (74)976
 1,041
 (65)
Other Income and Expenses44
 24
 20
Other Income and Expenses, net61
 44
 17
Interest Expense212
 198
 14
279
 212
 67
Income Before Income Taxes873
 941
 (68)758
 873
 (115)
Income Tax Expense322
 342
 (20)46
 322
 (276)
Net Income$551
 $599
 $(48)$712
 $551
 $161
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.weather-normalized.
Increase (Decrease) over prior year2016
 2015
2017
 2016
Residential sales1.7 % 4.9 %(2.3)% 1.7 %
General service sales(0.1)% 2.4 %(1.3)% (0.1)%
Industrial sales(2.9)% 0.8 %(2.4)% (2.9)%
Wholesale and other35.2 % (2.3)%
Wholesale power sales20.1 % 35.2 %
Total sales0.9 % 3.5 %0.5 % 0.9 %
Average number of customers1.5 % 1.5 %1.6 % 1.5 %
Year Ended December 31, 20162017, as Compared to 20152016
Operating Revenues. The variance was driven primarily by:
a $432$70 million decreaseincrease in fuel and capacity revenuesretail pricing primarily due to lower fuel prices to retail customers, partially offset by increased capacity rates to retail customers;the base rate adjustment for the Osprey acquisition and the completion of the Hines Energy Complex Chiller Uprate Project;
a $31 million decrease in wholesale power revenues primarily driven by contracts that expired in the prior year; and
a $17 million decrease in retail sales, net of fuel revenue, due to unfavorable weather compared to the prior year.
Partially offset by:
a $38 million increase in rider revenues primarily due to nuclear asset securitization revenues beginning in 2016, and an increase in energy conservation cost recovery clause and environmental cost recovery clause revenues due to higher recovery rates in 2016, partially offset by a decrease in NCRC revenues as a result of suspending recovery of the Levy nuclear project in 2015;
a $19 million increase in other revenues primarily due to a customer settlement charge taken in the prior year, increased transmission demand and higher transmission rates; and
a $16$45 million increase in weather-normal sales volumes to retail customers in the current year; and
a $36 million increase in rider revenues primarily due to nuclear asset securitization beginning in July 2016 and extended power uprate project revenues beginning in 2017.
Partially offset by:
a $50 million decrease in retail sales, net of fuel revenues, due to less favorable weather in the current year, including lost revenues related to Hurricane Irma; and
a $34 million decrease in wholesale power revenues primarily due to contracts that expired in the prior year.

59


PART II

Operating Expenses. The variance was driven primarily by:
a $382$132 million decreaseincrease in fuel expenseimpairment charges primarily due to lower deferred fuel expense and lower generationthe write-off of remaining unrecovered Levy Nuclear Project costs partially offset by increased purchased power;in the current year; and
a $20 million decrease in property and other taxes due to lower revenue related taxes compared to the prior year.

PART II

Partially offset by:
a $35$51 million increase in depreciation and amortization expense primarily due to an increasenuclear regulatory asset amortization, as well as additional plant in base assets and clause amortization; andservice.
Partially offset by:
a $33$47 million increasedecrease in operations and maintenance expense primarily due to higherlower planned outage costs, lower severance expenses and lower employee benefit costs, and costs recoverable through the energy conservation cost recovery clause, partially offset by lowerhigher storm restoration costs related to fleet maintenance work.in the current year.
Other Income and Expenses. The variance was primarily driven by higher AFUDC equity return on the Citrus County Combined Cycle and Hines Chiller Uprate projects in the current year.equity.
Interest Expense. The variance was primarily due to new bonds issued in 2016, partially offsethigher debt outstanding and lower debt returns driven by higher AFUDCthe Crystal River Unit 3 regulatory asset debt return on the Citrus County Combined Cycle and Hines Chiller Uprate projectsending in the current year.June 2016 upon securitization.
Income Tax Expense. The variance was primarily due to the impact of the Tax Act and lower pretax income, partially offset by a higherearnings. See the Subsidiary Registrants section above for additional information on the Tax Act and the impact on the effective tax rate. The effective tax rate
Matters Impacting Future Results
On August 29, 2017, Duke Energy Florida filed the 2017 Settlement with the FPSC. On November 20, 2017, the FPSC issued an order to approve the 2017 Settlement. See Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters,” for additional information about the years ended December 31, 20162017 Settlement. In accordance with the 2017 Settlement, Duke Energy Florida will not seek recovery of any costs associated with the ongoing Westinghouse contract litigation, which is currently being appealed. See Note 5 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Commitments and 2015 were 36.9 percentContingencies” for additional information about the litigation. An unfavorable appeals ruling on that matter could have an adverse impact on Electric Utilities and 36.3 percent, respectively. The increase in effective tax rate was primarily dueInfrastructure’s financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
Within this Item 7, see the release of tax reserves in 2015 due to expired tax statutes, partially offset by higher AFUDC equity.Tax Cuts and Jobs Act above as well as Liquidity and Capital Resources below for risks associated with the Tax Act.

60


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, 2017, 2016 2015 and 2014.2015.
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,Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2016
2015
Variance
2017
2016
Variance
Operating Revenues$1,944
$1,905
$39
  

Regulated electric$1,373
$1,410
$(37)
Nonregulated electric and other42
31
11
Regulated natural gas508
503
5
Total operating revenues1,923
1,944
(21)
Operating Expenses1,599
1,610
(11) 
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power – regulated369
442
(73)
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power – nonregulated58
51
7
Cost of natural gas 107
103
4
Operation, maintenance and other524
512
12
Depreciation and amortization261
233
28
Property and other taxes278
258
20
Impairment charges1

1
Total operating expenses1,598
1,599
(1)
Gains on Sales of Other Assets and Other, net2
8
(6)1
2
(1)
Operating Income347
303
44
326
347
(21)
Other Income and Expenses9
6
3
Other Income and Expenses, net17
9
8
Interest Expense86
79
7
91
86
5
Income from Continuing Operations Before Income Taxes270
230
40
252
270
(18)
Income Tax Expense from Continuing Operations78
81
(3)59
78
(19)
Income from Continuing Operations192
149
43
193
192
1
Income from Discontinued Operations, net of tax36
23
13
(Loss) Income from Discontinued Operations, net of tax(1)36
(37)
Net Income$228
$172
$56
$192
$228
$(36)
The following table shows the percent changes in GWh sales of electricity, dekatherms of natural gas delivered and average number of electric and natural gas 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.weather-normalized.
Electric Natural Gas
Increase (Decrease) over prior year2016
 2015
2017
 2016
 2017
 2016
Residential sales0.7 % (2.2)%(4.0)% 0.7 % (2.6)% (7.8)%
General service sales1.3 % (0.1)%(3.1)% 1.3 % 0.7 % (3.6)%
Industrial sales(0.7)% 0.4 %(2.7)% (0.7)% (2.8)% (5.1)%
Wholesale power sales(53.9)% 222.3 %
Wholesale electric power sales65.7 % (53.9)% n/a
 n/a
Other natural gas salesn/a
 n/a
 (0.3)% 6.2 %
Total sales(1.1)% 2.8 %(2.1)% (1.1)% (1.1)% (3.1)%
Average number of customers0.8 % 0.7 %0.8 % 0.8 % 0.7 % 0.5 %
Year Ended December 31, 20162017, as Compared to 20152016
Operating Revenues. The variance was driven primarily by:
a $61$69 million decrease in fuel revenues primarily due to lower electric fuel costs and a decrease in electric and natural gas sales volumes; and
a $16 million decrease in electric retail sales, net of fuel revenues, due to less favorable weather in the current year.

61


PART II

Partially offset by:
a $38 million increase in rider revenues primarily due to increased ratesgrowth in energy efficiency programs and true-ups.
Partiallya rate increase for the distribution capital investment rider, partially offset by:by a decrease in the percentage of income payment plan rider due to a rate decrease;
a $25$10 million decreaseincrease in fuelPJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM) transmission revenues;
a $9 million increase in other revenues driven by lower electric fuelrelated to OVEC; and natural gas prices and decreased natural gas
a $6 million increase in non-native sales volumes.for resale.
Operating Expenses. The variance was driven by:
a $38$66 million decrease in the cost of natural gas,fuel expense, primarily due to decreasedlower sales volumes and lower natural gas prices.electric fuel costs.
Partially offset by:
a $17 million increase in operations and maintenance expense primarily due to increased spending on energy efficiency programs, higher PJM transmission owner scheduling and reactive supply expenses, and increased costs related to distribution projects and inspection maintenance programs, partially offset by lower allocated corporate costs;
a $6$28 million increase in depreciation and amortization expense due to additional plant in service;service and a true-up related to SmartGrid assets in the prior year;
a $4$20 million increase in property and other taxes due to higher property taxes.taxes; and
a $12 million increase in operations, maintenance and other expense primarily due to higher energy efficiency program costs and higher transmission and distribution operations costs; partially offset by lower fossil/hydro operations costs due to timing of outage schedules.
Income Tax Expense. The variance was primarily due to a lower effective tax rate, partially offset by an increase in pretax income. The effective tax ratethe impact of the Tax Act. See the Subsidiary Registrants section above for additional information on the years ended December 31, 2016Tax Act and 2015 were 28.9 percent and 35.2 percent, respectively. The decrease inthe impact on the effective tax rate was primarily due to an immaterial out of period adjustment related to deferred tax balances associated with property, plant and equipment.rate.

PART II

Income from Discontinued Operations, Net of Tax. The variance was primarily due to andriven by a prior year income tax benefit resulting from immaterial out of period deferred tax liability adjustments related to the Midwest Generation Disposal Group, partially offset by the Midwest Generation Disposal Group's operating results in 2015.Group. See Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Acquisitions and Dispositions," for additional information.
Matters Impacting Future Results
An order from regulatory authorities disallowing recovery of costs related to closure of ash basins could have an adverse impact on Duke Energy Ohio's financial position, results of operations and cash flows. See Notes 4 and 9 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters” and "Asset Retirement Obligations," respectively, for additional information.
Duke Energy Ohio’s nonregulated Beckjord station, a facility retired during 2014, is not subject to the EPA rule related to the disposal of CCR from electric utilities. However, if costs are incurred as a result of environmental regulations or to mitigate risk associated with on-site storage of coal ash at the facility, the costs could have an adverse impact on Duke Energy Ohio's financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
In 2013, the PUCO issued an order (PUCO order) approving Duke Energy Ohio’s recovery of costs incurred between 2008 and 2012 for environmental investigation and remediation of two former MGP sites. At December 31, 2016, Duke Energy Ohio had recorded in Regulatory assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheet approximately $99 million of estimated MGP remediation costs not yet recovered through the MGP rider mechanism. Intervenors have appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court the PUCO order authorizing recovery of these amounts. That appeal remains pending. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of the appeal before the Ohio Supreme Court or future action by the PUCO. If Duke Energy Ohio is not able to recover these remediation costs in rates, the costs could have an adverse impact on Duke Energy Ohio's financial position, results of operations and cash flows. See Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Regulatory Matters," for additional information.
Duke Energy Ohio has a 9 percent ownership interest in OVEC, which owns 2,256 MW of coal firedcoal-fired generation capacity. As a counterparty to an ICPA, Duke Energy Ohio has a contractual arrangement to receive entitlements to capacity and energy from OVEC’s power plants through June 2040 commensurate with its power participation ratio, which is equivalent to Duke Energy Ohio’s ownership interest. Costs, including fuel, operating expenses, fixed costs, debt amortization and interest expense, are allocated to counterparties to the ICPA, including Duke Energy Ohio, based on their power participation ratio. The value of the ICPA is subject to variability due to fluctuations in power prices and changes in OVEC’s costs of business. Deterioration in the credit quality or bankruptcy of one or more parties to the ICPA could increase the costs of OVEC. In addition, certain proposed environmental rulemaking costs could result in future increased cost allocations.
On March 2, 2017, Duke Energy Ohio has notified the PUCO of its intent to filefiled an electric distribution base rate case in Ohioapplication with the PUCO to address recovery of electric distribution system capital investments and any increase in expenditures subsequent to previous rate cases. The application also includes requests to continue certain current riders and establish new riders related to LED Outdoor Lighting Service and regulatory mandates. Duke Energy Ohio's earnings could be adversely impacted if the rate case and requested riders are delayed or denied by the PUCO. See Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Regulatory Matters," for additional information.
On September 1, 2017, Duke Energy Kentucky filed a base rate case with the KPSC to recover costs of capital investments in generation, transmission and distribution systems and to recover other incremental expenses since its last rate case filed in 2006. The application also includes request to establish new riders. Duke Energy Kentucky’s earnings could be adversely impacted if the rate increase is delayed or denied by the PUCO.KPSC.
Within this Item 7, see the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act above as well as Liquidity and Capital Resources below for risks associated with the Tax Act.

62


PART II

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, 2017, 2016 2015 and 2014.2015.
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,Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2016
2015
Variance
2017
2016
Variance
Operating Revenues$2,958
$2,890
$68
$3,047
$2,958
$89
Operating Expenses2,194
2,247
(53) 
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power966
909
57
Operation, maintenance and other733
723
10
Depreciation and amortization458
496
(38)
Property and other taxes76
58
18
Impairment charges18
8
10
Total operating expenses2,251
2,194
57
Gains on Sales of Other Assets and Other, net1
1


1
(1)
Operating Income765
644
121
796
765
31
Other Income and Expenses22
11
11
Other Income and Expenses, net37
22
15
Interest Expense181
176
5
178
181
(3)
Income Before Income Taxes606
479
127
655
606
49
Income Tax Expense225
163
62
301
225
76
Net Income $381
$316
$65
$354
$381
$(27)
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.weather-normalized.
Increase (Decrease) over prior year2016
 2015
2017
 2016
Residential sales(0.4)% (4.1)%(3.8)% (0.4)%
General service sales0.7 % (0.5)%(2.4)% 0.7 %
Industrial sales0.4 % (1.4)%0.3 % 0.4 %
Wholesale power sales10.8 % 9.4 %(10.5)% 10.8 %
Total sales2.5 % 0.3 %(3.6)% 2.5 %
Average number of customers1.1 % 0.8 %0.8 % 1.1 %
Year Ended December 31, 20162017, as Compared to 20152016
Operating Revenues. The variance was driven primarily by:
a $94$67 million increase in rate rider revenues primarily related to clean coal equipmentthe Edwardsport IGCC plant, the Transmission, Distribution and Edwardsport IGCC;Storage System Improvement Charge (TDSIC) and energy efficiency programs; and
a $20$48 million increase in wholesale power revenues due to new contracts and higher demand.
Partially offset by:
a $50 million decrease in fuel revenues primarily due to higher purchased power costs passed through to customers and higher financial transmission rights (FTR) revenues.
Partially offset by:
a $13 million decrease in retail sales due to less favorable weather in the current year; and
a $13 million decrease in wholesale power revenues, net of fuel, primarily due to a decrease in fuel prices.demand rates and contracts that expired in the current year.
Operating Expenses. The variance was driven primarily by:
a $73$57 million decreaseincrease in fuel used in electric generation and purchased power expenses, primarily due to higher purchased power volumes, partially offset by favorable fuel prices;
an $18 million increase in property and other taxes primarily due to higher franchise taxes;

63


PART II

a $10 million increase in operations, maintenance and other expense primarily due to lower fuel pricesgrowth in energy efficiency programs and lower purchased powerhigher transmission costs; and
an $88a $10 million pretax impairment chargeincrease in the prior year relatedimpairments and other charges primarily due to the 2015 Edwardsport IGCC settlements.impairment of certain metering equipment not recoverable in customer rates.
Partially offset by:
a $62$38 million increasedecrease in depreciation and amortization expense primarily due to the recognition of certain asset retirement obligations in 2016 that were subsequently deferred in 2017, partially offset by new IGCC rates that result in a lower deferral amount and higher depreciation due to additional plant in service, as well as increased depreciation related to AROs;
a $40 million increase in operations and maintenance expense due to 2016 costs at Edwardsport IGCC in excess of the settlement cap and increased costs related to energy efficiency programs and clean coal technology that are recoverable through rate riders, partially offset by decreased expenses at several generating plants; and
an $8 million impairment charge in the current year related to the early retirement of certain metering equipment.service.
Other Income and Expense. The variance was driven primarily by an increase inhigher AFUDC equity in the current year and certain costs resulting from the 2015 Edwardsport IGCC settlements in the prior year.equity.

PART II

Income Tax Expense. The variance was primarily due to the impact of the Tax Act and an increase in pretax income. The effective tax ratesSee the Subsidiary Registrants section above for additional information on the years ended December 31, 2016Tax Act and 2015 were 37.1 percent and 34.0 percent, respectively. The increase inthe impact on the effective tax rate was primarily due to an immaterial out of period adjustment to deferred tax balances in 2015 associated with property, plant and equipment and the reclassification of state tax credits from income tax to general franchise tax in 2016.rate.
Matters Impacting Future Results
On April 17, 2015, the EPA published in the Federal Register a rule to regulate the disposal of CCR from electric utilities as solid waste. Duke Energy Indiana has interpreted the rule to identify the coal ash basin sites impacted and has assessed the amounts of coal ash subject to the rule and a method of compliance. Duke Energy Indiana's interpretation of the requirements of the CCR rule is subject to potential legal challenges and further regulatory approvals, which could result in additional ash basin closure requirements, higher costs of compliance and greater AROs. Additionally, Duke Energy Indiana has retired facilities that are not subject to the CCR rule. Duke Energy Indiana may incur costs at these facilities to comply with environmental regulations or to mitigate risks associated with on-site storage of coal ash. An order from regulatory authorities disallowing recovery of costs related to closure of ash basins could have an adverse impact on Duke Energy Indiana's financial position, results of operations and cash flows. See Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters,” for additional information.
The IURCIn August 2016, the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) approved a settlement agreement between Duke Energy Indiana and multiple parties that resolves all disputes, claims and issues from the IURC proceedings related to post-commercial operating performance and recovery of ongoing operating and capital costs at the Edwardsport IGCC generating facility. Pursuant to the terms of thisThe settlement agreement the agreement imposesimposed a cost cap for retail recoverable operations and maintenance costs through 2017. An inability to manage future operating costs may result in accordance with caps imposed pursuant to the agreementunfavorable orders that could have an adverse impact on Duke Energy Indiana's financial position, results of operations and cash flows. See Note 4 to
Within this Item 7, see the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters,”Tax Cuts and Jobs Act above as well as Liquidity and Capital Resources below for additional information.risks associated with the Tax Act.

64


PART II

PIEDMONT
Introduction
Management’s Discussion and Analysis should be read in conjunction with the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes for the year ended December 31, 2017, Piedmont's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended October 31, 2016, and the Form 10-QT as of December 31, 2016, for the transition period from November 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016. The unaudited results of operations for the year ended December 31, 2016, was derived from data previously reported in the reports noted above.
Basis of Presentation
The results of operations and variance discussion for Piedmont 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)2017
 2016
 Variance
Operating Revenues     
Regulated natural gas$1,319
 $1,201
 $118
Nonregulated natural gas and other9
 10
 (1)
Total operating revenues1,328
 1,211
 117
Operating Expenses     
Cost of natural gas524
 451
 73
Operation, maintenance and other315
 353
 (38)
Depreciation and amortization148
 138
 10
Property and other taxes48
 43
 5
Impairment charges7
 
 7
Total operating expenses1,042
 985
 57
Operating Income286
 226
 60
Equity in (losses) earnings of unconsolidated affiliates(6) 26
 (32)
Gain on sale of unconsolidated affiliates
 132
 (132)
Other income and expenses, net
 1
 (1)
Total other income and expenses(6) 159
 (165)
Interest Expense79
 69
 10
Income Before Income Taxes201
 316
 (115)
Income Tax Expense62
 121
 (59)
Net Income$139
 $195
 $(56)
The following table shows the percent changes in dekatherms delivered and average number of customers. The percentages for all throughput deliveries represent billed and unbilled sales. Amounts are not weather-normalized.
Increase (Decrease) over prior year2017
2016
Residential deliveries(8.1)%(0.8)%
Commercial deliveries(4.3)%1.6 %
Industrial deliveries(2.2)%0.5 %
Power generation deliveries(5.8)%10.7 %
For resale(20.9)%1.3 %
Total throughput deliveries(5.4)%6.3 %
Secondary market volumes(4.2)%120.6 %
Average number of customers1.7 %1.6 %
Piedmont's throughput was 468,259,777 dekatherms and 495,122,794 dekatherms for the years ended December 31, 2017, and 2016, respectively. Due to the margin decoupling mechanism in North Carolina and weather normalization adjustment (WNA) mechanisms in South Carolina and Tennessee, changes in throughput deliveries do not have a material impact on Piedmont's revenues or earnings. The margin decoupling mechanism adjusts for variations in residential and commercial use per customer, including those due to weather and conservation. The WNA mechanisms mostly offset the impact of weather on bills rendered, but do not ensure full recovery of approved margin during periods when winter weather is significantly warmer or colder than normal.

65


PART II

Year Ended December 31, 2017, as Compared to 2016
Operating Revenues.The variance was driven primarily by:
a $74 million increase due to higher natural gas costs passed through to customers primarily due to higher natural gas prices;
a $34 million increase in revenues to residential and commercial customers, net of natural gas costs passed through to customers, primarily due to Integrity Management Rider (IMR) rate adjustments and customer growth. Increase is also due to new power generation customers, and is partially offset by wholesale marketing revenue; and
a $10 million increase in revenues due to merger-related bill credits applied to customer bills in 2016.
Operating Expenses.The variance was driven by:
a $73 million increase in costs of natural gas primarily due to higher natural gas costs passed through to customers due to the higher price per dekatherm of natural gas;
a $15 million increase in depreciation expenseand property and franchise taxes due to additional plant in service; and
a $7 million increase due to an impairment of software resulting from planned accounting system and process integration in 2018.
Partially offset by:
a $38 million decrease in operations, maintenance and other related to acquisition and integration expenses recorded in the prior year from costs paid to outside parties, primarily financial and legal advisory, severance expenses, retention costs and acceleration of incentive plans, and an accrual for our commitment of charitable contributions and community support.
Other Income and Expense. The variance was driven by:
a $132 million decrease in gain on sale of unconsolidated affiliates recorded in the prior year due to Piedmont’s sale of its 15 percent ownership interest in SouthStar Energy Services, LLC (SouthStar) on October 3, 2016; and
a $32 million decrease in equity in (losses) earnings of unconsolidated affiliates primarily due to equity earnings from the investment in SouthStar in the prior year and the impacts of the Tax Act in the current year.
Income Tax Expense. The variance was primarily due to a decrease in pretax income and the impact of the Tax Act. See the Subsidiary Registrants section above for additional information on the Tax Act and the impact on the effective tax rate.
Matters Impacting Future Results
Within this Item 7, see the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act above as well as Liquidity and Capital Resources below for risks associated with the Tax Act.
CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES AND ESTIMATES
Preparation of financial statements requires the application of accounting policies, judgments, assumptions and estimates that can significantly affect the reported results of operations, cash flows or the amounts of assets and liabilities recognized 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, especially through regulated operations. 
Management discusses these policies, estimates and assumptions with senior members of management on a regular basis and provides periodic updates on management decisions to the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors. Management believes the areas described below require significant judgment in the application of accounting policy or in making estimates and assumptions that are inherently uncertain and that may change in subsequent periods.
For further information, see Note 1 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Summary of Significant Accounting Policies."
Regulated Operations Accounting
Substantially all of Duke Energy’s regulated operations meet the criteria for application of regulated operations accounting treatment for substantially all of its operations.treatment. As a result, Duke Energy recordsis required to record 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 future recovery in customer rates. Regulatory liabilities generally represent obligationsare recorded when it is probable that a regulator will require Duke Energy to make refunds to customers or reduce rates to customers for previous collections or deferred revenue for costs that have yet to be incurred. Regulatory assets and liabilities can also be recorded for Alternative Revenue Programs (ARP), such as rate stabilization adjustment mechanisms and weather normalization adjustments. These programs allow for the deferral or accrual of revenues to provide recovery of approved margins on an annual basis independent of weather and consumption patterns. Duke Energy also has ARP's that relate to energy efficiency programs.
Management continually assesses whether recorded regulatory assets are probable of future recovery by considering factors such as applicable regulatory environment changes, historical regulatory treatment for similar costs in Duke Energy’s jurisdictions, litigation of rate orders, recent rate orders to other regulated entities, levels of actual return on equity compared to approved rates of return on equity and the status 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 agencies can provide flexibility in the manner and timing of the depreciation of property, plant and equipment, recognition of asset retirement costs and amortization of regulatory assets, or may disallow recovery of all or a portion of certain assets. For further information on regulatory assets and liabilities, see Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters.”

66


PART II

As required by regulated operations accounting rules, significant judgment can be required to determine if an otherwise recognizable incurred cost, such as closure costs for ash impoundments, qualifies to be deferred for future recovery as 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 or have not yet been incurred and are therefore a regulatory liability. See Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Regulatory Matters," for a more in-depth discussion of Regulatory Assets and Liabilities.
Regulated operations accounting rules also require recognition of a disallowance (also called "impairment") loss if it becomes probable that part of the cost of a plant under construction (or a recently completed or an abandoned plant) will be disallowed for ratemaking purposes and a reasonable estimate of the amount of the disallowance can be 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 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters,” for a discussion of disallowances recorded related to the Edwardsport IGCC Plant, the retired Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Plant (Crystal River Unit 3) and the Grid Infrastructure Improvement Plan.recorded.
When it becomes probable that regulated assets will be abandoned, the cost of the asset is removed from plant in service. The value that may be retained as a regulatory asset on the balance sheet for the abandoned property is dependent upon amounts that may be recovered through regulated rates, including any return. As such, an impairment charge, if any, could be partially or fully offset by the establishment of a regulatory asset 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.
For further information, see Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Regulatory Matters."
Goodwill Impairment Assessments
Duke Energy allocates goodwill to reporting units, which are either the Business Segments listed in Note 3 to the Consolidated Financial Statements or one level below based on how the Business Segment is managed. Duke Energy is required to test goodwill for impairment at least annually and more frequently if it is more likely than not that the fair value is less than the carrying value. Duke Energy performs its annual impairment test as of August 31.
Application of the goodwill impairment test requires management's 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 discounted cash flows, and the market 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, forecasted earnings base, projected operating and capital cash flows for Duke Energy’s business and the fair value of debt.

PART II

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 of equity. A major component of the cost of equity is the current risk-free rate on 20-year U.S. Treasury bonds. In the 20162017 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, 2016,2017, for each of Duke Energy’s domestic reporting units ranged from 5.25.3 percent to 156.7 percent. The underlying assumptions and estimates are made as of a point in time. Subsequent changes, particularly changes in the discount rates, authorized regulated rates of return or growth rates inherent in management’s estimates of future cash flows, could result in future impairment charges.
For Duke Energy’s international operations, a country-specific risk adderOne of the most significant assumptions utilized in determining the fair value of reporting units under the market approach is implied market multiples for certain peer companies. Management selects comparable peers based on the average risk premium for each separate country in which International Energy operates was addedpeer’s primary business mix, operations, and market capitalization compared to the base discount rate to reflect the differing risk profiles. This resulted in a discount rate for theapplicable reporting unit and calculates implied market multiples based on available projected earnings guidance and peer company market values as of August 31, 2016, goodwill impairment test for the international operations of 11.5 percent. 31.
In December 2016, Duke Energy disposed of its International operations and no longer has goodwill associated with the International operations. For further information, see Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Acquisitions and Dispositions.”

Duke Energy primarily operates in environments that are 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, Duke 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, significant changes in discount rates over a prolonged period may have a material impact on the fair value of equity.
As of August 31, 2016,2017, all of the reporting units’ estimated fair value of equity substantially exceeded the carrying value of equity.equity, except for the Commercial Renewables reporting units. The goodwill at the Energy Management Solutions reporting unit of Commercial Renewables was evaluated for recoverability in 2017, and Duke Energy recorded impairment charges of $29 million.

67


PART II

The Commercial Renewables reporting units are impacted by a multitude of factors including, legislative actions related to tax credit extensions, long-term growth rate assumptions and discount rates. As of August 31, 2017, the Renewables reporting unit’s estimated fair value of equity exceeded the carrying value of equity by less than 10 percent. Management continues to monitor these assumptions for any indicators that the fair value of the reporting unit could be below the carrying value and will assess goodwill for impairment as appropriate.
For further information, see Note 11 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Goodwill and Intangible Assets."
Asset Retirement Obligations
AROs are recognized for legal obligations associated with the retirement of property, plant and equipment. Substantially all AROs are related to regulated operations. When recording an ARO, 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 unless determined not to be recoverable.
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 ARO for regulated operations through a combination of regulated revenues and earnings on the nuclear decommissioning trust fund (NDTF). As a result, amounts recovered in regulated revenues, earnings on the NDTF, accretion expense and depreciation of the associated ARO asset are netted and deferred as a regulatory asset or liability.
Obligations for nuclear decommissioning are based on-site-specificon 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 is completed by 2074. 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 yet to be built U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) facility.
Obligations for closure of ash basins are based upon discounted cash flows of estimated costs for site-specific plans, if known, or probability weightings of the potential closure methods if the closure plans are under development and multiple closure options are being considered and evaluated on a site-by-site basis.
For further information, see Note 9 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Asset Retirement Obligations."
Long-Lived Asset Impairment Assessments, Excluding Regulated Operations, and Equity Method Investments
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 projections or the determination that it is more likely than not that 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 the assets, as compared with their carrying value.

PART II

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. If an impairment has occurred, the amount of the impairment recognized is determined by estimating the fair value and recording a loss if the carrying value is greater than the fair value. Additionally, determining fair value 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 based on relevant information available at the time the estimates are made, 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 carrying 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, their 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.
Investments in affiliates that are not controlled by Duke Energy, but over which it has significant influence, are accounted for using the equity method.  Equity method investments are assessed for impairment when conditions exist that indicate that the fair value of the investment is less than book value.  It the decline in value is considered to be other than temporary, the investment is written down to its estimated fair value, which establishes a new cost basis in the investment. 
For further information, see Notes 10 and 12 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Property, Plant and Equipment" and “Investments in Unconsolidated Affiliates,” respectively.
Revenue Recognition
Revenues on sales of electricity and natural gas are recognized when either the electric service is provided or the natural gasproduct is delivered. As retail meters are read, invoices are prepared and the invoice amount is generally recognized as "billed" revenue. Operating revenues also include "unbilled" electric and natural gas revenues for the amount of service provided or product delivered after the last meter reading prior to the end of the accounting period. Unbilled retail revenues are estimated by applying an average revenue per kilowatt-hour (kWh), per thousand cubic feet (Mcf) or per dekatherm (dth) for all customer classes to the number of estimated kWh, Mcf or dth delivered but not yet billed.
For wholesale customers, the invoice amount is generally recognized as “billed” revenue. Although meters are read as of the end of the month, invoices have typically not been prepared. An estimate of the wholesale invoice is included in the reported amount of “unbilled” revenue. In addition, adjustments to accounts receivable or accruals of accounts payable are sometimes recorded to contracts billed under estimated formula rates which are subsequently trued-up in the following year.

68


PART II

The amount of unbilled revenues can vary significantly from period to period as a result of numerous factors that impact the change in the unbilled revenue receivable balance, including seasonality, weather, customer usage patterns, customer mix, timing of rendering customer bills, meter readings schedules and the average price in effect for customer classes.
Pension and Other Post-Retirement Benefits
The calculation of pension expense, other post-retirement benefit expense and net pension and other post-retirement assets or liabilities require the use of assumptions and election of permissible accounting alternatives. Changes in assumptions can result in different expense and reported asset or liability amounts and future actual experience can differ from the assumptions. Duke Energy believes the most critical assumptions for pension and other post-retirement benefits are the expected long-term rate of return on plan assets and the assumed discount rate applied to future projected benefit payments. Additionally, the health care cost trend rate assumption is critical to Duke Energy’s estimate of other post-retirement benefits.
Duke Energy elects to amortize net actuarial gainsgain or lossesloss amounts that are in excess of the corridor of 10 percent of the greater of the market-related value of plan assets or planthe plan's projected benefit obligation, into net pension or other post-retirement benefit expense over the average remaining service period of active covered employees.participants expected to benefit under the plan. If all or almost all of a plan's participants are inactive, the average remaining life expectancy of the inactive participants is used instead of average remaining service period. Prior service cost or credit, which represents the effect onan increase or decrease in a plan's pension benefit obligation resulting from plan liabilities due to plan amendments,amendment, is amortized on a straight-line basis over the average expected remaining service period of active covered employees.participants expected to benefit under the plan. If all or almost all of a plan's participants are inactive, the average remaining life expectancy of the inactive participants is used instead of average remaining service period.
Duke Energy or its affiliates, maintain,maintains and the Subsidiary Registrants participate in, qualified, non-contributory defined benefit retirement plans. TheMost participants in the qualified plans cover most U.S. employeesearn benefits calculated 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 onwhich varies with age and years of service, of current eligible earnings and current interest credits. Certain employees are covered under plansplan participants earn benefits that use a final average earnings formula. As of January 1, 2014, theCertain executives are participants in non-qualified, non-contributory defined benefit retirement plans. These qualified and non-qualified, non-contributory defined benefit plans are closed to new and rehired non-union, and certain unionized employees. Piedmont employees hired or rehired after December 31, 2007, cannot participate in the qualified, non-contributory defined benefit plans, but are participants in a Money Purchase Pension plan. Duke Energy, or its affiliates, maintain, and the Subsidiary Registrants participate in, non-qualified, non-contributory defined benefit retirement plans which cover certain executives.participants.
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. These plans
Assets for Duke Energy’s qualified pension and other post-retirement benefits (401(h) accounts) are closedmaintained in the Duke Energy Master Retirement Trust (Master Trust). Duke Energy also invests other post-retirement assets in Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association trusts. The investment objective is to newachieve sufficient returns, subject to a prudent level of portfolio risk, for the purpose of promoting the security of plan benefits for participants.
As of December 31, 2016,2017, Duke Energy assumes pension and other post-retirement plan assets will generate a long-term rate of return of 6.50 percent (6.75 percent for Piedmont pension and other post-retirement plan assets).percent. The expected long-term rate of return was developed using a weighted average calculation of expected returns based primarily on future expected returns across asset classes considering the use of active asset managers, where applicable. The asset allocation targets were set after considering the investment objective and the risk profile. Equity securities are held for their higher expected returns. Debt securities are primarily held to hedge the qualified pension liability. Hedge funds, real estate and other global securities are held for diversification. Investments within asset classes are 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.the Master Trust. As the funded status of the pension plans increase, over time the targeted allocation to return-seeking assets will be reduced and the targeted allocation to fixed-income assets willmay be increased to better manage Duke Energy's pension assetsliability and reduce funded status volatility. Based on the current funded status of the plans, theThe asset allocation for the Duke Energy pension plansMaster Trust is 63 percent fixed-income assets and 37 percent return-seeking assets. The asset allocation for the Piedmont assets is 61 percent return-seeking assets and 39 percent liability hedging fixed-income assets. Duke Energy regularly reviews its actual asset allocation and periodically rebalances its investments to the targeted allocations when considered appropriate.

PART II

The assets for Duke Energy’s pension and other post-retirement plans are maintained in a master retirement trust. Piedmont also has qualified pension and other post-retirement assets. Duke Energy also invests other post-retirement assets in Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association trusts and mutual funds within a Piedmont 401(h) account (excludes 401(h) accounts within the master retirement trust). The investment objective 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.
Duke Energy discounted its future U.S. pension and other post-retirement obligations using a rate of 4.13.6 percent as of December 31, 2016.2017. Discount rates used to measure benefit plan obligations for financial reporting purposes reflect rates at which pension benefits could be effectively settled. As of December 31, 2016,2017, 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 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.
Future changes in plan asset returns, assumed discount rates and various other factors related to the participants in Duke Energy’s pension and post-retirement plans will impact future pension expense and liabilities. Duke Energy cannot predict with certainty what these factors will be in the future. The following table presents the approximate effect on Duke Energy’s 20162017 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 occur.
Qualified and Non- Other Post-RetirementQualified and Non- Other Post-Retirement
Qualified Pension Plans PlansQualified Pension Plans Plans
(in millions)0.25% (0.25)% 0.25% (0.25)%0.25% (0.25)% 0.25% (0.25)%
Effect on 2016 pretax pension and other post-retirement expense       
Effect on 2017 pretax pension and other post-retirement expense       
Expected long-term rate of return$(20) $20
 $(1) $1
$(21) $21
 $(1) $1
Discount rate(17) 17
 (1) 1
(17) 19
 (1) 1
Effect on pension and other post-retirement benefit obligation at December 31, 2016 
  
  
  
Effect on pension and other post-retirement benefit obligation at December 31, 2017 
  
  
  
Discount rate(202) 207
 (17) 17
(223) 229
 (17) 17

69


PART II

Duke Energy’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 medical costs, and a prescription drug trend rate, which reflects the near- and long-term expectation of increases in prescription drug costs. As of December 31, 2016,2017, the health care trend rate was 7 percent, trending down to 4.75 percent by 2023.2024. The following table presents the approximate effect on Duke Energy’s 20162017 pretax other post-retirement expense and other post-retirement benefit obligation if a 1 percentage point change in the health care trend rate were to occur. These plans are closed to new hires.
 Other Post-Retirement
 Plans
(in millions)1% (1)%
Effect on 2016 other post-retirement expense$5
 $(5)
Effect on other post-retirement benefit obligation at December 31, 201629
 (25)
 Other Post-Retirement
 Plans
(in millions)1% (1)%
Effect on 2017 other post-retirement expense$5
 $(4)
Effect on other post-retirement benefit obligation at December 31, 201727
 (24)
For further information, see Note 21 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Employee Benefit Plans.”
Income Taxes
Duke Energy and its subsidiaries file a consolidated federal income tax return and other state 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. ITCs associated with regulated operations are deferred and amortized as a reduction of income tax expense over the estimated useful lives of the related properties.
Positions takenAccumulated deferred income taxes are valued using the enacted tax rate expected to apply to taxable income in the periods in which the deferred tax asset or liability is expected to be taken onsettled or realized. In the event of a change in tax returns, includingrates, deferred tax assets and liabilities are remeasured as of the decision to exclude certain income or transactions from a return, are recognizedenactment date of the new rate. To the extent that the change in the financial statements when it is more likely than not the tax position can be sustained based solely on the technical meritsvalue of the position. The largest amountdeferred tax represents an obligation to customers, the impact of tax benefit thatthe remeasurement is greater than 50 percent likely of being effectively settled is recorded. Management considersdeferred to 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 tax expense or a reclassification 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 tax expense or a reclassification between deferred and current taxes payable. 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 penaltiesregulatory liability. Remaining impacts are recorded in Interest Expense andincome from continuing operations. Other Income and Expenses, net,impacts of the Tax Act have been recorded on a provisional basis, see Note 22, “Income Taxes,” for additional information. If Duke Energy's estimate of the tax effect of reversing temporary differences is not reflective of actual outcomes, is modified to reflect new developments or interpretations of the tax law, revised to incorporate new accounting principles, or changes in the Consolidated Statementsexpected timing or manner of Operations.the reversal then Duke Energy's results of operations could be impacted.


PART II

LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES
Sources and Uses of Cash
Duke Energy relies primarily upon cash flows from operations, debt and equity issuances and its existing cash and cash equivalents to fund its 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 next three fiscal years are included in the table below.
(in millions)2017
 2018
 2019
2018
 2019
 2020
Uses:
 
  
  
 
  
  
Capital expenditures$8,780
 $10,030
 $10,075
$10,950
 $10,975
 $9,050
Debt maturities and reduction in short-term debt(a)
2,700
 2,950
 2,750
3,135
 3,500
 2,850
Dividend payments(b)
2,450
 2,550
 2,650
2,575
 2,750
 2,875
Sources:
          
Net cash flows from operations(c)
$6,750
 $7,950
 $8,750
Debt issuances6,500
 6,650
 5,400
Net cash flows from operations$7,945
 $9,150
 $9,390
Debt issuances and increase in short-term debt(c)
6,000
 7,100
 3,050
Equity issuances(d)
 350
 350
2,000
 350
 350
(a)Excludes capital leases and 2018 maturities of securitized receivables expected to be renewed. Amounts representleases. Duke Energy's financing plan, which accelerates certain contractual maturities.Energy projects a reduction in short-term debt in 2020.
(b)Subject to approval by the Board of Directors.
(c)Includes expenditures relatedDuke Energy projects an increase in short-term debt in 2018 and 2019.
(d)2018 equity issuances to ash basin closures.be achieved through a public offering and through issuances under the Equity Distribution Agreement and the Dividend Reinvestment Program (DRIP). See Note 18 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Common Stock" for additional information.
During 2014,
70


PART II

Among other provisions, the Tax Act lowers the corporate federal income tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent and eliminates bonus depreciation for regulated utilities. For Duke Energy declared a taxable dividend of foreign earningsEnergy’s regulated operations, the reduction in the form of notes payable that was intendedfederal income taxes is expected to result in lower regulated customer rates. However, due to its existing NOL (Net operating loss) position and other tax credits, Duke Energy does not expect to be a significant federal cash tax payer through at least 2022. As a result, any reduction in customer rates could cause a material reduction in consolidated cash flows from operations in the repatriationshort-term. Over time, the reduction in deferred tax liabilities resulting from the Tax Act will increase Duke Energy’s regulated rate base investments and customer rates. See the Credit Ratings section below for additional information on the impact of approximately $2.7the Tax Act on the Duke Energy Registrants' credit ratings. Impacts of Tax Act to Duke Energy’s cash flows and credit metrics are subject to the regulatory actions of its state commissions and the FERC, which are currently pending. See Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters,” for additional information.
In order to strengthen its balance sheet and credit metrics and bolster cash flows, Duke Energy plans to issue $2 billion of cash held and expectedcommon stock equity during 2018, including its previous plan to be generatedissue $350 million annually through its DRIP beginning in 2018, as well as reduce its capital expenditures during 2018-2022 by International Energy over a period of up to eight years. In 2015, approximately $1.5 billion was remitted. In 2016, $120 million was remitted. The remaining amount was remitted in the first quarter of 2017.$1 billion.
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 the money pool, as a bridge to long-term debt financings. The levels of borrowing may vary significantly over the course of the year due to the timing of long-term debt financings and the impact of fluctuations in cash flows from operations. From time to time, Duke Energy’s current liabilities exceed current assets resulting from the use of short-term debt as a funding source to meet scheduled maturities of long-term debt, as well as cash needs, which can fluctuate due to the seasonality of its businesses.
Piedmont AcquisitionCredit Facilities and Registration Statements
On October 3, 2016, Duke Energy acquired all outstanding common stock of Piedmont for a total cash purchase price of $5.0 billion, and assumed Piedmont's existing long-term debt, which had an estimated fair value of approximately $2.0 billion at the time of the acquisition. For further information on the acquisition, refer to Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Acquisitions and Dispositions."
Financings to fund the transaction included $3.75 billion of long-term debt issued in August 2016, $750 million borrowed under the Term Loan in September 2016, as well as the issuance of 10.6 million shares of common stock in October 2016. The share issuance resulted in net cash proceeds of approximately $723 million. See Note 6 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Debt and Credit Facilities," for additionalfurther information relatedregarding credit facilities and shelf registration statements available to the debt issuance and Note 18, "Common Stock," for additional information related to the equity issuance.
International Energy
In February 2016, Duke Energy announced it had initiated a process to divest the International Disposal Group, and in October 2016, announced it had entered into two separate sales agreements to execute the divestiture. Both sales closed in December of 2016, resulting in available cash proceeds of $1.9 billion, excluding transaction costs. Proceeds were primarily used to reduce Duke Energy holding company debt. Existing favorable tax attributes result in no immediate U.S. federal-level cash tax impacts. For further information on the sale, refer to Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Acquisitions and Dispositions."

PART II

Credit Facilities and Registration Statements
Available Credit Facilities
Duke Energy has a Master Credit Facility with a capacity of $7.5 billion through January 2020. The Duke Energy Registrants, excluding Progress Energy (Parent) and Piedmont, 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 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. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress are also required to each maintain $250 million of available capacity under the Master Credit Facility as security to meet obligations under plea agreements reached with the U.S. Department of Justice in 2015 related to violations at North Carolina facilities with ash basins.Registrants.
Piedmont has a separate five-year revolving syndicated credit facility, with a capacity of $850 million through December 2020 and an expansion option of up to an additional $200 million. The facility provides a line of credit for letters of credit of $10 million.
The table below includes the current borrowing sublimits and available capacity under these credit facilities.
 December 31, 2016
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
(in millions)
Energy(a)

 (Parent)
 Carolinas
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Facility size(b)
$8,350
 $3,400
 $1,100
 $1,000
 $950
 $450
 $600
Reduction to backstop issuances             
Commercial paper(c)
(2,022) (977) (300) (150) (84) (31) (150)
Outstanding letters of credit(78) (69) (4) (2) (1) 
 
Tax-exempt bonds(116) 
 (35) 
 
 
 (81)
Coal ash set-aside(500) 
 (250) (250) 
 
 
Available capacity$5,634

$2,354

$511

$598

$865

$419

$369
(a)Includes amounts related to Piedmont's $850 million credit facility.
(b)Represents the sublimit of each borrower.
(c)Duke Energy issued $625 million of commercial paper and loaned the proceeds through the money pool to Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana. The balances are classified as Long-Term Debt Payable to Affiliated Companies in the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
Term Loan Facility
In 2016, Duke Energy (Parent) entered into a $1.5 billion term loan facility, as amended (Term Loan) maturing on July 31, 2017. During 2016, Duke Energy (Parent) drew the full amount available under the Term Loan and used $750 million of proceeds to fund a portion of the Piedmont acquisition and the remaining $750 million to manage short-term liquidity and for general corporate purposes. The terms and conditions of the Term Loan were generally consistent with those governing Duke Energy’s Master Credit Facility. In December 2016, Duke Energy (Parent) repaid the $1.5 billion term loan which terminated this credit facility.
Shelf Registration
In September 2016, Duke Energy filed a registration statement (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.
In January 2017, Duke Energy amended its Form S-3 to add Piedmont as a registrant and included in the amendment a prospectus for Piedmont under which it may issue debt securities in the same manner as other Duke Energy Registrants.

PART II

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
Duke Energy continues to focus on reducing risk and positioning its business for future success and will invest principally in its strongest business sectors. Duke Energy’s projected capital and investment expenditures for the next three fiscal years are included in the table below.
(in millions)2017
2018
2019
2018
2019
2020
New generation$935
$690
$580
$780
$260
$135
Regulated renewables70
65
385
155
415
365
Environmental665
405
45
610
35
30
Nuclear fuel425
425
395
500
410
455
Major nuclear285
375
340
390
335
230
Customer additions435
510
520
490
485
515
Grid modernization and other transmission and distribution projects2,025
3,055
3,150
2,585
3,515
3,415
Maintenance and other2,140
1,780
1,935
2,665
2,445
2,230
Total Electric Utilities and Infrastructure6,980
7,305
7,350
8,175
7,900
7,375
Gas Utilities and Infrastructure1,300
2,175
2,025
2,350
2,275
950
Commercial Renewables and Other500
550
700
425
800
725
Total projected capital and investment expenditures$8,780
$10,030
$10,075
$10,950
$10,975
$9,050
DEBT MATURITIES
The following table showsSee Note 6 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Debt and Credit Facilities," for further information regarding significant components of Current maturitiesMaturities 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, 2016
Unsecured Debt     
Duke Energy (Parent)April 2017 1.226% $400
Duke Energy (Parent)August 2017 1.625% 700
Piedmont Natural GasSeptember 2017 8.510% 35
First Mortgage Bonds     
Duke Energy ProgressMarch 2017 1.146% 250
Duke Energy FloridaSeptember 2017 5.800% 250
Duke Energy ProgressNovember 2017 1.111% 200
Secured     
Duke EnergyJune 2017 2.365% 45
Duke EnergyJune 2017 2.260% 34
Tax-exempt Bonds     
Duke Energy CarolinasFebruary 2017 3.600% 77
Duke Energy CarolinasFebruary 2017 0.810% 10
Duke Energy CarolinasFebruary 2017 0.790% 25
Other(a)
    293
Current maturities of long-term debt    $2,319
(a)Includes capital lease obligations, amortizing debt and small bullet maturities.
DIVIDEND PAYMENTS
In 2016,2017, Duke Energy paid quarterly cash dividends for the 90th91st 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 the discretion of the Board of Directors.
Duke Energy targets a dividend payout ratio of between 70 percent and 75 percent, based upon adjusted diluted EPS. In 20152016 and 2016,2017, Duke Energy increased the dividend by approximately 4 percent annually. Through 2021,2022, the annual dividend growth rate is expected to be between approximately 4 to 6 percent.

71


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 through dividends, advances or loans 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, 2016,2017, the amount of restricted net assets of wholly owned subsidiaries of Duke Energy that may not 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
Cash flows from operations of Electric Utilities and Infrastructure and Gas Utilities and Infrastructure are primarily driven by sales of electricity and natural gas, respectively, and costs of operations. These cash flows from operations are relatively stable and comprise a substantial portion of Duke Energy’s operating cash flows. Weather conditions, working capital and commodity price fluctuations and unanticipated expenses including unplanned plant outages, storms, legal costs and related settlements 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, regulatory constraints, economic trends and market volatility (see Item 1A, “Risk Factors,” for additional information).
At December 31, 2016,2017, Duke Energy had cash and cash equivalents and short-term investments of $392$358 million.
DEBT ISSUANCES
Depending on availability based on the issuing entity, the credit rating of the issuing entity, and market conditions, the Subsidiary Registrants prefer to issue first mortgage bonds and secured debt, followed by unsecured debt. This preference is the result of generally higher credit ratings for first mortgage bonds and secured debt, which typically result in lower interest costs. Duke Energy Corporation primarily issues unsecured debt.
See to Note 6 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Debt and Credit Facilities," for further information regarding significant debt issuances.
Duke Energy’s capitalization is balanced between debt and equity as shown in the table below.
Projected 2017
 Actual 2016
 Actual 2015
Projected 2018
 Actual 2017
 Actual 2016
Equity44% 45% 48%44% 43% 45%
Debt56% 55% 52%56% 57% 55%
Duke Energy’s fixed charges coverage ratio, calculated using Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) guidelines, was 2.9 times for 2017, 2.7 times for 2016 and 3.1 times for 2015, and 3.0 times for 2014.2015.
Restrictive Debt Covenants
Duke Energy’s debt and credit agreements contain various financial and other covenants. Duke Energy's Master Credit Facility contains a covenant requiring the debt-to-total capitalization ratio to not exceed 65 percent for each borrower. Piedmont's credit facility contains a debt-to-total capitalization covenant not to exceedborrower, excluding Piedmont, and 70 percent.percent for Piedmont. 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, 2016,2017, each of the Duke Energy Registrants werewas in compliance with all covenants related to their 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 debt or credit agreements contain material adverse change clauses.
Credit Ratings
Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. (Moody’s), Standard & Poor’s Rating Services (S&P) and Fitch Ratings, Inc. provide credit ratings for various

72


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).Registrants. The following table includes Duke Energy and certain subsidiaries’ credit ratings and ratings outlook as of February 2017.2018.
 FitchMoody's S&PFitch
Duke Energy CorporationNegative
(a)
NegativeStable StableNegative
Issuer Credit RatingBBB+Baa1 A-BBB+
Senior Unsecured DebtBBB+Baa1 Baa1BBB+ BBB+
Commercial PaperF-2P-2 A-2F-2
Duke Energy CarolinasStable Stable StableN/A
Senior Secured DebtAA-Aa2 AN/A
Senior Unsecured DebtA+A1 A-N/A
Progress EnergyStable Stable StableN/A
Senior Unsecured DebtBBBBaa2 BBB+N/A
Duke Energy ProgressStable Stable StableN/A
Senior Secured DebtA+Aa3 AN/A
Duke Energy FloridaStable Stable StableN/A
Senior Secured DebtA1A A1N/A
Senior Unsecured DebtA-A3 A-N/A
Duke Energy OhioPositiveStableN/A
Senior Secured DebtA2AN/A
Senior Unsecured DebtBaa1A-N/A
Duke Energy IndianaStable Stable StableN/A
Senior Secured DebtAa3A A2N/A
Senior Unsecured DebtA-A2 Baa1A-
Duke Energy IndianaPositiveStableStable
Senior Secured DebtAAa3A
Senior Unsecured DebtA- A2A-N/A
Duke Energy KentuckyStable Stable StableN/A
Senior Unsecured DebtA-Baa1 A-N/A
Piedmont Natural GasN/ANegative
(a)
Stable StableN/A
Senior UnsecuredN/AA2 A-
Commercial PaperN/A
P-1
(a)A-2In January 2018, Moody's revised the ratings outlook for Duke Energy Corporation and Piedmont from stable to negative, principally due to risk of deterioration in credit metrics resulting from the Tax Act. See the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act section above for additional information on the Tax Act.
Credit ratings are intended to provide credit lenders a framework for comparing the credit quality of securities and are not a recommendation to buy, 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 interest 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 the three most recently completed fiscal years.
Years Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2016
 2015
 2014
2017
 2016
 2015
Cash flows provided by (used in):          
Operating activities$6,798
 $6,676
 $6,586
$6,634
 $6,817
 $6,700
Investing activities(11,533) (5,277) (5,373)(8,450) (11,533) (5,277)
Financing activities4,270
 (2,578) (678)1,782
 4,251
 (2,602)
Changes in cash and cash equivalents included in assets held for sale474
 1,099
 (548)
 474
 1,099
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents9
 (80) (13)
Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents(34) 9
 (80)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period383
 463
 476
392
 383
 463
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period$392
 $383
 $463
$358
 $392
 $383

73


PART II

OPERATING CASH FLOWS
The following table summarizes key components of Duke Energy’s operating cash flows for the three most recently completed fiscal years.
Years Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2016

2015

2014
2017

2016

2015
Net income$2,170
 $2,831
 $1,889
$3,064
 $2,170
 $2,831
Non-cash adjustments to net income5,398
 4,800
 5,366
5,380
 5,305
 4,800
Contributions to qualified pension plans(155) (302) 
(19) (155) (302)
Payments for AROs(608) (346) (68)(571) (608) (346)
Working capital(7) (307) (601)(1,220) 105
 (283)
Net cash provided by operating activities$6,798

$6,676

$6,586
$6,634

$6,817

$6,700
For the year ended December 31, 2017, compared to 2016, the variance was driven primarily by:
a $1,325 million decrease in working capital due to weather, payment of merger transaction and integration related costs and increased property tax payments in 2017.
Offset by:
a $969 million increase in net income after non-cash adjustments primarily due to the inclusion of Piedmont's earnings for a full year, favorable pricing and weather-normal retail volumes driven by the residential class in the Electric Utilities and Infrastructure Segment combined with continued strong cost control;
a $136 million decrease in contributions to qualified pension plans; and
a $37 million decrease in payments to AROs.
For the year ended December 31, 2016, compared to 2015, the variance was driven primarily by:
a $300$388 million increase in cash flows from working capital primarily due to the sale of the internationalInternational business; and
a $147 million decrease in contributions to qualified pension plans.
Offset by:
a $262 million increase in payments for AROs; and
a $63$156 million decrease in net income after non-cash adjustments due to higher storm costs offset by favorable weather, increased rider revenues, higher wholesale margins and strong cost control.
For the year ended December 31, 2015 compared to 2014, the variance was driven primarily by:
a $376 million increase in net income after non-cash adjustments resulting from increased retail pricing due to rate riders and higher base rates, increased wholesale net margins due to higher contracted amounts and prices, a new wholesale contract with NCEMPA, retail sales growth; and
a $294 million increase in cash flows from a working capital decrease primarily due to lower current year receivables resulting from unseasonably warmer weather in December 2015 and prior year under collection of fuel and purchased power due to increased consumption.
Offset by:
a $302 million increase in contributions to qualified pension plans; and
a $278 million increase in payments for AROs.
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,Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2016

2015

2014
2017

2016

2015
Capital, investment and acquisition expenditures$(13,215) $(8,363) $(5,528)$(8,198) $(13,215) $(8,363)
Available for sale securities, net83
 3
 23
27
 83
 3
Net proceeds from the sales of discontinued operations and other assets, net of cash divested1,418
 2,968
 179

 1,418
 2,968
Other investing items181
 115
 (47)(279) 181
 115
Net cash used in investing activities$(11,533)
$(5,277)
$(5,373)$(8,450)
$(11,533)
$(5,277)
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,Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2016

2015

2014
2017

2016

2015
Electric Utilities and Infrastructure$6,649
 $6,852
 $4,642
$7,024
 $6,649
 $6,852
Gas Utilities and Infrastructure5,519
 234
 121
907
 5,519
 234
Commercial Renewables857
 1,019
 514
92
 857
 1,019
Other190
 258
 251
175
 190
 258
Total capital, investment and acquisition expenditures$13,215

$8,363

$5,528
$8,198

$13,215

$8,363

74


PART II

For the year ended December 31, 2017, compared to 2016, the variance was driven primarily by:
a $5,017 million decrease in capital, investment and acquisition expenditures mainly due to the Piedmont acquisition in the prior year.
Partially offset by:
a $1,418 million decrease in net proceeds from sales of discontinued operations due to the prior year sale of the International business.
For the year ended December 31, 2016, compared to 2015, the variance was driven primarily by:
a $4,852 million increase in capital, investment and acquisition expenditures mainly due to the Piedmont acquisition; and
a $1,550 million decrease in net proceeds from sales of discontinued operations mainly due to the variance in proceeds between the prior year2015 sale of the Midwest generation business and the current year2016 sale of the International business.
For the year ended December 31, 2015 compared to 2014, the variance was driven primarily by:
a $2,789 million increase in proceeds mainly due to the sale of the nonregulated Midwest generation business to Dynegy, Inc. (Dynegy); and
a $202 million return of collateral related to the Chilean acquisition in 2013. The collateral was used to repay a secured loan.
Partially offset by:
a $2,835 million increase in capital, investment and acquisition expenditures mainly due to the acquisition of NCEMPA ownership interests in certain generating assets, fuel and spare parts inventory jointly owned with and operated by Duke Energy Progress and growth initiatives in electric and natural gas infrastructure, solar projects and natural-gas fired generation.
FINANCING CASH FLOWS
The following table summarizes key components of Duke Energy’s financing cash flows for the three most recently completed fiscal years.
Years Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2016
 2015
 2014
2017
 2016
 2015
Issuance of common stock$731
 $17
 $25
$
 $731
 $17
Issuances (Repayments) of long-term debt, net7,315
 (74) (123)4,593
 7,315
 (74)
Notes payable and commercial paper(1,447) 1,245
 1,688
(362) (1,447) 1,245
Dividends paid(2,332) (2,254) (2,234)(2,450) (2,332) (2,254)
Repurchase of common shares
 (1,500) 

 
 (1,500)
Other financing items3
 (12) (34)1
 (16) (36)
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities$4,270
 $(2,578) $(678)$1,782
 $4,251
 $(2,602)
For the year ended December 31, 2017, compared to 2016, the variance was driven primarily by:
a $2,722 million net decrease in proceeds from issuances of long-term debt driven principally by the prior year $3,750 million of senior unsecured notes used to fund a portion of the Piedmont acquisition, offset primarily by $900 million of first mortgage bonds issued by Duke Energy Florida in the current year to fund capital expenditures for ongoing construction and capital maintenance and for general corporate purposes;
a $731 million decrease in proceeds from stock issuances used to fund a portion of the Piedmont acquisition in 2016; and
a $118 million current year increase in dividends paid.
Partially offset by:
a $1,085 million decrease in net borrowings from notes payable and commercial paper primarily due to the use of proceeds from $1,294 million nuclear asset-recovery bonds issued at Duke Energy Florida in 2016 to pay down outstanding commercial paper.
For the year ended December 31, 2016, compared to 2015, the variance was driven primarily by:
a $7,389 million increase in proceeds from net issuances of long-term debt mainly due to the issuances of $3,750 million of senior unsecured notes used to fund a portion of the Piedmont acquisition, $1,294 million of nuclear asset-recovery bonds and other issuances primarily used to fund capital expenditures, pay down outstanding commercial paper and repay debt maturities; and
a $1,500 million decrease in cash outflows due to the 2015 repurchase of 19.8 million common shares under the ASR; and
a $714 million increase in proceeds resulting from the issuance of common stock to fund the acquisition of Piedmont.
Partially offset by:
a $2,692 million increase in cash outflows for the net payments of notes payable and commercial paper primarily through the use of proceeds from $1,294 million nuclear asset-recovery bonds issued at Duke Energy Florida, further increased by the prior year use of short-term debt in 2015 to repay long-term debt maturities at Duke Energy Florida in advance of the 2016 proceeds from the nuclear asset-recovery bonds.
For the year ended December 31, 2015 compared to 2014, the variance was driven primarily by:
a $1,500 million increase in cash outflows due to the 2015 repurchase of 19.8 million common shares under the ASR; and
a $443 million decrease in proceeds from net issuances of notes payable and commercial paper primarily due to prior year financing with short-term debt in advance of the 2015 receipt of proceeds from the sale of the nonregulated Midwest generation business to Dynegy, net of current year financing with short-term debt used to repay long-term debt maturities at Duke Energy Florida in advance of the 2016 proceeds from the proposed issuance of the nuclear asset-recovery bonds.

PART II

Summary of Significant Debt Issuances
Piedmont Acquisition Financing
In August 2016, Duke Energy issued $3.75 billion of senior unsecured notes in three separate series. The net proceeds were used to finance a portion of the Piedmont acquisition. The $4.9 billion Bridge Facility was terminated following the issuance of this debt. See Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Acquisitions and Dispositions," for additional information on the Piedmont acquisition.
Nuclear Asset-Recovery Bonds
In June 2016, DEFPF issued $1,294 million of nuclear asset-recovery bonds and used the proceeds to acquire nuclear asset-recovery property from its parent, Duke Energy Florida. The nuclear asset-recovery bonds are payable only from and secured by the nuclear asset-recovery property. DEFPF is consolidated for financial reporting purposes; however, the nuclear asset-recovery bonds do not constitute a debt, liability or other legal obligation of, or interest in, Duke Energy Florida or any of its affiliates other than DEFPF. The assets of DEFPF, including the nuclear asset-recovery property, are not available to pay creditors of Duke Energy Florida or any of its affiliates. Duke Energy Florida used the proceeds from the sale to repay short-term borrowings under the intercompany money pool borrowing arrangement and make an equity distribution of $649 million to the ultimate parent, Duke Energy (Parent), which repaid short-term borrowings. See Notes 4 and 17 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Regulatory Matters" and "Variable Interest Entities," respectively, for additional information.
Solar Facilities Financing
In August 2016, Emerald State Solar, LLC, an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Duke Energy, entered into a $333 million portfolio financing of approximately 22 North Carolina Solar facilities. Tranche A of $228 million is secured by substantially all the assets of the solar facilities and is nonrecourse to Duke Energy. Tranche B of $105 million is secured by an Equity Contribution Agreement with Duke Energy. Proceeds were used to reimburse Duke Energy for a portion of previously funded construction expenditures related to the Emerald State Solar, LLC portfolio. The initial interest rate on the loans was six months London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) plus an applicable margin of 1.75 percent plus a 0.125 percent increase every three years thereafter. In connection with this debt issuance, Emerald State Solar, LLC entered into two interest rate swaps to convert the substantial majority of the loan interest payments from variable rates to fixed rates of approximately 1.81 percent for Tranche A and 1.38 percent for Tranche B, plus the applicable margin. See Note 14 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Derivatives and Hedging," for further information on the notional amounts of the interest rate swaps.
Duke Energy Florida Bond Issuance
In January 2017, Duke Energy Florida issued $900 million of first mortgage bonds. The issuance was split between a $250 million, three-year series and a $650 million, 10-year series. The net proceeds from the issuance were used to repay at maturity $250 million aggregate principal amount of bonds due September 2017, as well as to fund capital expenditures for ongoing construction and capital maintenance and for general corporate purposes.

PART II

The following tables summarize significant debt issuances (in millions).
     Year Ended December 31, 2016  
       Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Maturity Interest
 Duke
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
Issuance DateDate Rate
 Energy
 (Parent)
 Carolinas
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Unsecured Debt                 
April 2016(a)
April 2023 2.875% $350
 $350
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
August 2016September 2021 1.800% 750
 750
 
 
 
 
 
August 2016September 2026 2.650% 1,500
 1,500
 
 
 
 
 
August 2016September 2046 3.750% 1,500
 1,500
 
 
 
 
 
Secured Debt                 
June 2016(b)
March 2020 1.196% 183
 
 
 
 183
 
 
June 2016(b)
September 2022 1.731% 150
 
 
 
 150
 
 
June 2016(b)
September 2029 2.538% 436
 
 
 
 436
 
 
June 2016(b)
March 2033 2.858% 250
 
 
 
 250
 
 
June 2016(b)
September 2036 3.112% 275
 
 
 
 275
 
 
August 2016June 2034 2.747% 228
 
 
 
 
 
 
August 2016June 2020 2.747% 105
 
 
 
 
 
 
First Mortgage Bonds                 
March 2016(c)
March 2023 2.500% 500
 
 500
 
 
 
 
March 2016(c)
March 2046 3.875% 500
 
 500
 
 
 
 
May 2016(d)
May 2046 3.750% 500
 
 
 
 
 
 500
June 2016(c)
June 2046 3.700% 250
 
 
 
 
 250
 
September 2016(e)
October 2046 3.400% 600
 
 
 
 600
 
 
September 2016(c)
October 2046 3.700% 450
 
 
 450
 
 
 
November 2016(f)
December 2026 2.950% 600
 
 600
 
 
 
 
Total issuances    $9,127
 $4,100
 $1,600
 $450
 $1,894
 $250

$500
(a)Proceeds were used to pay down outstanding commercial paper and for general corporate purposes.
(b)The nuclear asset recovery bonds are sequential pay amortizing bonds. The maturity date above represents the scheduled final maturity date for the bonds.
(c)Proceeds were used to fund capital expenditures for ongoing construction, capital maintenance and for general corporate purposes.
(d)Proceeds were used to repay $325 million of unsecured debt due June 2016, $150 million of first mortgage bonds due July 2016 and for general corporate purposes.
(e)Proceeds were used to fund capital expenditures for ongoing construction, capital maintenance, to repay short-term borrowings under the intercompany money pool borrowing arrangement and for general corporate purposes.
(f)Proceeds were used to repay at maturity $350 million aggregate principal amount of certain bonds due December 2016, as well as to fund capital expenditures for ongoing construction and capital maintenance and for general corporate purposes.
     Year Ended December 31, 2015
       Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Maturity Interest
 Duke
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
Issuance DateDate Rate
 Energy
 (Parent)
 Carolinas
 Progress
Unsecured Debt           
November 2015(a)(b)
April 2024 3.750% $400
 $400
 $
 $
November 2015(a)(b)
December 2045 4.800% 600
 600
 
 
First Mortgage Bonds           
March 2015(c)
June 2045 3.750% 500
 
 500
 
August 2015(a)(d)
August 2025 3.250% 500
 
 
 500
August 2015(a)(d)
August 2045 4.200% 700
 
 
 700
Total issuances    $2,700
 $1,000
 $500
 $1,200
(a)Proceeds were used to repay short-term money pool and commercial paper borrowing issued to fund a portion of the NCEMPA acquisition, see Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Acquisitions and Dispositions," for further information.
(b)Proceeds were used to refinance at maturity $300 million of unsecured notes at Progress Energy due January 2016.
(c)Proceeds were used to redeem at maturity $500 million of first mortgage bonds due October 2015.
(d)Proceeds were used to refinance at maturity $400 million of first mortgage bonds due December 2015.

PART II

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements
Duke Energy and certain of its subsidiaries enter into guarantee arrangements in the normal course of business to facilitate commercial transactions with third parties. These arrangements include performance guarantees, stand-by letters of credit, debt guarantees, surety bonds and indemnifications.

75


PART II

Most of the guarantee arrangements entered into by Duke Energy enhance the credit standing of certain subsidiaries, non-consolidated entities or less than wholly owned entities, enabling them to conduct business. As such, these guarantee arrangements involve elements of performance and 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 Spectra Energy Capital, LLC (Spectra Capital) through indemnification agreements entered into as part of the January 2, 2007, spin-off of Spectra Energy Corp, having to honor its contingencies is largely dependent upon the future operations of the subsidiaries, investees and other third parties, or the occurrence of certain future events.
Duke Energy performs ongoing assessments of theirits respective guarantee obligations to determine whether any liabilities have been incurred as a result of potential increased non-performance risk by third parties for which Duke Energy has issued guarantees.
See Note 7 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Guarantees and Indemnifications,” for further details of the 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.
Other than the guarantee arrangements discussed above, normal operating lease arrangements and off-balance sheet debt related to non-consolidated VIEs, Duke Energy does not have any material off-balance sheet financing entities or structures. For additional information, see NoteNotes 5, 7 and Note 17 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Commitments and Contingencies”Contingencies,” "Guarantees and Indemnifications" and "Variable Interest Entities," respectively.
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 summarizes Duke Energy’s contractual cash obligations as of December 31, 2016.2017.
Payments Due By PeriodPayments Due By Period
        More than
        More than
  Less than
 2-3 years
 4-5 years
 5 years
  Less than
 2-3 years
 4-5 years
 5 years
  1 year
 (2018 &
 (2020 &
 (2022 &
  1 year
 (2019 &
 (2021 &
 (2023 &
(in millions)Total
 (2017)
 2019)
 2021)
 beyond)
Total
 (2018)
 2020)
 2022)
 beyond)
Long-Term debt(a)
$45,278
 $2,211
 $6,592
 $5,582
 $30,893
Long-term debt(a)
$49,962
 $3,127
 $7,062
 $6,541
 $33,232
Interest payments on long-term debt(b)
29,961
 1,868
 3,500
 3,014
 21,579
30,943
 2,014
 3,590
 3,144
 22,195
Capital leases(c)
1,562
 148
 308
 322
 784
1,601
 168
 343
 345
 745
Operating leases(c)
1,850
 218
 386
 298
 948
1,786
 233
 386
 285
 882
Purchase obligations:(d)
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
Fuel and purchased power(e)(f)
25,353
 4,819
 6,136
 3,786
 10,612
30,956
 4,506
 6,085
 4,474
 15,891
Other purchase obligations(g)
7,688
 5,802
 719
 193
 974
8,726
 6,642
 1,406
 121
 557
Nuclear decommissioning trust annual funding(h)
315
 30
 28
 28
 229
285
 14
 28
 28
 215
Total contractual cash obligations(i)(j)
$112,007
 $15,096
 $17,669
 $13,223
 $66,019
$124,259
 $16,704
 $18,900
 $14,938
 $73,717
(a)See Note 6 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Debt and Credit Facilities.”
(b)Interest payments on variable rate debt instruments were calculated using December 31, 2016,2017, 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 rates stated in the lease agreements and exclude certain related executory costs. Amounts exclude contingent lease obligations.
(d)Current liabilities, except for current maturities of long-term debt, and purchase obligations reflected on 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, 2016,2017, 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.
(f)Amounts exclude obligations under the OVEC purchase power agreement. See Note 17 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Variable Interest Entities," for additional information.
(g)Includes 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, wind and solar facilities, plant refurbishments, maintenance and day-to-day contract work and commitments to buy certain products. Amount excludes certain open purchase orders for services that are provided on demand, for which the timing of the purchase cannot be determined.

PART II

(h)Related to future annual funding obligations to NDTF through nuclear power stations' relicensing dates. Amounts through 2017 include North Carolina jurisdictional amounts that Duke Energy Progress retained internally and is transitioning to its external decommissioning 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."
(i)Unrecognized tax benefits of $17$25 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."

76


PART II

(j)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"), AROs, 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 ITCs 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
The Enterprise Risk Management policy framework at Duke Energy includes strategy, operational, project execution and financial or transaction related risks. Enterprise Risk Management includes market risk as part of the financial and transaction related risks in its framework.
Duke Energy is exposed to market risks associated with commodity prices, interest rates and equity prices and foreign currency exchange rates.prices. 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.
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 regulated operations as these operations are typically allowed to recover substantially all of these costs through various cost-recovery clauses, including fuel clauses.clauses, formula based contracts, or other cost-sharing mechanisms. While there may be a delay in timing between when these costs are incurred and when they 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.”
The inputs and methodologies used to determine the fair value of contracts are validated 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 and options to mitigate the effect of such fluctuations on operations. Duke Energy’s primary use of energy commodity derivatives is to hedge the generation portfolio against exposure to the prices of power, fuel for generation and fuel.natural gas for customers.
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 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.

PART II

Generation Portfolio Risks 
Duke Energy is primarily exposed to market price fluctuations of wholesale power, natural gas and coal prices in the Electric Utilities and Gas Utilities segments. The Duke Energy Registrants optimize the value of their generation portfolios, which 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.

77


PART II

For the Electric 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.
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, 2016,2017, Duke Energy had $777$687 million notional amount of floating-to-fixed swaps outstanding, $500 million notional amount of fixed-to-floating swaps outstanding and $400 million forward-starting swaps outstanding. Duke Energy had $6.3$6.1 billion of unhedged long- and short-term floating interest rate exposure at December 31, 2016.2017. The impact of a 100 basis point change in interest rates on pretax income is approximately $63$61 million at December 31, 2016.2017. 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, 2016.2017.
See Note 14, "Derivatives and Hedging," to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information about the forward-starting interest rate swaps related to the Piedmont acquisition.
Credit Risk
Credit risk represents the loss that the Duke Energy Registrants would incur if a counterparty fails to perform under its contractual obligations. Where exposed to credit risk, the Duke Energy Registrants analyze the counterparty's financial condition prior to entering into an agreement and monitor exposure on an ongoing basis. The Duke Energy Registrants establish credit limits where appropriate in the context of contractual arrangements and monitor such limits.
To reduce credit exposure, the Duke Energy Registrants seek to include netting provisions with counterparties, which permit the offset of receivables and payables with such counterparties. The Duke Energy Registrants also frequently use master agreements with credit support annexes to further mitigate certain credit exposures. The master 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 also obtain cash or letters of credit from certain counterparties to provide credit support outside of collateral agreements, where appropriate, based on a financial analysis of the counterparty 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’ principal counterparties for its electric and natural gas businesses are regional transmission organizations, distribution companies, municipalities, electric cooperatives and utilities located throughout the U.S. The Duke Energy Registrants have concentrations of receivables from such entities throughout these regions. These concentrations of receivables may affect the Duke Energy Registrants’ overall credit risk in that risk factors can negatively impact the credit quality of the entire sector.
The Duke Energy Registrants are also subject to credit risk from transactions with their suppliers that involve pre-paymentsprepayments in conjunction with outsourcing arrangements, major construction projects and certain commodity purchases. The Duke Energy Registrants’ credit exposure to such suppliers may take the form of increased costs or project delays in the event of nonperformance.non-performance. The Duke Energy Registrants' frequently require guarantees or letters of credit from suppliers to mitigate this credit risk.
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, letter of credit or surety bond 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 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 Cinergy Receivables Company LLC (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.”

PART II

Duke Energy Carolinas has third-party insurance to cover certain losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages above an aggregate self-insured retention. 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 indemnification and medical cost claim payments is $814$797 million in excess of the self-insured retention. Receivables for insurance recoveries were $587$489 million and $599$587 million at December 31, 20162017, and 2015,2016, respectively. These amounts are classified in Other within Investments and Other Noncurrent 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.

78


PART II

The Duke Energy Registrants also have credit risk exposure through issuance of performance and financial 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.
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 facilitate funding 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. See Note 21 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Employee Benefit Plans”Plans,” for additional information regarding investment strategy of pension plan assets.
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 NRC, NCUC, PSCSC and the Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC),FPSC, subsidiaries of Duke Energy maintain trust funds to fund the costs of nuclear decommissioning. As of December 31, 2016,2017, 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. These investments are exposed to price fluctuations in equity markets and changes in interest rates. 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 and wholesale rates; therefore, fluctuations in investment prices do not materially affect the Consolidated Statements of Operations, as changes in the fair value of these investments are primarily deferred as regulatory assets or regulatory liabilities pursuant to Orders by the NCUC, PSCSC, FPSC and FERC. Earnings or losses of the fund will ultimately impact the amount of costs recovered through retail and wholesale rates. See Note 9 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Asset Retirement Obligations”Obligations,” for additional information regarding nuclear decommissioning costs. See Note 15 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Investments in Debt and Equity Securities”Securities,” for additional information regarding NDTF assets.

PART II

OTHER MATTERS
Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges
The Duke Energy Registrants’ ratios of earnings to fixed charges, as calculated using SEC guidelines, are included in the tabletables below.
Years Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
2016
 2015
 2014
2017
 2016
 2015
Duke Energy2.7
 3.1
 3.0
2.9
 2.7
 3.1
Duke Energy Carolinas4.7
 4.7
 4.6
4.8
 4.7
 4.7
Progress Energy3.0
 2.9
 2.7
2.7
 3.0
 2.9
Duke Energy Progress4.0
 3.7
 3.5
4.1
 4.0
 3.7
Duke Energy Florida4.3
 4.3
 4.1
3.3
 4.3
 4.3
Duke Energy Ohio3.8
 3.6
 2.1
3.4
 3.8
 3.6
Duke Energy Indiana4.1
 3.6
 4.1
4.4
 4.1
 3.6
 Year Ended Two Months Ended Years Ended October 31,
 December 31, 2017
 December 31, 2016
 2016 2015
Piedmont3.3
 6.6
 4.7
 3.7

79


PART II

Environmental Regulations
The Duke Energy 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 and result in new obligations of the Duke Energy Registrants.
The following sections outline various proposed and recently enacted legislation and regulations that may impact the Duke Energy Registrants. Refer to Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Regulatory Matters," for further information regarding potential plant retirements and regulatory filings related to the Duke Energy Registrants.
Coal Combustion Residuals
In April 2015, the EPA published a rule to regulate the disposal of CCR from electric utilities as solid waste. The federal regulation classifies CCR as nonhazardous waste and allows for beneficial use of CCR with some restrictions. The regulation applies to all new and existing landfills, new and existing surface impoundments receiving CCR and existing surface impoundments that are no longer receiving CCR but contain liquid located at stations currently generating electricity (regardless of fuel source). The rule establishes requirements regarding landfill design, structural integrity design and assessment criteria for surface impoundments, groundwater monitoring, protection and remedial procedures and other operational and reporting procedures to ensure the safe disposal and management of CCR. As a result of the EPA rule, Duke Energy Carolinas, Progress Energy, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana recorded additional ARO amounts during 2015. Various industry and environmental parties have appealed the EPA's CCR rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit Court). On April 18, 2016, the EPA filed a motion with the federal court to settle five issues raised in litigation. On June 14, 2016, the court approved the motion with respect to all of those issues. A decision by the court on the remaining issues is expected in the second quarter of 2017. Duke Energy does not expect a material impact from the settlement or that it will result in additional ARO adjustments. On September 13, 2017, EPA responded to a petition by the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group that the agency would reconsider certain provisions of the final rule, and asked the D.C. Circuit Court to suspend the litigation. The D.C. Circuit Court denied EPA’s petition to suspend the litigation and oral argument was held on November 20, 2017. The court has not issued an order in the matter. Duke Energy cannot predict the outcome of the litigation.
In a November 15, 2017, status report filed with the D.C. Circuit Court, EPA listed the provisions it intends to reconsider, including provisions that warrant revision due to passage of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act, which allows for implementation of the CCR rule through state or federal permit programs. EPA has indicated it will issue a proposed rule in early 2018 that includes provisions from the June 2016 settlement with petitioners and additional provisions under reconsideration. The reconsideration would not repeal the CCR rule; rather, it would modify some requirements to align with the implementation of the rule through permit programs. At this time, Duke Energy does not expect a reconsideration rulemaking to have a material impact on its coal ash basin closure plans or compliance requirements under the CCR rule.
In addition to the requirements of the federal CCR regulation, CCR landfills and surface impoundments will continue to be independently regulated by most states. Cost recovery for future expenditures will be pursued through the normal ratemaking process with federal and state utility commissions and via wholesale contracts, which permit recovery of necessary and prudently incurred costs associated with Duke Energy’s regulated operations. For more information, see Note 9 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, "Asset Retirement Obligations."
Coal Ash Management Act of 2014
AROs recorded on the Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31, 2016,2017, and December 31, 2015,2016, include the legal obligation for closure of coal ash basins and the disposal of related ash as a result of the Coal Ash Act, the EPA CCR rule and other agreements. In January 2016, the NCDEQ published draft risk classifications for sites not specifically delineated by theThe Coal Ash Act as high risk. These risk rankings were generally determined based on three primary criteria: structural integrity of the impoundments and impacts to surface water and to groundwater. The NCDEQ's draft proposed classifications categorized 12 basins at four sites as intermediate risk and four basins at three sites as low risk. The NCDEQ's draft proposed classifications also categorized nine basins at six sites as “low-to-intermediate” risk, thereby not assigning a definitive risk ranking at that time. On May 18, 2016, the NCDEQ issued new proposed risk classifications, proposing to rank all originally proposed low risk and "low-to-intermediate" risk sites as intermediate.
On July 14, 2016, the former governor of North Carolina signed legislation which amended the Coal Ash Act and requiredrequires Duke Energy to undertake dam improvement projects and to provide access to a permanent alternative drinking water source to certain residents within a half milehalf-mile of coal ash basin compliance boundaries and to certain other potentially impacted residents. The new legislation also ranksrequires excavation of the Sutton, Riverbend and Dan River basins by August 1, 2019, and Asheville basins by August 1, 2022. Excavation at these sites may include a combination of transfer of coal ash to an engineered landfill or conversion for beneficial use. Basins at the H.F. Lee, Cape Fear and Weatherspoon stations as intermediate risk consistent with Duke Energy's previously announced plans to excavate those basins. These specific intermediate risk basins require closure through excavation including a combination of transferring ash to an appropriate engineered landfill or conversion of the ash for beneficial use. Closure of these specific intermediate risk basins issites are required to be completedclosed through excavation no later than August 1, 2028. Excavation at these sites can include conversion of the basin to a lined industrial landfill, transfer of ash to an engineered landfill or conversion for beneficial use. The remaining basins are required to be closed no later than December 31, 2024, through conversion to a lined industrial landfill, transfer to an engineered landfill or conversion for beneficial use, unless certain dam improvement projects and alternative drinking water source projects are completed by October 15, 2018. Upon satisfactory completion of these projects, the dam improvement projectsclosure deadline would be extended to December 31, 2029, and installationcould include closure through the combination of alternative drinking water sources by October 15, 2018, the legislation requires the NCDEQ to reclassify sites proposed as intermediate risk, excluding H.F. Lee, Cape Feara cap system and Weatherspoon, as low risk. In January 2017, NCDEQ issued preliminary approval of Duke Energy's plans for the alternative water sources.a groundwater monitoring system.

PART II

PerAdditionally, the Coal Ash Act final proposed classifications were to be subject to Coal Ash Management Commission (Coal Ash Commission) approval. In March 2016, the Coal Ash Commission created by the Coal Ash Act was disbanded by the former governor of North Carolina based on a North Carolina Supreme Court ruling regarding the constitutionality of the body. The July 2016 legislation eliminates the Coal Ash Commission and transfers responsibility for ash basin closure oversight to the NCDEQ.
Additionally, the July 2016 legislation requires the installation and operation of three large-scale coal ash beneficiation projects which are expected to produce reprocessed ash for use in the concrete industry. Duke Energy selected the Buck, H.F. Lee and Cape Fear plants for these projects. Closure of basins at these sites with these beneficiation projects areis required to be completed no later than December 31, 2029. On October 5, 2016, Duke Energy announced Buck Steam Station as a first location for one of the beneficiation projects. On December 13, 2016, Duke Energy announced H.F. Lee as the second location. Duke Energy intends to announce the third location by July 1, 2017.
The Coal Ash Act includes a variance procedure for compliance deadlines and other issues surrounding the management of CCR and CCR surface impoundments.
Provisions of the Coal Ash Act prohibitimpoundments and prohibits cost recovery in customer rates for unlawful discharge of ash impoundment waters occurring after January 1, 2014. The Coal Ash Act leaves the decision on cost recovery determinations related to closure of ash impoundments to the normal ratemaking processes before utility regulatory commissions. Consistent with the requirements of the Coal Ash Act, Duke Energy has submitted comprehensive site assessments and groundwater corrective plans to NCDEQ and will submit to NCDEQ site-specific coal ash impoundment closure plans in advance of closure. These plans and all associated permits must be approved by NCDEQ before closure work can begin.
For further information on AROs, see Note 9 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Asset Retirement Obligations.”
Mercury and Air Toxics Standards
The final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule was issued on February 16, 2012. The rule established emission limits for hazardous air pollutants from new and existing coal-fired and oil-fired steam electric generating units (EGUs). The rule required sources to comply with emission limits by April 16, 2015, or by April 16, 2016, with approved extension. Strategies to achieve compliance included installation of new air emission control equipment, development of monitoring processes, fuel switching and acceleration of retirement for some coal-fired EGUs. All of Duke Energy's coal-fired units are in compliance with the emission limits, work practices standards and other requirements of the MATS rule.
80


PART II

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 26 of the electric generating facilities the Duke Energy Registrants own and operate. The rule allows for several options to demonstrate 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 20222023 time frame. Petitions challenging the rule have been filed by several groups. Oral argument was held on September 14, 2017. It is unknown when the courts will rule on the petitions. The Duke Energy Registrants cannot predict the outcome of these matters.
Steam Electric Effluent Limitations Guidelines
On January 4, 2016, the final Steam Electric Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELG) rule became effective. The rule establishes new requirements for wastewater streams associated with steam electric power generation and includes more stringent controls for any new coal plants that may be built in the future. AffectedAs originally written, affected facilities mustwere required to comply between 2018 and 2023, depending on the timing of new Clean Water Act (CWA) discharge permits. Most if not all, of the steam electric generating facilities the Duke Energy Registrants own are likely affected sources. The Duke Energy Registrants are well-positioned to meet the majority of the requirements of the rule due to current efforts to convert to dry ash handling. Petitions challenging the rule have been filed by several groups. On March 16, 2015, Duke Energy Indiana filed its own legal challenge to the rule with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals specific to the ELG for wastewater associated rule focused on the limits imposed on integrated gas combined-cycle facilities.IGCC facilities (gasification wastewater). All challenges to the rule have beenwere consolidated in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Opening briefsOn August 22, 2017, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted EPA’s Motion to Govern Further Proceedings, thereby severing and suspending the claims related to flue gas desulfurization wastewater, bottom ash transport water and gasification wastewater. Claims regarding gasification wastewater were submitted on December 5, 2016. Briefing concludes on June 5,stayed, pending the issuance of the variance to Duke Energy Indiana. The litigation will continue as to claims related to other waste streams.
On August 7, 2017, EPA issued a public notice regarding its proposed decision to grant a variance to Duke Energy Indiana for mercury and oral argumenttotal dissolved solids for gasification wastewater at its Edwardsport facility. The public comment period has ended, but EPA has not been scheduled. It is unknown whenfinalized its decision. Separate from the courts willlitigation, EPA finalized a rule on September 18, 2017, postponing the petitions. earliest applicability date for bottom ash transport water and flue gas desulfurization wastewater from 2018 to 2020 and retaining the end applicability date of 2023. Also, as part of the rule, EPA reiterated its intent to review the limitation guidelines for bottom ash transport water and flue gas desulfurization wastewater and potentially to conduct a new rulemaking to revise those guidelines.
The Duke Energy Registrants cannot predict the outcome of these matters.
Estimated Cost and Impacts of Rulemakings
Duke Energy will incur capital expenditures to comply with the environmental regulations and rules discussed above. The following table provides five-year estimated costs, excluding AFUDC, of new control equipment that may need to be installed on existing power plants primarily to comply with the Coal Ash Act requirements for conversion to dry disposal of bottom ash and fly ash, CWA 316(b) and ELGs through December 31, 2021.2022. The table excludes ash basin closure costs recorded in Asset retirement obligations on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. For more information related to AROs, see Note 9 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
(in millions)Five-Year Estimated Costs
Duke Energy$1,200
Duke Energy Carolinas530
Progress Energy325
Duke Energy Progress260
Duke Energy Florida65
Duke Energy Ohio125
Duke Energy Indiana220

PART II

(in millions)Five-Year Estimated Costs
Duke Energy$920
Duke Energy Carolinas380
Progress Energy360
Duke Energy Progress230
Duke Energy Florida130
Duke Energy Ohio70
Duke Energy Indiana110
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. Actual compliance costs incurred may be materially different from these estimates due to reasons such as the timing and requirements of EPA regulations and the resolution of legal challenges to the rules. The Duke Energy Registrants intend to seek rate recovery of necessary and prudently incurred costs associated with regulated operations to comply with these regulations.

81


PART II

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
On December 3, 2015, the EPA proposed a rule to lower the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Phase 2 state ozone season nitrogen oxide (NOX) emission budgets for 23 eastern states, including North Carolina, Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana. The EPA also proposed to eliminate the CSAPR Phase 2 ozone season state NOX budgets for Florida and South Carolina. On September 7, 2016, the EPA finalized a CSAPR update ruleUpdate Rule that reduces the CSAPR Phase 2 state ozone season NOX emission budgets for 22 eastern states, including Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana. In the final CSAPR update rule, theUpdate Rule, EPA removed Florida, South Carolina and North Carolina from the ozone season NOx program. Beginning in 2017, Duke Energy Registrants in these states will not be subject to any CSAPR ozone season NOx emission limitations. For the states that remain in the program, the reduced state ozone season NOx emission budgets will taketook effect on May 1, 2017. In Kentucky and Indiana, where Duke Energy Registrants own and operate coal-fired EGUselectric generating units (EGUs) subject to the final rule requirements, potential near-term responses could include changing unit dispatch to run certain generating units less frequently and/or purchasing NOx allowances from the trading market. Longer term, upgrading the performance of existing NOx controls is an option. The Indiana Utility Group and the Indiana Energy Association jointly filed a petition for reconsideration asking that EPA correct errors it made in calculating the Indiana budget and increase the budget accordingly. EPA has yet to act on the petition. Numerous parties have filed petitions with the D.C. Circuit Court challenging various aspects of the CSAPR Update Rule. Final briefs in the case are due April 9, 2018. The date for oral argument has not been established. The Duke Energy Registrants cannot predict the outcome of these matters.
Carbon Pollution Standards for New, Modified and Reconstructed Power Plants
On October 23, 2015, the EPA published a final rule in the Federal Register establishing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions limits for new, modified and reconstructed power plants. The requirements for new plants do not apply to any facility that Duke Energy currently has in operation, but would apply to plants that commenced construction after January 8, 2014. The EPA set an emissions standard for coal units of 1,400 pounds of CO2 per gross MWh, which would require the application of partial carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology for a coal unit to be able to meet the limit. Utility-scale CCS is not currently a demonstrated and commercially available technology for coal-fired EGUs, and therefore the final standard effectively prevents the development of new coal-fired generation. The EPA set a final standard of 1,000 pounds of CO2 per gross MWh for new natural gas combined-cycle units. Petitions challenging
On March 28, 2017, President Trump signed an executive order directing EPA to review the rule have beenand determine whether to suspend, revise or rescind it. On the same day, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a motion with the D.C. Circuit Court requesting that the court stay the litigation of the rule while it is reviewed by several groups. Final briefsEPA. Subsequent to the DOJ motion, the D.C. Circuit Court canceled oral argument in the case were due February 6, 2017. Oral arguments are scheduledcase. On August 10, 2017, the court ordered that the litigation be suspended indefinitely. The rule remains in effect pending the outcome of litigation and EPA’s review. EPA has not announced a schedule for April 2017.completing its review. The Duke Energy Registrants cannot predict the outcome of these matters, but do not expect the impacts of the current final standards will be material to Duke Energy's financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
Clean Power Plan
On October 23, 2015, the EPA published in the Federal Register the final Clean Power Plan (CPP) rule that regulates CO2 emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs. The CPP established CO2 emission rates and mass cap goals that apply to existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs. Petitions challenging the rule have beenwere filed by several groups and on February 9, 2016, the Supreme Court issued a stay of the final CPP rule, halting implementation of the CPPrule until legal challenges are resolved. States in which the Duke Energy Registrants operate have suspended work on the CPP in response to the stay. Oral arguments before 10 of the 11 judges on D.C. Circuit Court were heard on September 27, 2016. The court is expected to decidehas not issued its opinion in the case in early 2017.case.
ComplianceOn March 28, 2017, President Trump signed an executive order directing EPA to review the CPP and determine whether to suspend, revise or rescind the rule. On the same day, the DOJ filed a motion with the D.C. Circuit Court requesting that the court stay the litigation of the rule while it is reviewed by EPA. On April 28, 2017, the court issued an order to suspend the litigation for 60 days. On August 8, 2017, the court, on its own motion, extended the suspension of the litigation for an additional 60 days. On October 16, 2017, EPA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) to repeal the CPP could causebased on a change to EPA’s legal interpretation of the industrysection of the Clean Air Act (CAA) on which the CPP was based. In the proposal, EPA indicates that it has not determined whether it will issue a rule to replace coal-fired generation with natural gas and renewables. Costs to operate coal-fired generation plants continue to grow due to increasing environmental compliance requirements, including ash management costs unrelated to CPP, which may result in the retirement of coal-fired generation plants earlier than the current end of useful lives. If the CPP, is ultimately upheld byand if it will do so, when and what form that rule will take. The comment period on EPA's NPR ends April 26, 2018. On December 28, 2017, EPA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in which it seeks public comment on various aspects of a potential CPP replacement rule. The comment period on the courts and implementation goesANPRM ends February 26, 2018. If EPA decides to move forward the Duke Energy Registrants could incur increased fuel, purchased power, operation and maintenance and other costswith a CPP replacement rule, it will need to issue a formal proposal for replacement generation as a result of this rule. Due to the uncertainties related to the implementationpublic comment. Litigation of the CPP remains on hold in the D.C. Circuit Court and the February 2016 U.S. Supreme Court stay of the CPP remains in effect. The Duke Energy Registrants cannot predict the outcome of these matters.
Global Climate Change
The Duke Energy Registrants’ greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions consist primarily of CO2 and result primarily from operating a fleet of coal-fired and natural gas-fired power plants. In 2016,2017, the Duke Energy Registrants’ power plants emitted approximately 107105 million tons of CO2. Future levels of CO2 emissions will be influenced by variables that include fuel prices, compliance with new or existing regulations, economic conditions that affect electricity demand and the technologies deployed to generate the electricity necessary to meet the customer demand.

82


PART II

The Duke Energy Registrants have taken actions that have resulted in a reduction of CO2 emissions over time. Actions have included the retirement of 47 coal-fired EGUs with a combined generating capacity of 5,425 MW. Much of that capacity has been replaced with state-of-the-art highly efficient natural gas-fired generation that produces far fewer CO2CO2 emissions per unit of electricity generated. Duke Energy also has made investments to expand its portfolio of wind and solar projects, increase energy efficiency offerings and invest in its zero-CO2 emissions hydropower and nuclear plants. These efforts have diversified its system and significantly reduced CO2 emissions. Between 2005 and 2016,2017, the Duke Energy Registrants have collectively lowered the CO2 emissions from their electricity generation by approximately 30more than 31 percent, which lowers the exposure to any future mandatory CO2 emission reduction requirements or carbon tax, whether as a result of federal legislation, the final CPPEPA regulation, state regulation or other as yet unknown emission reduction requirement. Duke Energy will continue to explore the use of currently-available and commercially-demonstrated technology to reduce CO2 emissions, including energy efficiency, wind, solar, storage, nuclear and carbon sequestration. Duke Energy will adjust to evolving and innovative technologies in a way that balances the reliability and affordability that customers expect. Under any future scenario involving mandatory CO2 limitations, the Duke Energy Registrants would plan to seek recovery of their compliance costs through appropriate regulatory mechanisms.
The Duke Energy Registrants recognize certain groups associate severe weather events with increasing levels of GHGs in the atmosphere and forecast the possibility these weather events could have a material impact on future results of operations should they occur more frequently and with greater severity. However, the uncertain nature of potential changes in 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 predict potential changes with any degree of accuracy, make estimating any potential future financial risk to the Duke Energy Registrants’ operations impossible. The Duke Energy Registrants have historically planned and prepared for extreme weather events, such as ice storms, tornadoes, hurricanes, severe thunderstorms, high winds and droughts they occasionally experience.

The Duke Energy Registrants annually, biannually or triennially prepare lengthy, forward-looking “integrated resource plans” (IRPs). These detailed, highly technical plans are based on the company’s thorough analysis of numerous factors that can impact the cost of producing and delivering electricity that influence long-term resource planning decisions. The IRP process helps to evaluate a range of options, taking into account forecasts of future electricity demand, fuel prices, transmission improvements, new generating capacity, integration of renewables, energy storage, energy efficiency and demand response initiatives. The IRP process also helps evaluate potential environmental and regulatory scenarios to better mitigate policy and economic risks. The IRPs we file with regulators look out 10 to 20 years depending on the jurisdiction.
PART II

For a number of years, the Duke Energy Registrants have included a price on CO2 emissions in their IRP planning process to account for the potential regulation of CO2 emissions. Incorporating a price on CO2 emissions in the IRP allows for the evaluation of existing and future resource needs against potential climate change policy risk in the absence of policy certainty. One of the challenges with using a CO2 price, especially in the absence of a clear and certain policy, is determining the appropriate price to use. To address this uncertainty and ensure the company remains agile, the Duke Energy Registrants typically use a range of potential CO2 prices to reflect a range of potential policy outcomes.
The Duke Energy Registrants routinely take steps to reduce the potential impact of severe weather events on their electric distribution systems. The Duke Energy Registrants’ electric generating facilities are designed to withstand extreme weather events without significant damage. The Duke Energy Registrants maintain an inventory of coal and oil on-site to mitigate the effects of any potential short-term disruption in fuel supply so they can continue to provide customers with an uninterrupted supply of electricity.
North Carolina Legislation
In July 2017, the North Carolina General Assembly passed House Bill 589 and it was subsequently enacted into law by the governor. The law includes, among other things, overall reform of the application of Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) for new solar projects in the state, a requirement for the utility to procure approximately 2,600 MW of renewable energy through a competitive bidding process and recovery of costs related to the competitive bidding process through the fuel clause and a competitive procurement rider. The law stipulated certain deadlines for Duke Energy to file for NCUC approval of programs required under the law. Duke Energy has made some regulatory filings since the passage of the law and will continue to implement the requirements of House Bill 589.
Nuclear Matters
Following the events at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station in Japan, 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. Subsequently, the NRC targeted a set of improvements designed to enhance accident mitigation, strengthen emergency preparedness and improve efficiency of NRC programs. Pursuant to the findings of the task force, in March 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. Duke Energy is committed to compliance with all safety enhancements ordered by the NRC and as of January 2017, Duke Energyhas completed actions on two of the three NRC orders, are complete.as required. The remaining order is focused only on enhancements to boiling water reactor designs which, for Duke Energy, is unique to Brunswick Steam Electric Plant. Actions associated with this third order will be completed by March 2019. With the NRC’s continuing review of this matter, 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. Upon receipt of additional guidance from the NRC and a collaborative industry review, Duke Energy will be able to determine an implementation plan and associated costs. See Item 1A, “Risk Factors,” for further discussion of applicable risk factors.
New Accounting Standards
See Note 1 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
 

83


PART II

See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Results of Operations and Financial Condition – Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.”

84


PART II

ITEM 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
 
Duke Energy Corporation (Duke Energy) 
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
Consolidated Statements of Operations
Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income
Consolidated Balance Sheets
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows 
Consolidated Statements of Changes in Equity
  
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) 
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 Progress, LLC (Duke Energy Progress) 
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/Common Stockholder’s Equity
  
Duke Energy Florida, LLC (Duke Energy Florida) 
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/Common Stockholder’s Equity
  
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, LLC (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
  
Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc. (Piedmont)
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 Equity
  

85


PART II

Combined Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements 
Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
Note 2 – Acquisitions and Dispositions
Note 3 – Business Segments
Note 4 – Regulatory Matters
Note 5 – Commitments and Contingencies
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 Equipment
Note 11 – Goodwill and Intangible Assets
Note 12 – Investments in Unconsolidated Affiliates
Note 13 – Related Party Transactions
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 – Stock-Based Compensation
Note 21 – Employee Benefit Plans
Note 22 – Income Taxes
Note 23 – Other Income and Expenses, Net
Note 24 – Subsequent Events
Note 25 – Quarterly Financial Data (Unaudited)

86


PART II

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the shareholders and the Board of Directors and Stockholders of
Duke Energy Corporation
Charlotte, North CarolinaOpinion on the Financial Statements
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Duke Energy Corporation and subsidiaries (the "Company") as of December 31, 20162017 and 2015, and2016, the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive income, changes in equity, and cash flows, for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2016. We also have audited2017, and the Company's internal control overrelated notes (collectively referred to as the "financial statements"). In our opinion, the financial reportingstatements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, based on criteria established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework (2013) issued byand the Committeeresults of Sponsoring Organizationsits operations and its cash flows for each 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, includedthree years in the accompanying Management’s Annual Report On Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and an opinion onperiod ended December 31, 2017, in conformity with the Company's internal control over financial reporting based on our audits.accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
We conducted our auditshave also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). (PCAOB), the Company's internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017, based on criteria established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission and our report dated February 23, 2018, expressed an unqualified opinion on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.
Basis for Opinion
These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company's financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the PCAOB and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, and whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects.due to error or fraud. Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence supportingregarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessingstatements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, andas well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statement presentation. Our audit of internal control over financial reporting 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. Our audits also included performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.statements. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinions.
A company's internal control over financial reporting is a process designed by, or under the supervision of, the company's principal executive and principal financial officers, or persons performing similar functions, and effected by the company'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'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'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, 2016 and 2015, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2016, 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, 2016, based on the criteria established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.opinion.

/s/Deloitte & Touche LLP
Charlotte, North Carolina
February 24, 201721, 2018
We have served as the Company's auditor since 1947.

87


PART II

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
Years Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
(in millions, except per-share amounts)2016
 2015
 2014
(in millions, except per share amounts)2017
 2016
 2015
Operating Revenues          
Regulated electric$21,221
 $21,379
 $21,550
$21,177
 $21,221
 $21,379
Regulated natural gas1,734
 863
 536
Nonregulated electric and other659
 456
 386
654
 659
 456
Regulated natural gas863
 536
 573
Total operating revenues22,743
 22,371
 22,509
23,565
 22,743
 22,371
Operating Expenses          
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power6,625
 7,355
 7,732
6,350
 6,625
 7,355
Cost of natural gas265
 141
 185
632
 265
 141
Operation, maintenance and other6,085
 5,539
 5,506
5,788
 6,085
 5,539
Depreciation and amortization3,294
 3,053
 2,969
3,527
 3,294
 3,053
Property and other taxes1,142
 1,129
 1,204
1,233
 1,142
 1,129
Impairment charges18
 106
 81
282
 18
 106
Total operating expenses17,429
 17,323
 17,677
17,812
 17,429
 17,323
Gains on Sales of Other Assets and Other, net27
 30
 10
28
 27
 30
Operating Income5,341
 5,078
 4,842
5,781
 5,341
 5,078
Other Income and Expenses          
Equity in earnings (losses) of unconsolidated affiliates(15) 69
 130
119
 (15) 69
Other income and expenses, net324
 290
 320
352
 324
 290
Total other income and expenses309
 359
 450
471
 309
 359
Interest Expense1,916
 1,527
 1,529
1,986
 1,916
 1,527
Income From Continuing Operations Before Income Taxes3,734
 3,910
 3,763
4,266
 3,734
 3,910
Income Tax Expense From Continuing Operations1,156
 1,256
 1,225
1,196
 1,156
 1,256
Income From Continuing Operations2,578
 2,654
 2,538
3,070
 2,578
 2,654
(Loss) Income From Discontinued Operations, net of tax(408) 177
 (649)(6) (408) 177
Net Income2,170
 2,831
 1,889
3,064
 2,170
 2,831
Less: Net Income Attributable to Noncontrolling Interests18
 15
 6
5
 18
 15
Net Income Attributable to Duke Energy Corporation$2,152
 $2,816
 $1,883
$3,059
 $2,152
 $2,816
          
Earnings Per Share Basic and Diluted
          
Income from continuing operations attributable to Duke Energy Corporation common stockholders          
Basic$3.71
 $3.80
 $3.58
$4.37
 $3.71
 $3.80
Diluted$3.71
 $3.80
 $3.58
$4.37
 $3.71
 $3.80
(Loss) Income from discontinued operations attributable to Duke Energy Corporation common stockholders
    
    
Basic$(0.60) $0.25
 $(0.92)$(0.01) $(0.60) $0.25
Diluted$(0.60) $0.25
 $(0.92)$(0.01) $(0.60) $0.25
Net Income attributable to Duke Energy Corporation common stockholders
    
Net income attributable to Duke Energy Corporation common stockholders
    
Basic$3.11
 $4.05
 $2.66
$4.36
 $3.11
 $4.05
Diluted$3.11
 $4.05
 $2.66
$4.36
 $3.11
 $4.05
Weighted average shares outstanding          
Basic691
 694
 707
700
 691
 694
Diluted691
 694
 707
700
 691
 694
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

88


PART II

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
 Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)  
2016
 2015
 2014
Net Income  $2,170
 $2,831
 $1,889
Other Comprehensive Income (Loss), net of tax       
Foreign currency translation adjustments694
 (264) (124)
Pension and OPEB adjustments(11) (13) 4
Net unrealized gains (losses) on cash flow hedges(a)
17
 
 (26)
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges13
 9
 7
Unrealized gains (losses) on available-for-sale securities2
 (6) 3
Other Comprehensive Income (Loss), net of tax  
715
 (274) (136)
Comprehensive Income  
2,885
 2,557
 1,753
Less: Comprehensive Income Attributable to Noncontrolling Interests  
20
 4
 14
Comprehensive Income Attributable to Duke Energy Corporation  
$2,865
 $2,553
 $1,739
(a)    Net of insignificant tax expense in 2016 and 2015, and $13 million tax benefit in 2014.
 Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)  
2017
 2016
 2015
Net Income$3,064
 $2,170
 $2,831
Other Comprehensive Income (Loss), net of tax     
Foreign currency translation adjustments
 694
 (264)
Pension and OPEB adjustments3
 (11) (13)
Net unrealized gains on cash flow hedges2
 17
 
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges8
 13
 9
Unrealized gains (losses) on available-for-sale securities13
 2
 (6)
Other Comprehensive Income (Loss), net of tax  
26
 715
 (274)
Comprehensive Income  
3,090
 2,885
 2,557
Less: Comprehensive Income Attributable to Noncontrolling Interests  
5
 20
 4
Comprehensive Income Attributable to Duke Energy Corporation  
$3,085
 $2,865
 $2,553

See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

89


PART II

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
December 31,December 31,
(in millions)2016
 2015
2017
 2016
ASSETS      
Current Assets      
Cash and cash equivalents$392
 $383
$358
 $392
Receivables (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $14 at 2016 and $12 at 2015)751
 515
Receivables of VIEs (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $54 at 2016 and $53 at 2015)1,893
 1,748
Receivables (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $14 at 2017 and 2016)779
 751
Receivables of VIEs (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $54 at 2017 and 2016)1,995
 1,893
Inventory3,522

3,746
3,250

3,522
Assets held for sale
 746
Regulatory assets (includes $50 related to VIEs at 2016)1,023
 877
Regulatory assets (includes $51 at 2017 and $50 at 2016 related to VIEs)1,437
 1,023
Other458
 307
634
 458
Total current assets8,039
 8,322
8,453
 8,039
Investments and Other Assets   
Investments in equity method unconsolidated affiliates925
 499
Nuclear decommissioning trust funds6,205
 5,825
Goodwill19,425
 16,072
Assets held for sale
 2,413
Other2,752
 2,830
Total investments and other assets29,307
 27,639
Property, Plant and Equipment      
Cost121,397
 109,967
127,507
 121,397
Accumulated depreciation and amortization(39,406) (36,736)(41,537) (39,406)
Generation facilities to be retired, net529
 548
421
 529
Net property, plant and equipment82,520
 73,779
86,391
 82,520
Regulatory Assets and Deferred Debits   
Regulatory assets (includes $1,142 related to VIEs at 2016)12,878
 11,373
Other Noncurrent Assets   
Goodwill19,396
 19,425
Regulatory assets (includes $1,091 at 2017 and $1,142 at 2016 related to VIEs)12,442
 12,878
Nuclear decommissioning trust funds7,097
 6,205
Investments in equity method unconsolidated affiliates1,175
 925
Other17
 43
2,960
 2,769
Total regulatory assets and deferred debits12,895
 11,416
Total other noncurrent assets43,070
 42,202
Total Assets$132,761
 $121,156
$137,914
 $132,761
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY      
Current Liabilities      
Accounts payable$2,994
 $2,350
$3,043
 $2,994
Notes payable and commercial paper2,487
 3,633
2,163
 2,487
Taxes accrued384
 289
551
 384
Interest accrued503
 412
525
 503
Current maturities of long-term debt (includes $260 at 2016 and $125 at 2015 related to VIEs)2,319
 2,026
Liabilities associated with assets held for sale
 279
Current maturities of long-term debt (includes $225 at 2017 and $260 at 2016 related to VIEs)3,244
 2,319
Asset retirement obligations411
 
689
 411
Regulatory liabilities409
 400
402
 409
Other2,044
 2,011
1,865
 2,044
Total current liabilities11,551
 11,400
12,482
 11,551
Long-Term Debt (includes $3,587 at 2016 and $2,197 at 2015 related to VIEs)45,576
 36,842
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities   
Long-Term Debt (includes $4,306 at 2017 and $3,587 at 2016 related to VIEs)49,035
 45,576
Other Noncurrent Liabilities   
Deferred income taxes14,155
 12,548
6,621
 14,155
Investment tax credits493
 472
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs1,111
 1,088
Liabilities associated with assets held for sale
 900
Asset retirement obligations10,200
 10,249
9,486
 10,200
Regulatory liabilities6,881
 6,255
15,330
 6,881
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs1,103
 1,111
Investment tax credits539
 493
Other1,753
 1,631
1,581
 1,753
Total deferred credits and other liabilities34,593
 33,143
Total other noncurrent liabilities34,660
 34,593
Commitments and Contingencies

 



 

Equity      
Common stock, $0.001 par value, 2 billion shares authorized; 700 million and 688 million shares outstanding at 2016 and 2015, respectively1
 1
Common stock, $0.001 par value, 2 billion shares authorized; 700 million shares outstanding at 2017 and 20161
 1
Additional paid-in capital38,741
 37,968
38,792
 38,741
Retained earnings2,384
 2,564
3,013
 2,384
Accumulated other comprehensive loss(93) (806)(67) (93)
Total Duke Energy Corporation stockholders' equity41,033
 39,727
41,739
 41,033
Noncontrolling interests8
 44
(2) 8
Total equity41,041
 39,771
41,737
 41,041
Total Liabilities and Equity$132,761
 $121,156
$137,914
 $132,761

See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

90


PART II

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
Years Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2016
 2015
 2014
2017
 2016
 2015
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES          
Net income$2,170
 $2,831
 $1,889
$3,064
 $2,170
 $2,831
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating activities:          
Depreciation, amortization and accretion (including amortization of nuclear fuel)3,880
 3,613
 3,507
4,046
 3,880
 3,613
Equity component of AFUDC(200) (164) (135)(237) (200) (164)
FERC mitigation costs
 
 (15)
Accrued charitable contributions related to Piedmont merger commitments93
 
 
Losses (gains) on sales of other assets477
 (48) (33)
(Gains) Losses on sales of other assets(33) 477
 (48)
Impairment charges212
 153
 915
282
 212
 153
Deferred income taxes900
 1,244
 1,149
1,433
 900
 1,244
Equity in earnings of unconsolidated affiliates15
 (69) (130)
Equity in (earnings) losses of unconsolidated affiliates(119) 15
 (69)
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs21
 71
 108
8
 21
 71
Contributions to qualified pension plans(155) (302) 
(19) (155) (302)
Payments for asset retirement obligations(608) (346) (68)(571) (608) (346)
(Increase) decrease in          
Net realized and unrealized mark-to-market and hedging transactions34
 (29) 44
18
 34
 (29)
Receivables(391) 359
 58
(83) (372) 383
Inventory272
 (237) (269)268
 272
 (237)
Other current assets(220) (65) (414)(388) (220) (65)
Increase (decrease) in          
Accounts payable266
 (6) (30)(204) 296
 (6)
Taxes accrued236
 (38) (14)149
 236
 (38)
Other current liabilities182
 168
 (201)(482) 182
 168
Other assets(186) (216) 16
(438) (186) (216)
Other liabilities(200) (243) 209
(60) (137) (243)
Net cash provided by operating activities6,798

6,676

6,586
6,634

6,817

6,700
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES          
Capital expenditures(7,901) (6,766) (5,384)(8,052) (7,901) (6,766)
Investment expenditures(307) (263) (90)
Contributions to equity method investments(414) (307) (263)
Acquisitions, net of cash acquired(4,778) (1,334) (54)(13) (4,778) (1,334)
Return of investment capital281
 1
 3
Purchases of available-for-sale securities(5,153) (4,037) (4,110)(4,071) (5,153) (4,037)
Proceeds from sales and maturities of available-for-sale securities5,236
 4,040
 4,133
4,098
 5,236
 4,040
Proceeds from the sales of discontinued operations and other assets, net of cash divested1,418
 2,968
 179

 1,418
 2,968
Change in restricted cash(4) 191
 9
(10) (4) 191
Other(44) (76) (56)(269) (45) (79)
Net cash used in investing activities(11,533)
(5,277)
(5,373)(8,450)
(11,533)
(5,277)
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES          
Proceeds from the:          
Issuance of long-term debt9,238
 2,955
 2,914
6,909
 9,238
 2,955
Issuance of common stock731
 17
 25

 731
 17
Payments for the redemption of long-term debt(1,923) (3,029) (3,037)(2,316) (1,923) (3,029)
Proceeds from the issuance of short-term debt with original maturities greater than 90 days2,081
 379
 1,066
319
 2,081
 379
Payments for the redemption of short-term debt with original maturities greater than 90 days(2,166) (931) (564)(272) (2,166) (931)
Notes payable and commercial paper(1,362) 1,797
 1,186
(409) (1,362) 1,797
Distributions to noncontrolling interests(6) (9) (65)
Dividends paid(2,332) (2,254) (2,234)(2,450) (2,332) (2,254)
Repurchase of common shares
 (1,500) 

 
 (1,500)
Other9
 (3) 31
1
 (16) (36)
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities4,270

(2,578)
(678)1,782

4,251

(2,602)
Changes in cash and cash equivalents included in assets held for sale474
 1,099
 (548)
 474
 1,099
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents9

(80)
(13)
Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents(34)
9

(80)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period383
 463
 476
392
 383
 463
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period$392

$383

$463
$358

$392

$383
Supplemental Disclosures:          
Cash paid for interest, net of amount capitalized$1,794
 $1,607
 $1,659
$1,963
 $1,794
 $1,607
Cash paid for income taxes229
 170
 158
4
 229
 170
Significant non-cash transactions:          
Accrued capital expenditures1,000
 771
 664
1,032
 1,000
 771
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

91


PART II

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN EQUITY
        
Duke Energy Corporation Stockholders'
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss
              
Duke Energy Corporation Stockholders'
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss
      
            Net Unrealized
   Total
                Net Unrealized
   Total
    
        Foreign
 Net
 Gains (Losses)
   Duke Energy
            Foreign
 Net
 Gains (Losses)
   Duke Energy
    
Common
   Additional
   Currency
 Losses on
 on Available-
 Pension and
 Corporation
    Common
   Additional
   Currency
 Losses on
 on Available-
 Pension and
 Corporation
    
Stock
 Common
 Paid-in
 Retained
 Translation
 Cash Flow
 for-Sale-
 OPEB
 Stockholders'
 Noncontrolling
 Total
Stock
 Common
 Paid-in
 Retained
 Translation
 Cash Flow
 for-Sale-
 OPEB
 Stockholders'
 Noncontrolling
 Total
(in millions)Shares
 Stock
 Capital
 Earnings
 Adjustments
 Hedges
 Securities
 Adjustments
 Equity
 Interests
 Equity
Shares
 Stock
 Capital
 Earnings
 Adjustments
 Hedges
 Securities
 Adjustments
 Equity
 Interests
 Equity
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 benefits1
 
 40
 
 
 
 
 
 40
 
 40
Common stock dividends
 
 
 (2,234) 
 
 
 
 (2,234) 
 (2,234)
Distributions to noncontrolling interest in subsidiaries
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (65) (65)
Other
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (3) (3)
Balance at December 31, 2014707

$1

$39,405

$2,012

$(439)
$(59)
$3

$(48)
$40,875

$24

$40,899
707
 $1
 $39,405
 $2,012
 $(439) $(59) $3
 $(48) $40,875
 $24
 $40,899
Net income
 
 
 2,816
 
 
 
 
 2,816
 15
 2,831

 
 
 2,816
 
 
 
 
 2,816
 15
 2,831
Other comprehensive (loss) income
 
 
 
 (253) 9
 (6) (13) (263) (11) (274)
 
 
 
 (253) 9
 (6) (13) (263) (11) (274)
Common stock issuances, including dividend reinvestment and employee benefits1
 
 63
 
 
 
 
 
 63
 
 63
1
 
 63
 
 
 
 
 
 63
 
 63
Stock repurchase(20) 

 (1,500) 
 
 
 
 
 (1,500) 
 (1,500)(20) 
 (1,500) 
 
 
 
 
 (1,500) 
 (1,500)
Common stock dividends
 
 
 (2,254) 
 
 
 
 (2,254) 
 (2,254)
 
 
 (2,254) 
 
 
 
 (2,254) 
 (2,254)
Distributions to noncontrolling interest in subsidiaries
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (9) (9)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (9) (9)
Other(a)

 
 
 (10) 
 
 
 
 (10) 25
 15
Balance at December 31, 2015688

$1

$37,968

$2,564

$(692)
$(50)
$(3)
$(61)
$39,727

$44

$39,771
Net income
 
 
 2,152
 
 
 
 
 2,152
 18
 2,170
Other comprehensive (loss) income(b)

 
 
 
 692
 30
 2
 (11) 713
 2
 715
Common stock issuances, including dividend reinvestment and employee benefits12
 
 773
 
 
 
 
 
 773
 
 773
Common stock dividends
 
 
 (2,332) 
 
 
 
 (2,332) 
 (2,332)
Distributions to noncontrolling interest in subsidiaries
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (6) (6)
Other(a)(c)

 
 
 (10) 
 
 
 
 (10) 25
 15

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (50) (50)
Balance at December 31, 2015688

$1

$37,968

$2,564

$(692)
$(50)
$(3)
$(61)
$39,727

$44

$39,771
Balance at December 31, 2016700

$1

$38,741

$2,384

$

$(20)
$(1)
$(72)
$41,033

$8

$41,041
Net income
 
 
 2,152
 
 
 
 
 2,152
 18
 2,170

 
 
 3,059
 
 
 
 
 3,059
 5
 3,064
Other comprehensive income (loss)(b)

 
 
 
 692
 30
 2
 (11) 713
 2
 715

 
 
 
 
 10
 13
 3
 26
 
 26
Common stock issuances, including dividend reinvestment and employee benefits12
 
 773
 
 
 
 
 
 773
 
 773

 
 51
 
 
 
 
 
 51
 
 51
Common stock dividends
 
 
 (2,332) 
 
 
 
 (2,332) 
 (2,332)
 
 
 (2,450) 
 
 
 
 (2,450) 
 (2,450)
Distributions to noncontrolling interests in subsidiaries
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (6) (6)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (2) (2)
Other(c)(d)

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (50) (50)
 
 
 20
 
 
 
 
 20
 (13) 7
Balance at December 31, 2016700
 $1
 $38,741
 $2,384
 $
 $(20) $(1) $(72) $41,033
 $8
 $41,041
Balance at December 31, 2017700
 $1
 $38,792
 $3,013
 $
 $(10) $12
 $(69) $41,739
 $(2) $41,737
(a)Noncontrolling Interests amount is primarily related to the acquisitions of a majority interest in a provider of energy management systems and services for commercial customers and a solar company.
(b)Foreign Currency Translation Adjustments amount includes $620 million of cumulative adjustment realized as a result of the sale of the Latin American generation business. Refer toSee Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
(c)Noncontrolling Interests amount is primarily related to the sale of the Latin American generation business. Refer toSee Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
(d)Retained Earnings relates to a cumulative-effect adjustment due to implementation of a new accounting standard related to stock-based compensation and the associated income taxes. See Note 1 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information. Noncontrolling Interests relates to the purchase of remaining interest in REC Solar.
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

92


PART II

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the shareholder and the Board of Directors of
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
Charlotte, North CarolinaOpinion on the Financial Statements
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC and subsidiaries (the "Company") as of December 31, 20162017 and 2015, and2016, the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income, changes in equity, and cash flows, for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2016. 2017, and the related notes (collectively referred to as the "financial statements"). In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2017, in conformity with the accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Basis for Opinion
These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on thesethe Company's financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB) and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States).PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement.misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. OurAs part of our audits, included considerationwe are required to obtain an understanding 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'sCompany’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes
Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence supportingregarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessingstatements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statement presentation.statements. 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 subsidiaries at December 31, 2016 and 2015, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2016, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

/s/Deloitte & Touche LLP
Charlotte, North Carolina
February 24, 201721, 2018
We have served as the Company's auditor since 1947.


93


PART II

DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
Years Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2016
 2015
 2014
2017
 2016
 2015
Operating Revenues$7,322
 $7,229
 $7,351
$7,302
 $7,322
 $7,229
Operating Expenses             
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power1,797
 1,881
 2,133
1,822

1,797
 1,881
Operation, maintenance and other2,106
 2,066
 1,995
1,961

2,106
 2,066
Depreciation and amortization1,075
 1,051
 1,009
1,090

1,075
 1,051
Property and other taxes276
 269
 316
281

276
 269
Impairment charges1
 1
 3


1
 1
Total operating expenses5,255
 5,268
 5,456
5,154
 5,255
 5,268
Loss on Sales of Other Assets and Other, net(5) (1) 
Gain (Loss) on Sales of Other Assets and Other, net1
 (5) (1)
Operating Income2,062
 1,960
 1,895
2,149
 2,062
 1,960
Other Income and Expenses, net162
 160
 172
139
 162
 160
Interest Expense424
 412
 407
422
 424
 412
Income Before Income Taxes1,800
 1,708
 1,660
1,866
 1,800
 1,708
Income Tax Expense634
 627
 588
652
 634
 627
Net Income$1,166
 $1,081
 $1,072
$1,214
 $1,166
 $1,081
Other Comprehensive Income, net of tax             
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges2
 1
 2
2
 2
 1
Unrealized gain on available-for-sale securities
 1
 
Unrealized gains on available-for-sale securities
 
 1
Other Comprehensive Income, net of tax2
 2
 2
2
 2
 2
Comprehensive Income$1,168
 $1,083
 $1,074
$1,216
 $1,168
 $1,083
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

94


PART II

DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
 December 31, December 31,
(in millions) 2016
 2015
 2017
 2016
ASSETS          
Current Assets          
Cash and cash equivalents $14
 $13
 $16
 $14
Receivables (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $2 at 2016 and $3 at 2015) 160
 142
Receivables of VIEs (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $7 at 2016 and 2015) 645
 596
Receivables (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $2 at 2017 and 2016) 200
 160
Receivables of VIEs (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $7 at 2017 and 2016) 640
 645
Receivables from affiliated companies 163
 107
 95
 163
Notes receivable from affiliated companies 66
 163
 
 66
Inventory 1,055

1,276
 971

1,055
Regulatory assets 238
 305
 299
 238
Other 37
 128
 19
 37
Total current assets 2,378
 2,730
 2,240
 2,378
Investments and Other Assets      
Nuclear decommissioning trust funds 3,273
 3,050
Other 940
 999
Total investments and other assets 4,213
 4,049
Property, Plant and Equipment          
Cost 41,127
 39,398
 42,939
 41,127
Accumulated depreciation and amortization (14,365) (13,521) (15,063) (14,365)
Net property, plant and equipment 26,762
 25,877
 27,876
 26,762
Regulatory Assets and Deferred Debits      
Other Noncurrent Assets    
Regulatory assets 3,159
 2,766
 2,853
 3,159
Nuclear decommissioning trust funds 3,772
 3,273
Other 3
 4
 979
 943
Total regulatory assets and deferred debits 3,162
 2,770
Total other noncurrent assets 7,604
 7,375
Total Assets $36,515
 $35,426
 $37,720
 $36,515
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY          
Current Liabilities          
Accounts payable $833
 $753
 $842
 $833
Accounts payable to affiliated companies 247
 229
 209
 247
Notes payable to affiliated companies 104
 
Taxes accrued 143
 25
 234
 143
Interest accrued 102
 95
 108
 102
Current maturities of long-term debt 116
 356
 1,205
 116
Asset retirement obligations 222
 
 337
 222
Regulatory liabilities 161
 39
 126
 161
Other 468
 519
 486
 468
Total current liabilities 2,292
 2,016
 3,651
 2,292
Long-Term Debt 9,187
 7,711
 8,598
 9,187
Long-Term Debt Payable to Affiliated Companies 300
 300
 300
 300
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities      
Other Noncurrent Liabilities    
Deferred income taxes 6,544
 6,146
 3,413
 6,544
Investment tax credits 203
 199
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs 97
 107
Asset retirement obligations 3,673
 3,918
 3,273
 3,673
Regulatory liabilities 2,840
 2,802
 6,231
 2,840
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs 95
 97
Investment tax credits 232
 203
Other 607
 621
 566
 607
Total deferred credits and other liabilities 13,964
 13,793
Total other noncurrent liabilities 13,810
 13,964
Commitments and Contingencies 
 
 
 
Equity          
Member's equity 10,781
 11,617
 11,368
 10,781
Accumulated other comprehensive loss (9) (11) (7) (9)
Total equity 10,772
 11,606
 11,361
 10,772
Total Liabilities and Equity $36,515
 $35,426
 $37,720
 $36,515
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

95


PART II

DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
Years Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2016
 2015
 2014
2017
 2016
 2015
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES             
Net income$1,166
 $1,081
 $1,072
$1,214
 $1,166
 $1,081
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating activities:             
Depreciation and amortization (including amortization of nuclear fuel)1,382
 1,361
 1,273
1,409
 1,382
 1,361
Equity component of AFUDC(102) (96) (91)(106) (102) (96)
FERC mitigation costs
 
 3
Accrued charitable contributions related to Piedmont merger commitments52
 
 
Losses on sales of other assets and other, net5
 1
 
(Gains) Losses on sales of other assets(1) 5
 1
Impairment charges1
 1
 

 1
 1
Deferred income taxes470
 397
 376
410
 470
 397
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs4
 15
 22
(4) 4
 15
Contributions to qualified pension plans(43) (91) 

 (43) (91)
Payments for asset retirement obligations(287) (167) 
(271) (287) (167)
(Increase) decrease in        
    
Net realized and unrealized mark-to-market and hedging transactions5
 
 
9
 5
 
Receivables(76) 42
 48
(9) (76) 42
Receivables from affiliated companies(56) (32) 
68
 (56) (32)
Inventory215
 (157) (60)78
 215
 (157)
Other current assets67
 (51) (236)7
 67
 (51)
Increase (decrease) in        
    
Accounts payable(85) (4) 10
23
 (69) (4)
Accounts payable to affiliated companies18
 75
 (7)(38) 18
 75
Taxes accrued187
 (128) (15)86
 187
 (128)
Other current liabilities63
 127
 (10)(161) 63
 127
Other assets20
 76
 17
(49) 20
 76
Other liabilities(30) (77) (22)(31) 6
 (77)
Net cash provided by operating activities2,976
 2,373
 2,380
2,634
 2,976
 2,373
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES        
    
Capital expenditures(2,220) (1,933) (1,879)(2,524) (2,220) (1,933)
Purchases of available-for-sale securities(2,832) (2,555) (2,064)(2,124) (2,832) (2,555)
Proceeds from sales and maturities of available-for-sale securities2,832
 2,555
 2,044
2,128
 2,832
 2,555
Notes receivable from affiliated companies97
 (13) 72
66
 97
 (13)
Other(83) (35) (18)(109) (83) (35)
Net cash used in investing activities(2,206) (1,981) (1,845)(2,563) (2,206) (1,981)
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES             
Proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt1,587
 516
 
569
 1,587
 516
Payments for the redemption of long-term debt(356) (506) (45)(116) (356) (506)
Notes payable to affiliated companies104
 
 
Distributions to parent(2,000) (401) (500)(625) (2,000) (401)
Other
 (1) 
(1) 
 (1)
Net cash used in financing activities(769) (392) (545)(69) (769) (392)
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents1
 
 (10)
Net increase in cash and cash equivalents2
 1
 
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period13
 13
 23
14
 13
 13
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period$14
 $13
 $13
$16
 $14
 $13
Supplemental Disclosures:             
Cash paid for interest, net of amount capitalized$393
 $389
 $388
$398
 $393
 $389
Cash (received from) paid for income taxes(60) 342
 305
Cash paid for (received from) income taxes193
 (60) 342
Significant non-cash transactions:             
Accrued capital expenditures347
 239
 194
315
 347
 239
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

96


PART II

DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN EQUITY
  Accumulated Other    Accumulated Other  
   Comprehensive Loss     Comprehensive Loss  
  Net Losses
 Net Losses
    Net Losses
 Net Losses
  
  on Cash
 Available-
    on Cash
 Available-
  
Member's
 Flow
 for-Sale
 Total
Member's
 Flow
 for-Sale
 Total
(in millions) Equity
 Hedges
 Securities
 Equity
Equity
 Hedges
 Securities
 Equity
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
$10,937
 $(12) $(1) $10,924
Net income 1,081
 
 
 1,081
1,081
 
 
 1,081
Other comprehensive income
 1
 1
 2

 1
 1
 2
Distributions to parent (401) 
 
 (401)(401) 
 
 (401)
Balance at December 31, 2015$11,617
 $(11) $
 $11,606
$11,617
 $(11) $
 $11,606
Net income
1,166
 
 
 1,166
1,166
 
 
 1,166
Other comprehensive income

 2
 
 2

 2
 
 2
Distributions to parent
(2,000) 
 
 (2,000)(2,000) 
 
 (2,000)
Other(2) 
 
 (2)(2) 
 
 (2)
Balance at December 31, 2016$10,781
 $(9) $
 $10,772
$10,781
 $(9) $
 $10,772
Net income
1,214
 
 
 1,214
Other comprehensive income

 2
 
 2
Distributions to parent
(625) 
 
 (625)
Other(2) 
 
 (2)
Balance at December 31, 2017$11,368
 $(7) $
 $11,361
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

97


PART II

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the shareholder and the Board of Directors of
Progress Energy, Inc.
Charlotte, North CarolinaOpinion on the Financial Statements
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Progress Energy, Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company") as of December 31, 20162017 and 2015, and2016, the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income, changes in equity, and cash flows, for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2016. 2017, and the related notes (collectively referred to as the "financial statements"). In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2017, in conformity with the accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Basis for Opinion
These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on thesethe Company's financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB) and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States).PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement.misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. OurAs part of our audits, included considerationwe are required to obtain an understanding 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'sCompany’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes
Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence supportingregarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessingstatements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statement presentation.statements. 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, 2016 and 2015, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2016, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

/s/Deloitte & Touche LLP
Charlotte, North Carolina
February 24, 201721, 2018
We have served as the Company's auditor since 1930.


98


PART II

PROGRESS ENERGY, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
Years Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
(in millions) 2016
 2015
 2014
2017
 2016
 2015
Operating Revenues $9,853
 $10,277
 $10,166
$9,783
 $9,853
 $10,277
Operating Expenses              
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power 3,644
 4,224
 4,195
3,417
 3,644
 4,224
Operation, maintenance and other 2,386
 2,298
 2,335
2,220
 2,386
 2,298
Depreciation and amortization 1,213
 1,116
 1,128
1,285
 1,213
 1,116
Property and other taxes 487
 492
 517
503
 487
 492
Impairment charges 7
 12
 (16)156
 7
 12
Total operating expenses7,737

8,142

8,159
7,581

7,737

8,142
Gains on Sales of Other Assets and Other, net 25
 25
 11
26
 25
 25
Operating Income 2,141

2,160

2,018
2,228

2,141

2,160
Other Income and Expenses, net 114
 97
 77
128
 114
 97
Interest Expense 689
 670
 675
824
 689
 670
Income From Continuing Operations Before Income Taxes 1,566

1,587

1,420
1,532

1,566

1,587
Income Tax Expense From Continuing Operations 527
 522
 540
264
 527
 522
Income From Continuing Operations 1,039

1,065

880
1,268

1,039

1,065
Income (Loss) From Discontinued Operations, net of tax 2
 (3) (6)
 2
 (3)
Net Income 1,041

1,062

874
1,268

1,041

1,062
Less: Net Income Attributable to Noncontrolling Interests 10
 11
 5
10
 10
 11
Net Income Attributable to Parent $1,031

$1,051

$869
$1,258

$1,031

$1,051
          
Net Income
$1,041

$1,062

$874
$1,268

$1,041

$1,062
Other Comprehensive Income (Loss), net of tax
             
Pension and OPEB adjustments1
 (10) 9
4
 1
 (10)
Net unrealized gain on cash flow hedges5
 
 
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges8
 4
 8

 8
 4
Unrealized gains (losses) on investments in available-for-sale securities1
 (1) 1
Unrealized gains (losses) on available-for-sale securities4
 1
 (1)
Other Comprehensive Income (Loss), net of tax
10

(7)
18
13

10

(7)
Comprehensive Income
1,051

1,055

892
1,281

1,051

1,055
Less: Comprehensive Income Attributable to Noncontrolling Interests10
 11
 5
10
 10
 11
Comprehensive Income Attributable to Parent$1,041

$1,044

$887
$1,271

$1,041

$1,044

See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

99


PART II

PROGRESS ENERGY, INC.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
December 31,December 31,
(in millions)2016
 2015
2017
 2016
ASSETS        
Current Assets        
Cash and cash equivalents$46
 $44
$40
 $46
Receivables (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $6 at 2016 and 2015)114
 151
Receivables of VIEs (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $7 at 2016 and $8 at 2015)692
 658
Receivables (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $4 at 2017 and $6 at 2016)123
 114
Receivables of VIEs (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $7 at 2017 and 2016)780
 692
Receivables from affiliated companies106
 375
31
 106
Notes receivable from affiliated companies80
 
240
 80
Inventory1,717

1,751
1,592

1,717
Regulatory assets (includes $50 related to VIEs at 2016)401
 362
Regulatory assets (includes $51 at 2017 and $50 at 2016 related to VIEs)741
 401
Other148
 156
334
 148
Total current assets3,304
 3,497
3,881
 3,304
Investments and Other Assets     
Nuclear decommissioning trust funds2,932
 2,775
Goodwill3,655
 3,655
Other852
 834
Total investments and other assets7,439
 7,264
Property, Plant and Equipment        
Cost44,864
 42,666
47,323
 44,864
Accumulated depreciation and amortization(15,212) (14,867)(15,857) (15,212)
Generation facilities to be retired, net529
 548
421
 529
Net property, plant and equipment30,181
 28,347
31,887
 30,181
Regulatory Assets and Deferred Debits     
Regulatory assets (includes $1,142 related to VIEs at 2016)5,722
 5,435
Other Noncurrent Assets   
Goodwill3,655
 3,655
Regulatory assets (includes $1,091 at 2017 and $1,142 at 2016 related to VIEs)6,010
 5,722
Nuclear decommissioning trust funds3,324
 2,932
Other4
 5
931
 856
Total regulatory assets and deferred debits5,726
 5,440
Total other noncurrent assets13,920
 13,165
Total Assets$46,650
 $44,548
$49,688
 $46,650
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY        
Current Liabilities        
Accounts payable$1,003
 $722
$1,006
 $1,003
Accounts payable to affiliated companies348
 311
251
 348
Notes payable to affiliated companies729
 1,308
805
 729
Taxes accrued83
 53
101
 83
Interest accrued201
 195
212
 201
Current maturities of long-term debt (includes $62 related to VIEs at 2016)778
 315
Current maturities of long-term debt (includes $53 at 2017 and $62 at 2016 related to VIEs)771
 778
Asset retirement obligations189
 
295
 189
Regulatory liabilities189
 286
213
 189
Other745
 891
729
 745
Total current liabilities4,265
 4,081
4,383
 4,265
Long-Term Debt (includes $1,741 at 2016 and $479 at 2015 related to VIEs)15,590
 13,999
Long-Term Debt (includes $1,689 at 2017 and $1,741 at 2016 related to VIEs)16,916
 15,590
Long-Term Debt Payable to Affiliated Companies1,173
 150
150
 1,173
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities     
Other Noncurrent Liabilities   
Deferred income taxes5,246
 4,790
3,502
 5,246
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs547
 536
Asset retirement obligations5,286
 5,369
5,119
 5,286
Regulatory liabilities2,395
 2,387
5,306
 2,395
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs545
 547
Other341
 383
302
 341
Total deferred credits and other liabilities13,815
 13,465
Total other noncurrent liabilities14,774
 13,815
Commitments and Contingencies
 

 
Equity        
Common stock, $0.01 par value, 100 shares authorized and outstanding at 2016 and 2015
 
Common stock, $0.01 par value, 100 shares authorized and outstanding at 2017 and 2016
 
Additional paid-in capital8,094
 8,092
9,143
 8,094
Retained earnings3,764
 4,831
4,350
 3,764
Accumulated other comprehensive loss(38) (48)(25) (38)
Total Progress Energy, Inc. stockholders' equity11,820
 12,875
Total Progress Energy, Inc. stockholder's equity13,468
 11,820
Noncontrolling interests(13) (22)(3) (13)
Total equity11,807
 12,853
13,465
 11,807
Total Liabilities and Equity$46,650

$44,548
$49,688

$46,650
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

100


PART II

PROGRESS ENERGY, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
Years Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2016
 2015
 2014
2017
 2016
 2015
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES             
Net income$1,041
 $1,062
 $874
$1,268
 $1,041
 $1,062
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating activities:             
Depreciation, amortization and accretion (including amortization of nuclear fuel)1,435
 1,312
 1,313
1,516
 1,435
 1,312
Equity component of AFUDC(76) (54) (26)(92) (76) (54)
FERC mitigation costs
 
 (18)
Accrued charitable contributions related to Piedmont merger commitments32
 
 
Gains on sales of other assets and other, net(34) (31) (6)
Gains on sales of other assets(28) (34) (31)
Impairment charges7
 12
 2
156
 7
 12
Deferred income taxes532
 714
 1,014
703
 532
 714
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs(24) (5) 27
(28) (24) (5)
Contributions to qualified pension plans(43) (83) 

 (43) (83)
Payments for asset retirement obligations(270) (156) (68)(248) (270) (156)
(Increase) decrease in             
Net realized and unrealized mark-to-market and hedging transactions42
 (6) 12

 42
 (6)
Receivables7
 105
 (31)(89) 7
 105
Receivables from affiliated companies211
 (316) (56)71
 211
 (316)
Inventory35
 (67) (101)125
 35
 (67)
Other current assets3
 553
 (934)(384) 3
 553
Increase (decrease) in             
Accounts payable242
 (193) 6
(260) 252
 (193)
Accounts payable to affiliated companies37
 108
 80
(97) 37
 108
Taxes accrued15
 (63) (20)17
 15
 (63)
Other current liabilities(42) 136
 (144)(166) (42) 136
Other assets(248) (167) (14)(301) (248) (167)
Other liabilities(58) (112) 56
(98) (36) (112)
Net cash provided by operating activities2,844

2,749

1,966
2,065

2,844

2,749
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES             
Capital expenditures(3,306) (2,698) (1,940)(3,152) (3,306) (2,698)
Acquisitions(10) (1,249) 
Asset Acquisitions
 (10) (1,249)
Purchases of available-for-sale securities(2,143) (1,174) (1,689)(1,806) (2,143) (1,174)
Proceeds from sales and maturities of available-for-sale securities2,187
 1,211
 1,652
1,824
 2,187
 1,211
Proceeds from insurance58
 
 
7
 58
 
Proceeds from the sale of nuclear fuel20
 102
 
20
 20
 102
Notes receivable from affiliated companies(80) 220
 (145)(160) (80) 220
Change in restricted cash(6) 
 
5
 (6) 
Other47
 (34) (44)(86) 47
 (34)
Net cash used in investing activities(3,233) (3,622) (2,166)(3,348) (3,233) (3,622)
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES             
Proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt2,375
 1,186
 1,572
2,118
 2,375
 1,186
Payments for the redemption of long-term debt(327) (1,553) (931)(813) (327) (1,553)
Notes payable to affiliated companies444
 623
 (378)100
 444
 623
Distributions to noncontrolling interests(1) (4) (37)
Capital contribution from parent
 625
 

 
 625
Dividends to parent(2,098) 
 
(124) (2,098) 
Other(2) (2) (42)(4) (3) (6)
Net cash provided by financing activities391

875

184
1,277

391

875
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents2

2

(16)
Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents(6)
2

2
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period44
 42
 58
46
 44
 42
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period46
 44
 42
$40
 $46
 $44
Supplemental Disclosures:             
Cash paid for interest, net of amount capitalized$673
 $649
 $664
$773
 $673
 $649
Cash (received from) paid for income taxes(187) (426) 141
(146) (187) (426)
Significant non-cash transactions:             
Accrued capital expenditures317
 329
 294
391
 317
 329
Equitization of certain notes payable to affiliates1,047
 
 
Dividend to parent related to a legal entity restructuring547
 
 
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

101


PART II

PROGRESS ENERGY, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN EQUITY
  
   
   
 Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss   
   
   
 
  
 Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss  
  
  
      Net
 Net Unrealized
   Total Progress
        Net
 Net Unrealized
   Total Progress
    
  Additional
   Losses on
 Gains on
 Pension and
 Energy, Inc.
    Additional
   Losses on
 Gains on
 Pension and
 Energy, Inc.
    
Common
 Paid-in
 Retained
 Cash Flow
 Available-for-
 OPEB
 Stockholders'
 Noncontrolling
 Total
Paid-in
 Retained
 Cash Flow
 Available-for-
 OPEB
 Stockholder's
 Noncontrolling
 Total
(in millions) Stock
 Capital
 Earnings
 Hedges
 Sale Securities
 Adjustments
 Equity
 Interests
 Equity
Capital
 Earnings
 Hedges
 Sale Securities
 Adjustments
 Equity
 Interests
 Equity
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
$7,467
 $3,782
 $(35) $1
 $(7) $11,208
 $(32) $11,176
Net income
 
 1,051
 
 
 
 1,051
 11
 1,062

 1,051
 
 
 
 1,051
 11
 1,062
Other comprehensive income (loss)
 
 
 4
 (1) (10) (7) 
 (7)
 
 4
 (1) (10) (7) 
 (7)
Distributions to noncontrolling interests
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (4) (4)
 
 
 
 
 
 (4) (4)
Capital contribution from parent
 625
 
 
 
 
 625
 
 625
625
 
 
 
 
 625
 
 625
Other
 
 (2) 
 
 
 (2) 3
 1

 (2) 
 
 
 (2) 3
 1
Balance at December 31, 2015$

$8,092

$4,831

$(31)
$

$(17)
$12,875

$(22)
$12,853
$8,092

$4,831

$(31)
$

$(17)
$12,875

$(22)
$12,853
Net income
 
 1,031
 
 
 
 1,031
 10
 1,041

 1,031
 
 
 
 1,031
 10
 1,041
Other comprehensive income
 
 
 8
 1
 1
 10
 
 10

 
 8
 1
 1
 10
 
 10
Distributions to noncontrolling interests
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (1) (1)
 
 
 
 
 
 (1) (1)
Dividends to parent
 
 (2,098) 
 
 
 (2,098) 
 (2,098)
 (2,098) 
 
 
 (2,098) 
 (2,098)
Other
 2
 
 
 
 
 2
 
 2
2
 
 
 
 
 2
 
 2
Balance at December 31, 2016$

$8,094

$3,764

$(23)
$1

$(16)
$11,820

$(13)
$11,807
$8,094

$3,764

$(23)
$1

$(16)
$11,820

$(13)
$11,807
Net income
 1,258
 
 
 
 1,258
 10
 1,268
Other comprehensive income
 
 5
 4
 4
 13
 
 13
Dividends to parent(a)

 (672) 
 
 
 (672) 
 (672)
Equitization of certain notes payable to affiliates1,047
 
 
 
 
 1,047
 
 1,047
Other2
 
 
 
 
 2
 
 2
Balance at December 31, 2017$9,143

$4,350

$(18)
$5

$(12)
$13,468

$(3)
$13,465

(a)    Includes a $547 million non-cash dividend related to a legal entity restructuring.
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

102


PART II

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the shareholder and the Board of Directors of
Duke Energy Progress, LLC
Charlotte, North CarolinaOpinion on the Financial Statements
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Duke Energy Progress, LLC and subsidiaries (the "Company") as of December 31, 20162017 and 2015, and2016, the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income, changes in equity, and cash flows, for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2016. 2017, and the related notes (collectively referred to as the "financial statements"). In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2017, in conformity with the accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Basis for Opinion
These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on thesethe Company's financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB) and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States).PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement.misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. OurAs part of our audits, included considerationwe are required to obtain an understanding 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'sCompany’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes
Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence supportingregarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessingstatements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statement presentation.statements. 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, LLC and subsidiaries at December 31, 2016 and 2015, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2016, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

/s/Deloitte & Touche LLP
Charlotte, North Carolina
February 24, 201721, 2018
We have served as the Company's auditor since 1930.


103


PART II

DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
Years Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
(in millions) 2016
 2015
 2014
2017
 2016
 2015
Operating Revenues $5,277
 $5,290
 $5,176
$5,129
 $5,277
 $5,290
Operating Expenses              
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power 1,830
 2,029
 2,036
1,609
 1,830
 2,029
Operation, maintenance and other 1,504
 1,452
 1,470
1,389
 1,504
 1,452
Depreciation and amortization 703
 643
 582
725
 703
 643
Property and other taxes 156
 140
 174
156
 156
 140
Impairment charges 1
 5
 (18)19
 1
 5
Total operating expenses4,194
 4,269
 4,244
3,898
 4,194
 4,269
Gains on Sales of Other Assets and Other, net 3
 3
 3
4
 3
 3
Operating Income 1,086
 1,024
 935
1,235
 1,086
 1,024
Other Income and Expenses, net 71
 71
 51
65
 71
 71
Interest Expense 257
 235
 234
293
 257
 235
Income Before Income Taxes 900
 860
 752
1,007
 900
 860
Income Tax Expense 301
 294
 285
292
 301
 294
Net Income and Comprehensive Income$599
 $566
 $467
$715
 $599
 $566
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

104


PART II

DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
December 31,December 31,
(in millions)2016
 2015
2017
 2016
ASSETS        
Current Assets        
Cash and cash equivalents$11
 $15
$20
 $11
Receivables (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $4 at 2016 and 2015)51
 87
Receivables of VIEs (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $5 at 2016 and 2015)404
 349
Receivables (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $1 at 2017 and $4 at 2016)56
 51
Receivables of VIEs (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $5 at 2017 and 2016)459
 404
Receivables from affiliated companies5
 16
3
 5
Notes receivable from affiliated companies165
 

 165
Inventory1,076

1,088
1,017

1,076
Regulatory assets188
 264
352
 188
Other57
 121
97
 57
Total current assets1,957
 1,940
2,004
 1,957
Investments and Other Assets     
Nuclear decommissioning trust funds2,217
 2,035
Other523
 486
Total investments and other assets2,740
 2,521
Property, Plant and Equipment        
Cost28,419
 27,313
29,583
 28,419
Accumulated depreciation and amortization(10,561) (10,141)(10,903) (10,561)
Generation facilities to be retired, net529
 548
421
 529
Net property, plant and equipment18,387
 17,720
19,101
 18,387
Regulatory Assets and Deferred Debits     
Other Noncurrent Assets   
Regulatory assets3,243
 2,710
3,507
 3,243
Nuclear decommissioning trust funds2,588
 2,217
Other2
 3
599
 525
Total regulatory assets and deferred debits3,245
 2,713
Total other noncurrent assets6,694
 5,985
Total Assets$26,329
 $24,894
$27,799
 $26,329
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY        
Current Liabilities        
Accounts payable$589
 $399
$402
 $589
Accounts payable to affiliated companies227
 190
179
 227
Notes payable to affiliated companies
 209
240
 
Taxes accrued104
 15
64
 104
Interest accrued102
 96
102
 102
Current maturities of long-term debt452
 2
3
 452
Asset retirement obligations189
 
295
 189
Regulatory liabilities158
 85
139
 158
Other365
 412
376
 365
Total current liabilities2,186
 1,408
1,800
 2,186
Long-Term Debt6,409
 6,366
7,204
 6,409
Long-Term Debt Payable to Affiliated Companies150
 150
150
 150
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities     
Other Noncurrent Liabilities   
Deferred income taxes3,323
 3,027
1,883
 3,323
Investment tax credits146
 132
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs252
 262
Asset retirement obligations4,508
 4,567
4,378
 4,508
Regulatory liabilities1,946
 1,878
3,999
 1,946
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs248
 252
Investment tax credits143
 146
Other51
 45
45
 51
Total deferred credits and other liabilities10,226
 9,911
Total other noncurrent liabilities10,696
 10,226
Commitments and Contingencies      
Equity        
Member's Equity7,358
 7,059
7,949
 7,358
Total Liabilities and Equity$26,329
 $24,894
$27,799
 $26,329
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

105


PART II

DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
Years Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2016 2015 20142017 2016 2015
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES             
Net income$599
 566
 467
$715
 $599
 $566
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating activities:             
Depreciation, amortization and accretion (including amortization of nuclear fuel)907
 821
 761
936
 907
 821
Equity component of AFUDC(50) (47) (25)(47) (50) (47)
FERC mitigation costs
 
 (18)
Accrued charitable contributions related to Piedmont merger commitments32
 
 
Gains on sales of other assets and other, net(6) (7) (3)
Gains on sales of other assets(5) (6) (7)
Impairment charges1
 5
 
19
 1
 5
Deferred income taxes384
 354
 455
384
 384
 354
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs(32) (14) (7)(20) (32) (14)
Contributions to qualified pension plans(24) (42) 

 (24) (42)
Payments for asset retirement obligations(212) (109) 
(192) (212) (109)
(Increase) decrease in             
Net realized and unrealized mark-to-market and hedging transactions4
 (3) 13
(4) 4
 (3)
Receivables(17) 43
 78
(58) (17) 43
Receivables from affiliated companies11
 (6) (8)2
 11
 (6)
Inventory12
 (50) (65)59
 12
 (50)
Other current assets84
 185
 (416)(75) 84
 185
Increase (decrease) in             
Accounts payable171
 (65) 27
(230) 181
 (65)
Accounts payable to affiliated companies37
 70
 17
(48) 37
 70
Taxes accrued90
 (34) 10
(39) 90
 (34)
Other current liabilities114
 76
 (68)(131) 114
 76
Other assets(163) (83) 48
(53) (163) (83)
Other liabilities(10) (66) (21)(18) 12
 (66)
Net cash provided by operating activities1,932
 1,594
 1,245
1,195
 1,932
 1,594
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES             
Capital expenditures(1,733) (1,669) (1,241)(1,715) (1,733) (1,669)
Asset acquisition
 (1,249) 

 
 (1,249)
Purchases of available-for-sale securities(1,658) (727) (499)(1,249) (1,658) (727)
Proceeds from sales and maturities of available-for-sale securities1,615
 672
 458
1,207
 1,615
 672
Proceeds from insurance4


 
Notes receivable from affiliated companies(165) 237
 (237)165
 (165) 237
Other26
 (30) (12)(55) 26
 (30)
Net cash used in investing activities(1,915) (2,766) (1,531)(1,643) (1,915) (2,766)
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES             
Proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt505
 1,186
 1,347
812
 505
 1,186
Payments for the redemption of long-term debt(15) (991) (379)(470) (15) (991)
Notes payable to affiliated companies(209) 359
 (462)240
 (209) 359
Capital contribution from parent
 626
 

 
 626
Distributions to parent(300) 
 
(124) (300) 
Dividends to parent
 
 (225)
Other(2) (2) (7)(1) (2) (2)
Net cash (used in) provided by financing activities(21) 1,178
 274
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities457
 (21) 1,178
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents(4) 6
 (12)9
 (4) 6
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period15
 9
 21
11
 15
 9
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period$11
 $15
 $9
$20
 $11
 $15
Supplemental Disclosures:             
Cash paid for interest, net of amount capitalized$248
 $218
 $220
$291
 $248
 $218
Cash (received from) paid for income taxes(287) (197) 81
Cash paid for (received from) income taxes59
 (287) (197)
Significant non-cash transactions:             
Accrued capital expenditures147
 143
 194
191
 147
 143
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

106


PART II

DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN EQUITY
Common
 Retained
 Member's
 Total
Common
 Retained
 Member's
 Total
(in millions) Stock
 Earnings
 Equity
 Equity
Stock
 Earnings
 Equity
 Equity
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
$2,159
 $3,708
 $
 $5,867
Net income
 355
 211
 566

 355
 211
 566
Transfer to Member's Equity(2,159) (4,063) 6,222
 
(2,159) (4,063) 6,222
 
Capital contribution from parent
 
 626
 626

 
 626
 626
Balance at December 31, 2015$
 $
 $7,059
 $7,059
$
 $
 $7,059
 $7,059
Net income
 
 599
 599

 
 599
 599
Distribution to Parent
 
 (300) (300)
Distribution to parent
 
 (300) (300)
Balance at December 31, 2016$
 $

$7,358
 $7,358
$
 $
 $7,358
 $7,358
Net income
 
 715
 715
Distribution to parent
 
 (124) (124)
Balance at December 31, 2017$
 $

$7,949
 $7,949
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

107


PART II

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the shareholder and the Board of Directors of
Duke Energy Florida, LLC
Charlotte, North CarolinaOpinion on the Financial Statements
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Duke Energy Florida, LLC and subsidiaries (the "Company") as of December 31, 20162017 and 2015, and2016, the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income, changes in equity, and cash flows, for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2016. 2017, and the related notes (collectively referred to as the "financial statements"). In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2017, in conformity with the accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Basis for Opinion
These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on thesethe Company's financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB) and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States).PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement.misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. OurAs part of our audits, included considerationwe are required to obtain an understanding 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'sCompany’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes
Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence supportingregarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessingstatements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statement presentation.statements. 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, LLC and subsidiaries at December 31, 2016 and 2015, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2016, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

/s/Deloitte & Touche LLP
Charlotte, North Carolina
February 24, 201721, 2018
We have served as the Company's auditor since 2001.


108


PART II

DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, LLC
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
Years Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
(in millions) 2016
 2015
 2014
2017
 2016
 2015
Operating Revenues $4,568
 $4,977
 $4,975
$4,646
 $4,568
 $4,977
Operating Expenses              
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power 1,814
 2,195
 2,158
1,808
 1,814
 2,195
Operation, maintenance and other 865
 835
 850
818
 865
 835
Depreciation and amortization 509
 473
 545
560
 509
 473
Property and other taxes 333
 352
 343
347
 333
 352
Impairment charges 6
 7
 2
138
 6
 7
Total operating expenses3,527
 3,862
 3,898
3,671
 3,527
 3,862
Gains on Sales of Other Assets and Other, net
 
 1
1
 
 
Operating Income 1,041
 1,115
 1,078
976
 1,041
 1,115
Other Income and Expenses, net 44
 24
 20
61
 44
 24
Interest Expense 212
 198
 201
279
 212
 198
Income Before Income Taxes 873
 941
 897
758
 873
 941
Income Tax Expense 322
 342
 349
46
 322
 342
Net Income $551
 $599
 $548
$712
 $551
 $599
Other Comprehensive Income, net of tax              
Net unrealized gain on available-for-sale securities1
 
 
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges
 
 1
Unrealized gains on available-for-sale securities3
 1
 
Other Comprehensive Income, net of tax 1
 
 1
3
 1
 
Comprehensive Income $552
 $599
 $549
$715
 $552
 $599
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

109


PART II

DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, LLC
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
December 31,December 31,
(in millions) 2016
 2015
2017
 2016
ASSETS         
Current Assets         
Cash and cash equivalents $16
 $8
$13
 $16
Receivables (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $2 at 2016 and 2015)61
 60
Receivables of VIEs (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $2 and 2016 and $3 at 2015)288
 308
Receivables (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $3 at 2017 and $2 at 2016)65
 61
Receivables of VIEs (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $2 at 2017 and 2016)321
 288
Receivables from affiliated companies 5
 84
2
 5
Notes receivable from affiliated companies313
 
Inventory 641

663
574

641
Regulatory assets (includes $50 related to VIEs at 2016)213
 98
Other (includes $53 related to VIEs at 2016)125
 21
Regulatory assets (includes $51 at 2017 and $50 at 2016 related to VIEs)389
 213
Other (includes $40 at 2017 and $53 at 2016 related to VIEs)86
 125
Total current assets 1,349
 1,242
1,763
 1,349
Investments and Other Assets      
Nuclear decommissioning trust funds 715
 740
Other 276
 292
Total investments and other assets 991
 1,032
Property, Plant and Equipment         
Cost 16,434
 15,343
17,730
 16,434
Accumulated depreciation and amortization (4,644) (4,720)(4,947) (4,644)
Net property, plant and equipment 11,790
 10,623
12,783
 11,790
Regulatory Assets and Deferred Debits      
Regulatory assets (includes $1,142 related to VIEs at 2016)2,480
 2,725
Other Noncurrent Assets   
Regulatory assets (includes $1,091 at 2017 and $1,142 at 2016 related to VIEs)2,503
 2,480
Nuclear decommissioning trust funds736
 715
Other 2
 2
284
 278
Total regulatory assets and deferred debits 2,482
 2,727
Total other noncurrent assets3,523
 3,473
Total Assets $16,612
 $15,624
$18,069
 $16,612
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY         
Current Liabilities         
Accounts payable $413
 $322
$602
 $413
Accounts payable to affiliated companies 125
 116
74
 125
Notes payable to affiliated companies 297
 813

 297
Taxes accrued 33
 132
34
 33
Interest accrued 49
 43
56
 49
Current maturities of long-term debt (includes $62 related to VIEs at 2016)326
 13
Current maturities of long-term debt (includes $53 at 2017 and $62 at 2016 related to VIEs)768
 326
Regulatory liabilities 31
 200
74
 31
Other 352
 452
334
 352
Total current liabilities 1,626
 2,091
1,942
 1,626
Long-Term Debt (includes $1,442 at 2016 and $225 at 2015 related to VIEs)5,799
 4,253
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities      
Long-Term Debt (includes $1,389 at 2017 and $1,442 at 2016 related to VIEs)6,327
 5,799
Other Noncurrent Liabilities   
Deferred income taxes 2,694
 2,460
1,761
 2,694
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs 262
 242
Asset retirement obligations 778
 802
742
 778
Regulatory liabilities 448
 509
1,307
 448
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs264
 262
Other 105
 146
108
 105
Total deferred credits and other liabilities 4,287
 4,159
Total other noncurrent liabilities4,182
 4,287
Commitments and Contingencies       
Equity         
Member's equity4,899
 5,121
5,614
 4,899
Accumulated other comprehensive income1
 
4
 1
Total equity 4,900
 5,121
5,618
 4,900
Total Liabilities and Equity $16,612
 $15,624
$18,069
 $16,612
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

110


PART II

DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, LLC
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
Years Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2016
 2015
 2014
2017
 2016
 2015
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES             
Net income$551
 $599
 $548
$712
 $551
 $599
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating activities:             
Depreciation, amortization and accretion516
 480
 550
570
 516
 480
Equity component of AFUDC(26) (7) 
(45) (26) (7)
Gains on sales of other assets and other, net
 
 (1)
Gains on sales of other assets(1) 
 
Impairment charges6
 7
 2
138
 6
 7
Deferred income taxes224
 348
 400
245
 224
 348
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs2
 5
 29
(13) 2
 5
Contributions to qualified pension plans(20) (40) 

 (20) (40)
Payments for asset retirement obligations(58) (47) (68)(56) (58) (47)
(Increase) decrease in             
Net realized and unrealized mark-to-market and hedging transactions38
 (3) (9)5
 38
 (3)
Receivables23
 61
 (33)(38) 23
 61
Receivables from affiliated companies21
 (44) (37)
 21
 (44)
Inventory23
 (17) (36)66
 23
 (17)
Other current assets(133) 116
 (269)(125) (133) 116
Increase (decrease) in             
Accounts payable71
 (127) 18
(32) 71
 (127)
Accounts payable to affiliated companies9
 46
 32
(51) 9
 46
Taxes accrued(117) 67
 (31)1
 (117) 67
Other current liabilities(149) 57
 (80)(37) (149) 57
Other assets(84) (84) (59)(229) (84) (84)
Other liabilities(53) (44) 10
(82) (53) (44)
Net cash provided by operating activities844
 1,373
 966
1,028
 844
 1,373
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES             
Capital expenditures(1,573) (1,029) (699)(1,437) (1,583) (1,029)
Acquisitions(10) 
 
Purchases of available-for-sale securities(485) (447) (1,189)(557) (485) (447)
Proceeds from sales and maturities of available-for-sale securities572
 538
 1,195
617
 572
 538
Insurance proceeds58
 
 
Proceeds from insurance4
 58
 
Proceeds from the sale of nuclear fuel20
 102
 
20
 20
 102
Notes receivable from affiliated companies(313) 
 
Change in restricted cash(6) 
 

 (6) 
Other21
 (3) (31)(31) 21
 (3)
Net cash used in investing activities(1,403) (839) (724)(1,697) (1,403) (839)
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES             
Proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt1,870
 
 225
1,306
 1,870
 
Payments for the redemption of long-term debt(12) (562) (252)(342) (12) (562)
Notes payable to affiliated companies(516) 729
 (97)(297) (516) 729
Dividends to parent
 (350) (124)
 
 (350)
Distribution to parent(775) (350) 

 (775) (350)
Other
 (1) (2)(1) 
 (1)
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities567
 (534) (250)666
 567
 (534)
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents8
 
 (8)
Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents(3) 8
 
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period8
 8
 16
16
 8
 8
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period$16
 $8
 $8
$13
 $16
 $8
Supplemental Disclosures:             
Cash paid for interest, net of amount capitalized$208
 $205
 $203
$274
 $208
 $205
Cash paid for (received from) income taxes216
 (229) 59
Cash (received from) paid for income taxes(197) 216
 (229)
Significant non-cash transactions:             
Accrued capital expenditures170
 186
 100
199
 170
 186
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

111


PART II

DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, LLC
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN EQUITY
      Accumulated 
      Other 
      Accumulated Other        Comprehensive 
      Comprehensive Income        Income 
      Net Unrealized
 Net
        Net Unrealized
  
      Gains on
 Gains on
        Gains on
  
Common
 Retained
 Member's
 Available-for-
 Cash Flow
 Total
Common
 Retained
 Member's
 Available-for-
 Total
(in millions) Stock
 Earnings
 Equity
 Sale Securities
 Hedges
 Equity
Stock
 Earnings
 Equity
 Sale Securities
 Equity
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
$1,762
 $3,460
 $
 $
 $5,222
Net income
 351
 248
 
 
 599

 351
 248
 
 599
Transfer to Member's Equity(1,762) (3,461) 5,223
 
 
 
(1,762) (3,461) 5,223
 
 
Dividends to parent
 (350) 
 
 
 (350)
 (350) 
 
 (350)
Distribution to parent
 
 (350) 
 
 (350)
 
 (350) 
 (350)
Balance at December 31, 2015$
 $
 $5,121
 $
 $
 $5,121
$
 $
 $5,121
 $
 $5,121
Net income
 
 551
 
 
 551

 
 551
 
 551
Other comprehensive income
 
 
 1
 
 1

 
 
 1
 1
Distribution to parent
 
 (775) 
 
 (775)
 
 (775) 
 (775)
Other
 
 2
 
 
 2

 
 2
 
 2
Balance at December 31, 2016$
 $
 $4,899
 $1
 $
 $4,900
$
 $
 $4,899
 $1
 $4,900
Net income
 
 712
 
 712
Other comprehensive income
 
 
 3
 3
Other
 
 3
 
 3
Balance at December 31, 2017$
 $
 $5,614
 $4
 $5,618
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

112


PART II

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the shareholder and the Board of Directors of
Duke Energy Ohio, Inc.
Charlotte, North CarolinaOpinion on the Financial Statements
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company") as of December 31, 20162017 and 2015, and2016, the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income, changes in equity, and cash flows, for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2016. 2017, and the related notes (collectively referred to as the "financial statements"). In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2017, in conformity with the accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Basis for Opinion
These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on thesethe Company's financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB) and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States).PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement.misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. OurAs part of our audits, included considerationwe are required to obtain an understanding 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'sCompany’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes
Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence supportingregarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessingstatements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statement presentation.statements. 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, 2016 and 2015, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2016, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

/s/Deloitte & Touche LLP
Charlotte, North Carolina
February 24, 201721, 2018
We have served as the Company's auditor since 2002.


113


PART II

DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
Years Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
(in millions) 2016
 2015
 2014
2017
 2016
 2015
Operating Revenues              
Regulated electric $1,410
 $1,331
 $1,316
$1,373
 $1,410
 $1,331
Nonregulated electric and other 31
 33
 19
42
 31
 33
Regulated natural gas 503
 541
 578
508
 503
 541
Total operating revenues 1,944
 1,905
 1,913
1,923
 1,944
 1,905
Operating Expenses
             
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power – regulated 442
 446
 459
369
 442
 446
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power – nonregulated 51
 47
 25
58
 51
 47
Cost of natural gas 103
 141
 185
107
 103
 141
Operation, maintenance and other 512
 495
 516
524
 512
 495
Depreciation and amortization 233
 227
 214
261
 233
 227
Property and other taxes 258
 254
 234
278
 258
 254
Impairment charges
 
 94
1
 
 
Total operating expenses 1,599
 1,610
 1,727
1,598
 1,599
 1,610
Gains on Sales of Other Assets and Other, net 2
 8
 1
1
 2
 8
Operating Income 347
 303
 187
326
 347
 303
Other Income and Expenses, net 9
 6
 10
17
 9
 6
Interest Expense 86
 79
 86
91
 86
 79
Income From Continuing Operations Before Income Taxes270
 230
 111
252
 270
 230
Income Tax Expense From Continuing Operations78
 81
 43
59
 78
 81
Income From Continuing Operations192
 149
 68
193
 192
 149
Income (Loss) From Discontinued Operations, net of tax36
 23
 (563)
Net Income (Loss) and Comprehensive Income (Loss)$228
 $172
 $(495)
(Loss) Income From Discontinued Operations, net of tax(1) 36
 23
Net Income and Comprehensive Income$192
 $228
 $172
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

114


PART II

DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
December 31,December 31,
(in millions)2016
 2015
2017
 2016
ASSETS        
Current Assets        
Cash and cash equivalents$13
 $14
$12
 $13
Receivables (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $2 at 2016 and 2015)71
 66
Receivables (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $3 at 2017 and $2 at 2016)68
 71
Receivables from affiliated companies129
 84
133
 129
Notes receivable from affiliated companies94
 
14
 94
Inventory137

105
133

137
Regulatory assets37
 36
49
 37
Other37
 110
39
 37
Total current assets518
 415
448
 518
Investments and Other Assets     
Goodwill920
 920
Other21
 20
Total investments and other assets941
 940
Property, Plant and Equipment        
Cost8,126
 7,750
8,732
 8,126
Accumulated depreciation and amortization(2,579) (2,507)(2,691) (2,579)
Net property, plant and equipment5,547
 5,243
6,041
 5,547
Regulatory Assets and Deferred Debits     
Other Noncurrent Assets   
Goodwill920
 920
Regulatory assets520
 497
445
 520
Other2
 2
21
 23
Total regulatory assets and deferred debits522
 499
Total other noncurrent assets1,386
 1,463
Total Assets$7,528
 $7,097
$7,875
 $7,528
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY        
Current Liabilities        
Accounts payable$282
 $207
$313
 $282
Accounts payable to affiliated companies63
 53
62
 63
Notes payable to affiliated companies16
 103
29
 16
Taxes accrued178
 171
190
 178
Interest accrued19
 18
21
 19
Current maturities of long-term debt1
 106
3
 1
Asset retirement obligations3
 
Regulatory liabilities21
 12
36
 21
Other91
 153
71
 91
Total current liabilities671
 823
728
 671
Long-Term Debt1,858
 1,467
2,039
 1,858
Long-Term Debt Payable to Affiliated Companies25
 25
25
 25
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities     
Other Noncurrent Liabilities   
Deferred income taxes1,443
 1,407
781
 1,443
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs56
 56
Asset retirement obligations77
 125
81
 77
Regulatory liabilities236
 245
891
 236
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs59
 56
Other166
 165
108
 166
Total deferred credits and other liabilities1,978
 1,998
Total other noncurrent liabilities1,920
 1,978
Commitments and Contingencies      
Equity        
Common stock, $8.50 par value, 120,000,000 shares authorized; 89,663,086 shares outstanding at 2016 and 2015762
 762
Common stock, $8.50 par value, 120 million shares authorized; 90 million shares outstanding at 2017 and 2016762
 762
Additional paid-in capital2,695
 2,720
2,670
 2,695
Accumulated deficit(461) (698)(269) (461)
Total equity2,996
 2,784
3,163
 2,996
Total Liabilities and Equity$7,528
 $7,097
$7,875
 $7,528
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

115


PART II

DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
Years Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2016
 2015
 2014
2017
 2016
 2015
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES             
Net income (loss)$228
 $172
 $(495)
Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash provided by operating activities:        
Net income$192
 $228
 $172
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating activities:     
Depreciation, amortization and accretion237
 230
 258
265
 237
 230
Equity component of AFUDC(6) (3) (4)(11) (6) (3)
Gains on sales of other assets and other, net(2) (8) (1)
Gains on sales of other assets(1) (2) (8)
Impairment charges
 40
 941
1
 
 40
Deferred income taxes55
 206
 (219)90
 55
 206
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs6
 9
 8
2
 6
 9
Contributions to qualified pension plans(5) (8) 
(4) (5) (8)
Payments for asset retirement obligations(5) (4) 
(7) (5) (4)
(Increase) decrease in             
Net realized and unrealized mark-to-market and hedging transactions(2) (10) 27

 (2) (10)
Receivables(4) 23
 (56)2
 (4) 23
Receivables from affiliated companies(36) 23
 14
(4) (36) 23
Inventory(32) 
 8
6
 (32) 
Other current assets79
 
 (5)(22) 79
 
Increase (decrease) in             
Accounts payable19
 (1) 27
12
 19
 (1)
Accounts payable to affiliated companies10
 (21) (3)(1) 10
 (21)
Taxes accrued3
 (21) (9)11
 3
 (21)
Other current liabilities(54) 88
 27
(19) (54) 88
Other assets(35) 25
 (4)(28) (35) 25
Other liabilities(31) (73) (33)(5) (31) (73)
Net cash provided by operating activities425
 667
 481
479
 425
 667
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES             
Capital expenditures(476) (399) (322)(686) (476) (399)
Notes receivable from affiliated companies(94) 145
 (88)80
 (94) 145
Other(30) (15) (12)(41) (30) (15)
Net cash used in investing activities(600) (269) (422)(647) (600) (269)
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES             
Proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt341
 
 
182
 341
 
Payments for the redemption of long-term debt(53) (157) (449)(2) (53) (157)
Notes payable to affiliated companies(87) (95) 473
13
 (87) (95)
Dividends to parent(25) (150) (100)(25) (25) (150)
Other(2) (2) 1
(1) (2) (2)
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities174
 (404) (75)167
 174
 (404)
Net decrease in cash and cash equivalents(1) (6) (16)(1) (1) (6)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period14
 20
 36
13
 14
 20
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period13
 14
 20
$12
 $13
 $14
Supplemental Disclosures:             
Cash paid for interest, net of amount capitalized$81
 $76
 $76
$85
 $81
 $76
Cash (received from) paid for income taxes(46) 410
 (5)(8) (46) 410
Significant non-cash transactions:             
Accrued capital expenditures83
 20
 24
82
 83
 20
Distribution of membership interest of Duke Energy SAM, LLC to parent
 1,912
 

 
 1,912
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

116


PART II

DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN EQUITY
              
              
              
                  
  Additional
      Additional
    
Common
 Paid-in
 Accumulated
 Total
Common
 Paid-in
 Accumulated
 Total
(in millions) Stock
 Capital
 Deficit
 Equity
Stock
 Capital
 Deficit
 Equity
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
$762
 $4,782
 $(870) $4,674
Net income
 
 172
 172

 
 172
 172
Dividends to parent
 (150) 
 (150)
 (150) 
 (150)
Distribution of membership interest of Duke Energy SAM, LLC to parent
 (1,912) 
 (1,912)
 (1,912) 
 (1,912)
Balance at December 31, 2015$762

$2,720

$(698)
$2,784
$762
 $2,720
 $(698) $2,784
Net income
 
 228
 228

 
 228
 228
Contribution from parent
 
 9
 9

 
 9
 9
Dividends to parent
 (25) 
 (25)
 (25) 
 (25)
Balance at December 31, 2016$762
 $2,695
 $(461) $2,996
$762

$2,695

$(461)
$2,996
Net income
 
 192
 192
Dividends to parent
 (25) 
 (25)
Balance at December 31, 2017$762
 $2,670
 $(269) $3,163
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

117


PART II

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the shareholder and the Board of Directors of
Duke Energy Indiana, LLC
Charlotte, North CarolinaOpinion on the Financial Statements
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Duke Energy Indiana, LLC and subsidiarysubsidiaries (the "Company") as of December 31, 20162017 and 2015, and2016, the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income, changes in equity, and cash flows, for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2016. 2017, and the related notes (collectively referred to as the "financial statements"). In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2017, in conformity with the accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Basis for Opinion
These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on thesethe Company's financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB) and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States).PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement.misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. OurAs part of our audits, included considerationwe are required to obtain an understanding 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'sCompany’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes
Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence supportingregarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessingstatements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statement presentation.statements. 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, LLC and subsidiary at December 31, 2016 and 2015, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2016, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

/s/Deloitte & Touche LLP
Charlotte, North Carolina
February 24, 201721, 2018
We have served as the Company's auditor since 2002.


118


PART II

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, LLC
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
Years Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2016
 2015
 2014
2017
 2016
 2015
Operating Revenues$2,958
 $2,890
 $3,175
$3,047
 $2,958
 $2,890
Operating Expenses             
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power909
 982
 1,259
966

909
 982
Operation, maintenance and other723
 682
 670
733

723
 682
Depreciation and amortization496
 434
 413
458

496
 434
Property and other taxes58
 61
 128
76

58
 61
Impairment charges8
 88
 
18

8
 88
Total operating expenses2,194
 2,247
 2,470
2,251
 2,194
 2,247
Gains on Sales of Other Assets and Other, net1
 1
 

 1
 1
Operating Income765
 644
 705
796
 765
 644
Other Income and Expenses, net22
 11
 22
37
 22
 11
Interest Expense181
 176
 171
178
 181
 176
Income Before Income Taxes606

479

556
655

606

479
Income Tax Expense225
 163
 197
301
 225
 163
Net Income$381

$316

$359
$354

$381

$316
Other Comprehensive Loss, net of tax             
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges(1) (2) 

 (1) (2)
Comprehensive Income$380

$314

$359
$354

$380

$314
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

119


PART II

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, LLC
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
December 31,December 31,
(in millions)2016
 2015
2017
 2016
ASSETS        
Current Assets        
Cash and cash equivalents$17
 $9
$9
 $17
Receivables (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $1 at 2016 and 2015)105
 96
Receivables (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $2 at 2017 and $1 at 2016)57
 105
Receivables from affiliated companies114
 71
125
 114
Notes receivable from affiliated companies86
 83

 86
Inventory504

570
450

504
Regulatory assets149
 102
165
 149
Other45
 15
30
 45
Total current assets1,020
 946
836
 1,020
Investments and Other Assets145
 212
Property, Plant and Equipment        
Cost14,241
 14,007
14,948
 14,241
Accumulated depreciation and amortization(4,317) (4,484)(4,662) (4,317)
Net property, plant and equipment9,924
 9,523
10,286
 9,924
Regulatory Assets and Deferred Debits     
Other Noncurrent Assets  
Regulatory assets1,073
 716
978
 1,073
Other2
 2
189
 147
Total regulatory assets and deferred debits1,075
 718
Total other noncurrent assets1,167
 1,220
Total Assets$12,164
 $11,399
$12,289
 $12,164
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY        
Current Liabilities        
Accounts payable$263
 $189
$196
 $263
Accounts payable to affiliated companies74
 83
78
 74
Notes payable to affiliated companies161
 
Taxes accrued31
 89
95
 31
Interest accrued61
 56
57
 61
Current maturities of long-term debt3
 547
3
 3
Asset retirement obligations54
 
Regulatory liabilities40
 62
24
 40
Other93
 97
104
 93
Total current liabilities565
 1,123
772
 565
Long-Term Debt3,633
 3,071
3,630
 3,633
Long-Term Debt Payable to Affiliated Companies150
 150
150
 150
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities     
Other Noncurrent Liabilities   
Deferred income taxes1,900
 1,657
925
 1,900
Investment tax credits137
 138
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs71
 80
Asset retirement obligations866
 525
727
 866
Regulatory liabilities748
 754
1,723
 748
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs76
 71
Investment tax credits147
 137
Other27
 65
18
 27
Total deferred credits and other liabilities3,749
 3,219
Total other noncurrent liabilities3,616
 3,749
Commitments and Contingencies      
Equity        
Member's equity4,067
 
Common Stock, no par; $0.01 stated value, 60,000,000 shares authorized; 53,913,701 shares outstanding at 2015
 1
Additional paid-in capital
 1,384
Retained earnings
 2,450
Accumulated other comprehensive income
 1
Total equity4,067
 3,836
Member's Equity4,121
 4,067
Total Liabilities and Equity$12,164
 $11,399
$12,289
 $12,164
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

120


PART II

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, LLC
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
Years Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2016
 2015
 2014
2017
 2016
 2015
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES             
Net income$381
 $316
 $359
$354
 $381
 $316
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating activities:             
Depreciation and amortization499
 439
 416
462
 499
 439
Equity component of AFUDC(16) (11) (14)(28) (16) (11)
Gains on sales of other assets and other, net
 (1) 
Gains on sales of other assets
 
 (1)
Impairment charges8
 88
 
18
 8
 88
Deferred income taxes213
 262
 308
152
 213
 262
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs8
 13
 16
2
 8
 13
Contributions to qualified pension plans(9) (19) 

 (9) (19)
Payments for asset retirement obligations(46) (19) 
(45) (46) (19)
(Increase) decrease in             
Receivables(2) (7) (35)59
 (2) (7)
Receivables from affiliated companies(43) 44
 36
(11) (43) 44
Inventory66
 (21) (103)54
 66
 (21)
Other current assets(67) 90
 (8)28
 (67) 90
Increase (decrease) in             
Accounts payable8
 33
 (41)(86) 8
 33
Accounts payable to affiliated companies(9) 25
 2
4
 (9) 25
Taxes accrued(4) 35
 (32)64
 (4) 35
Other current liabilities(81) 26
 5
(10) (81) 26
Other assets(27) (82) (21)(28) (27) (82)
Other liabilities(8) (35) 17
(20) (8) (35)
Net cash provided by operating activities871
 1,176
 905
969
 871
 1,176
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES             
Capital expenditures(755) (690) (625)(840) (755) (690)
Purchases of available-for-sale securities(14) (9) (20)(20) (14) (9)
Proceeds from sales and maturities of available-for-sale securities11
 11
 16
7
 11
 11
Proceeds from the sales of other assets
 17
 

 
 17
Notes receivable from affiliated companies(3) (83) 96
86
 (3) (83)
Other32
 (17) 4
(65) 32
 (17)
Net cash used in investing activities(729) (771) (529)(832) (729) (771)
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES             
Proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt494
 
 

 494
 
Payments for the redemption of long-term debt(478) (5) (5)(5) (478) (5)
Notes payable to affiliated companies
 (71) 71
161
 
 (71)
Dividends to parent
 (326) (450)
 
 (326)
Distributions to parent(149) 
 
(300) (149) 
Other(1) 
 (1)(1) (1) 
Net cash used in financing activities(134) (402) (385)(145) (134) (402)
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents8
 3
 (9)
Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents(8) 8
 3
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period9
 6
 15
17
 9
 6
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period$17
 $9
 $6
$9
 $17
 $9
Supplemental Disclosures:             
Cash paid for interest, net of amount capitalized$171
 $175
 $169
$179
 $171
 $175
Cash received from income taxes(7) (253) (61)
Cash paid for (received from) income taxes117
 (7) (253)
Significant non-cash transactions:          
Accrued capital expenditures99
 64
 87
125
 99
 64
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

121


PART II

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, LLC
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN EQUITY
           Accumulated           Accumulated  
        Other          Other  
        Comprehensive          Comprehensive  
        Income          Income  
  Additional
     Net Gains on
    Additional
     Net Gains on
  
Common
 Paid-in
 Retained
 Member's
 Cash Flow
 Total
Common
 Paid-in
 Retained
 Member's
 Cash Flow
 Total
(in millions) Stock
 Capital
 Earnings
 Equity
 Hedges
 Equity
Stock
 Capital
 Earnings
 Equity
 Hedges
 Equity
Balance at December 31, 2013$1
 $1,384
 $2,551
 $
 $3
 $3,939
Net income
 
 359
 
 
 359
Dividends to parent
 
 (450) 
 
 (450)
Balance at December 31, 2014$1

$1,384

$2,460

$
 $3

$3,848
$1
 $1,384
 $2,460
 $
 $3
 $3,848
Net income
 
 316
 
 
 316

 
 316
 
 
 316
Other comprehensive loss
 
 
 
 (2) (2)
 
 
 
 (2) (2)
Dividends to parent
 
 (326) 
 
 (326)
 
 (326) 
 
 (326)
Balance at December 31, 2015$1

$1,384

$2,450

$
 $1

$3,836
$1

$1,384

$2,450

$
 $1

$3,836
Net income
 
 
 381
 
 381

 
 
 381
 
 381
Other comprehensive loss
 
 
 
 (1) (1)
 
 
 
 (1) (1)
Distributions to parent
 
 
 (149) 
 (149)
 
 
 (149) 
 (149)
Transfer to Member's Equity(1) (1,384) (2,450) 3,835
 
 
(1) (1,384) (2,450) 3,835
 
 
Balance at December 31, 2016$

$

$

$4,067
 $

$4,067
$

$

$

$4,067
 $

$4,067
Net income
 
 
 354
 
 354
Distributions to parent
 
 
 (300) 
 (300)
Balance at December 31, 2017$

$

$

$4,121
 $

$4,121
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements 

122


PART II

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the shareholder and the Board of Directors of Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc.
Opinion on the Financial Statements
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company") as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income, changes in equity, and cash flows, for each of the three years in the periods ended December 31, 2017, October 31, 2016, October 31, 2015 and for the 2 months ended December 31, 2016 and the related notes (collectively referred to as the "financial statements"). In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the periods ended December 31, 2017, October 31, 2016, October 31, 2015 and for the 2 months ended December 31, 2016, in conformity with the accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Basis for Opinion
These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company's financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB) and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. As part of our audits, we are required to obtain an understanding of internal control over financial reporting 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.
Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
Emphasis of Matter
As discussed in Note 1 to the financial statements, effective for fiscal year 2016, the Company changed its fiscal year end from October 31 to December 31. This resulted in a 2-month transition period beginning November 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016.

/s/Deloitte & Touche LLP
Charlotte, North Carolina
February 21, 2018
We have served as the Company's auditor since 1951.


123


PART II

PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS COMPANY, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
 Year Ended Two Months Ended Years Ended October 31,
(in millions)December 31, 2017
 December 31, 2016 2016
 2015
Operating Revenues       
Regulated natural gas$1,319
 $320
 $1,139
 $1,372
Nonregulated natural gas and other9
 2
 10
 11
Total operating revenues1,328
 322
 1,149
 1,383
Operating Expenses       
Cost of natural gas524
 144
 391
 644
Operation, maintenance and other315
 52
 353
 305
Depreciation and amortization148
 23
 137
 129
Property and other taxes48
 7
 43
 42
Impairment charges7
 
 
 
Total operating expenses1,042
 226

924

1,120
Operating Income286
 96

225

263
Equity in (losses) earnings of unconsolidated affiliates(6) 2
 29
 34
Gain on sale of unconsolidated affiliates
 
 133
 
Other income and expense, net
 
 (1) (1)
Total other income and expenses(6) 2

161

33
Interest Expense79
 12
 69
 69
Income Before Income Taxes201
 86

317

227
Income Tax Expense62
 32
 124
 90
Net Income$139
 $54

$193

$137
Other Comprehensive Income (Loss), net of tax       
Unrealized loss from hedging activities of equity method investments
 
 (3) (2)
Reclassification into earnings from hedging activities of equity method investments
 
 4
 1
Other Comprehensive Income (Loss), net of tax
 
 1
 (1)
Comprehensive Income$139
 $54
 $194
 $136
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements


124


PART II

PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS COMPANY, INC.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
 December 31,
(in millions)2017
 2016
ASSETS   
Current Assets   
Cash and cash equivalents$19
 $25
Receivables (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $2 at 2017 and $3 at 2016)275
 232
Receivables from affiliated companies7
 7
Inventory66
 66
Regulatory assets95
 124
Other52
 21
Total current assets514
 475
Property, Plant and Equipment   
Cost6,725
 6,174
Accumulated depreciation and amortization(1,479) (1,360)
Net property, plant and equipment5,246
 4,814
Other Noncurrent Assets   
Goodwill49
 49
Regulatory assets283
 373
Investments in equity method unconsolidated affiliates61
 212
Other65
 21
Total other noncurrent assets458
 655
Total Assets$6,218
 $5,944
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY   
Current Liabilities   
Accounts payable$125
 $155
Accounts payable to affiliated companies13
 8
Notes payable and commercial paper
 330
Notes payable to affiliated companies364
 
Taxes accrued19
 67
Interest accrued31
 33
Current maturities of long-term debt250
 35
Regulatory liabilities3
 
Other69
 102
Total current liabilities874
 730
Long-Term Debt1,787
 1,786
Other Noncurrent Liabilities   
Deferred income taxes564
 931
Asset retirement obligations15
 14
Regulatory liabilities1,141
 608
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs5
 14
Other170
 189
Total other noncurrent liabilities1,895
 1,756
Commitments and Contingencies   
Equity   
Common stock, no par value: 100 shares authorized and outstanding at 2017 and 2016860
 860
Retained earnings802
 812
Total equity1,662
 1,672
Total Liabilities and Equity$6,218
 $5,944

See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements


125


PART II

PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS COMPANY, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
 Year Ended Two Months Ended Years Ended October 31,
(in millions)December 31, 2017
 December 31, 2016
 2016
 2015
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES       
Net income$139
 $54
 $193
 $137
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating activities:       
Depreciation and amortization151
 25
 148
 140
Gains on sales of other assets
 
 (133) 
Impairment charges7
 
 
 
Deferred income taxes154
 26
 74
 73
Equity in losses (earnings) from unconsolidated affiliates6
 (2) (29) (34)
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs23
 5
 3
 8
Contributions to qualified pension plans(11) (10) (14) (13)
Payments for asset retirement obligations
 (1) (6) (6)
(Increase) decrease in       
Receivables(40) (157) 12
 3
Receivables from affiliated companies
 
 (7) 
Inventory
 (11) 14
 16
Other current assets(20) 8
 (98) 46
Increase (decrease) in       
Accounts payable(13) 35
 6
 (5)
Accounts payable to affiliated companies5
 4
 6
 
Taxes accrued(48) (2) 38
 4
Other current liabilities(9) 2
 28
 (21)
Other assets7
 (7) (107) (5)
Other liabilities(2) 5
 180
 29
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities349
 (26) 308
 372
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES       
Capital expenditures(585) (113) (522) (444)
Contributions to equity method investments(12) (12) (47) (30)
Proceeds from the sales of other assets
 
 175
 
Other(6) 1
 21
 (5)
Net cash used in investing activities(603) (124) (373) (479)
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES       
Proceeds from the:       
Issuance of long-term debt250
 
 295
 148
Issuance of common stock
 
 122
 81
Payments for the redemption of long-term debt(35) 
 (40) 
Notes payable and commercial paper(330) 185
 (195) (15)
Notes payable to affiliated companies364
 
 
 
Dividends to parent
 (27) 
 
Dividends paid
 
 (114) (103)
Other(1) 
 
 
Net cash provided by financing activities248
 158
 68
 111
Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents(6) 8
 3
 4
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period25
 17
 14
 10
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period$19
 $25
 $17
 $14
Supplemental Disclosures:       
Cash paid for interest, net of amount capitalized$78
 $11
 $81
 $72
Cash (received from) paid for income taxes(12) 
 (25) 3
Significant non-cash transactions:       
Accrued capital expenditures34
 48
 63
 59
Transfer of ownership interest of certain equity method investees to parent149
 
 
 

See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements


126


PART II

PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS COMPANY, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN EQUITY
     Accumulated  
     Other  
       Comprehensive   
     Income (Loss)  
     Net Loss on
  
     Hedging Activities
  
 Common
 Retained
 of Unconsolidated
 Total
(in millions)Stock
 Earnings
 Affiliates
 Equity
Balance at October 31, 2014$637
 $672
 $
 $1,309
Net income  
 137
 
 137
Other comprehensive loss
 
 (1) (1)
Common stock issuances, including dividend reinvestment and employee benefits85
 
 
 85
Expenses from issuance of common stock(1) 
 
 (1)
Common stock dividends
 (103) 
 (103)
Balance at October 31, 2015$721
 $706
 $(1) $1,426
Net income
 193
 
 193
Other comprehensive income
 
 1
 1
Common stock issuances, including dividend reinvestment and employee benefits139
 
 
 139
Common stock dividends
 (114) 
 (114)
Balance at October 31, 2016$860
 $785
 $
 $1,645
Net income
 54
 
 54
Dividends to parent
 (27) 
 (27)
Balance at December 31, 2016$860
 $812
 $
 $1,672
Net income  

 139
 
 139
Transfer of ownership interest of certain equity method investees to parent
 (149) 
 (149)
Balance at December 31, 2017$860
 $802
 $
 $1,662
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements


127

PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION – DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC – PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, LLC – DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. – DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, LLCLLC– PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS COMPANY, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements
For the Years Ended December 31, 2017, 2016 2015 and 20142015

Index to Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements
The notes to the consolidated financial statements are a combined presentation. The following table indicates the registrants to which the notes apply.
Applicable NotesApplicable Notes
Registrant1234567891011121314151617181920212223242512345678910111213141516171819202122232425
Duke Energy Corporation   
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC           
Progress Energy, Inc.        
Duke Energy Progress, LLC            
Duke Energy Florida, LLC         
Duke Energy Ohio, Inc.            
Duke Energy Indiana, LLC           
Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc.  
Tables within the notes may not sum across due to (i) Progress Energy's consolidation of Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Florida and other subsidiaries that are not registrants (ii) Piedmont, a subsidiary registrant acquired on October 3, 2016, which is consolidated within Duke Energy but not separately stated in the combined presentation and (iii) other(ii) subsidiaries that are not registrants but included in the consolidated Duke Energy balances.
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.) primarily through its direct and indirect subsidiaries. Certain Duke Energy subsidiaries are also subsidiary registrants, including Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy Carolinas); Progress Energy, Inc. (Progress Energy); Duke Energy Progress, LLC (Duke Energy Progress); Duke Energy Florida, LLC (Duke Energy Florida); Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. (Duke Energy Ohio); and Duke Energy Indiana, LLC (Duke Energy Indiana). On October 3, 2016, Duke Energy acquired and Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc. (Piedmont) which also became a wholly owned subsidiary and subsidiary registrant of Duke Energy. Duke Energy's consolidated financial statements include Piedmont's results of operations and cash flow activity subsequent to the acquisition. See Note 2 for additional information regarding the acquisition.. When discussing Duke Energy’s consolidated financial information, it necessarily includes the results of its seven 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).Registrants.
In October 2016, Duke Energy completed the acquisition of Piedmont, an energy services company whose principal business isPiedmont. Duke Energy's consolidated financial statements include Piedmont's results of operations and cash flows activity subsequent to the distributionacquisition date. Effective November 1, 2016, Piedmont's fiscal year-end was changed from October 31 to December 31, the year-end of natural gas,Duke Energy. A transition report was filed on Form 10-Q (Form 10-QT) as of December 31, 2016, for a total cash purchase price of $5.0 billion. The acquisition provides a foundationthe transition period from November 1, 2016, to December 31, 2016. See Note 2 for establishing a broader strategic natural gas infrastructure platform within Duke Energy to complement the existing natural gas pipeline investments and the natural gas business located in the Midwest. For additional information onregarding the details of this transaction including purchase price allocation and acquisition financing, see Note 2. Piedmont continues to maintain reporting requirements as a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) registrant.acquisition.
In December 2016, Duke Energy completed an exit of the Latin American market to focus on its domestic regulated business, which was further bolstered by the acquisition of Piedmont. The sale of the International Energy business segment, excluding an equity method investment in National Methanol Company (NMC), was completed through two transactions including a sale of assets in Brazil to China Three Gorges (Luxembourg) Energy S.à.r.l. (CTG) and a sale of Duke Energy's remaining Latin American assets in Peru, Chile, Ecuador, Guatemala, El Salvador and Argentina to ISQ Enerlam Aggregator, L.P. and Enerlam (UK) Holding Ltd. (I Squared) (collectively, the International Disposal Group). ForSee Note 2 for additional information on the sale of International Energy see Note 2.Energy.
The information in these combined notes relates to each of the Duke Energy Registrants excluding Piedmont, as noted in the Index to Combined Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. However, none of the registrantsSubsidiary Registrants make any representation as to information related solely to Duke Energy or the Subsidiary Registrants 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. Substantially all of the Subsidiary Registrants' operations qualify for regulatory accounting.
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.

PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION – DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC – PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, LLC – DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. – DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, LLC
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.

128

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

Duke Energy Ohio is a regulated public utility primarily engaged in the transmission and distribution of electricity in portions of Ohio and Kentucky, the generation and sale of electricity in portions of Kentucky and the transportation and sale of natural gas in portions of Ohio and Kentucky. Duke Energy Ohio also conducts competitive auctions for retail electricity supply in Ohio whereby recovery of the energy price is recovered from retail customers and recorded in Operating Revenues on the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income. Operations in Kentucky are conducted through its wholly owned subsidiary, Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc. (Duke Energy Kentucky). References herein to Duke Energy Ohio collectively 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. On April 2, 2015, Duke Energy completed the sale of its nonregulated Midwest generation business, which sold power into wholesale energy markets, to a subsidiary of Dynegy Inc. (Dynegy). For further information about the sale of the Midwest Generation business, refer to Note 2 "Acquisitions and Dispositions."2. Substantially all of Duke Energy Ohio's operations that remain after the sale qualify for regulatory accounting.
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.On January 1, 2016, Duke Energy Indiana, an Indiana corporation, converted into an Indiana limited liability company.
Piedmont is a regulated public utility primarily engaged in the distribution of natural gas in portions of North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee. Piedmont is invested in joint venture businesses including regulated interstate natural gas transportation and storage and intrastate natural gas transportation businesses. Piedmont is subject to the regulatory provisions of the NCUC, PSCSC, Tennessee Regulatory Authority (TRA)Public Utility Commission (TPUC) and FERC. Substantially all of Piedmont's operations qualify for regulatory accounting.
Certain prior year amounts have been reclassified to conform to the current year presentation.
Other Current Assets and Liabilities
The following table provides a description of amounts included in Other within Current Assets or Current Liabilities that exceed 5 percent of total Current Assets or Current Liabilities on the Duke Energy Registrants' Consolidated Balance Sheets at either December 31, 20162017, or 2015.2016.
   December 31,
(in millions)Location 2016
 2015
Duke Energy     
Accrued compensationCurrent Liabilities $765
 $619
Duke Energy Carolinas     
Accrued compensationCurrent Liabilities $248
 $213
Collateral liabilitiesCurrent Liabilities 155
 141
Progress Energy   
  
Income taxes receivableCurrent Assets $19
 $129
Customer depositsCurrent Liabilities 363
 373
Derivative liabilitiesCurrent Liabilities 1
 201
Duke Energy Progress   
  
Income taxes receivableCurrent Assets $16
 $111
Customer depositsCurrent Liabilities 141
 141
Accrued compensationCurrent Liabilities 135
 108
Derivative liabilitiesCurrent Liabilities 
 76
Duke Energy Florida   
  
Customer depositsCurrent Liabilities $222
 $232
Derivative liabilitiesCurrent Liabilities 1
 125
Duke Energy Ohio   
  
Income taxes receivableCurrent Assets $16
 $59
Other receivableCurrent Assets 
 33
Accrued litigation reserveCurrent Liabilities 4
 80
Collateral liabilitiesCurrent Liabilities 62
 48
Duke Energy Indiana   
  
Collateral liabilitiesCurrent Liabilities $44
 $44

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

   December 31,
(in millions)Location 2017
 2016
Duke Energy     
Accrued compensationCurrent Liabilities $757
 $765
Duke Energy Carolinas     
Accrued compensationCurrent Liabilities $252
 $248
Customer depositsCurrent Liabilities 121
 155
Progress Energy   
  
Income taxes receivableCurrent Assets $278
 $19
Customer depositsCurrent Liabilities 338
 363
Duke Energy Progress   
  
Customer depositsCurrent Liabilities $129
 $141
Accrued compensationCurrent Liabilities 132
 135
Duke Energy Florida   
  
Customer depositsCurrent Liabilities $208
 $222
Duke Energy Ohio   
  
Income taxes receivableCurrent Assets $36
 $16
Customer depositsCurrent Liabilities 46
 62
Duke Energy Indiana   
  
Customer depositsCurrent Liabilities $45
 $44
Piedmont     
Income taxes receivableCurrent Assets $43
 $9
Discontinued Operations
The results of operations of the International Disposal Group andas well as Duke Energy Ohio's nonregulated Midwest Generation business and Duke Energy Retail Sales, LLC (collectively, Midwest Generation Disposal Group) have been classified as Discontinued Operations on Duke Energy's Consolidated Statements of Operations. 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 and assets held for sale (AHFS) and liabilities associated with AHFS as of December 31, 2015.presented. See Note 2 for additional information.

129

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

Amounts Attributable to Controlling Interests
Duke Energy's amount of (Loss) Income fromFor the year ended December 31, 2017, the Loss From Discontinued Operations, net of tax presented on theDuke Energy's Consolidated StatementsStatement of Operations includes amountsis entirely attributable to noncontrollingcontrolling interest. The following table presents Net Income Attributable to Duke Energy Corporation for continuing operations and discontinued operations.operations for the years ended December 31, 2016, and 2015.
Year ended December 31,Year ended December 31,
(in millions)2016 2015 201420162015
Income from Continuing Operations$2,578
 $2,654
 $2,538
$2,578
$2,654
Income from Continuing Operations Attributable to Noncontrolling Interests7
 9

5
7
9
Income from Continuing Operations Attributable to Duke Energy Corporation$2,571
 $2,645
 $2,533
$2,571
$2,645
(Loss) Income From Discontinued Operations, net of tax$(408) $177
 $(649)$(408)$177
Income from Discontinued Operations Attributable to Noncontrolling Interests, net of tax11
 6
 1
11
6
(Loss) Income From Discontinued Operations Attributable to Duke Energy Corporation, net of tax$(419) $171
 $(650)$(419)$171
Net Income$2,170
 $2,831
 $1,889
$2,170
$2,831
Net Income Attributable to Noncontrolling Interests18
 15
 6
18
15
Net Income Attributable to Duke Energy Corporation$2,152
 $2,816
 $1,883
$2,152
$2,816
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 natural 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 natural 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, Regulatoryregulatory assets and Regulatoryregulatory 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.
Regulatory accounting rules also require recognition of a disallowance (also called "impairment") loss if it becomes probable that part of the cost of a plant under construction (or a recently completed plant or an abandoned plant) will be disallowed for ratemaking purposes and a reasonable estimate of the amount of the disallowance can be made. OtherThese disallowances can require judgments on allowed future rate recovery.
When it becomes probable that regulated generation, transmission or distribution assets will be abandoned, the cost of the asset is removed from plant in service. The value that may be retained as a regulatory asset on the balance sheet for the abandoned property is dependent upon amounts that may be recovered through regulated rates, including any return. As such, an impairment charge could be partially or fully offset by the establishment of a regulatory asset 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.
Regulated Fuel and Purchased Gas Adjustment Clauses
The Duke Energy Registrants utilize cost-tracking mechanisms, commonly referred to as fuel adjustment clauses or purchased gas adjustment clauses (PGA). These clauses allow for the recovery of fuel and fuel-related costs, portions of purchased power, natural gas costs and hedging costs through surcharges on customer rates. The difference between the costs incurred and the surcharge revenues is recorded either as an adjustment to Operating Revenues, Operating Expenses – Fuel used in electric generation or Operating Expenses – Cost of natural gas on the Consolidated Statements of Operations, with an off-setting impact on regulatory assets or liabilities.
Cash and Cash Equivalents
All highly liquid investments with maturities of three months or less at the date of acquisition are considered cash equivalents.

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

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 Noncurrent Assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. At December 31, 20162017, and 2015,2016, Duke Energy had restricted cash totaling $147 million and $137 million, and $98 million, respectively.

130

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

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 establishedInventory, including excess or obsolete inventory, is written-down to the lower of cost or market value. Once inventory has been written-down, it creates a new cost basis for excess and obsolete inventory. Inventory reservesthe inventory that is not subsequently written-up. Provisions for inventory write-offs were not material at December 31, 20162017, and 2015.2016. The components of inventory are presented in the tables below.
December 31, 2016December 31, 2017
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
  
(in millions)Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
 Piedmont
Materials and supplies$2,374
 $767
 $1,167
 $813
 $354
 $84
 $312
$2,293
 $744
 $1,118
 $774
 $343
 $82
 $309
 $2
Coal774
 251
 314
 148
 166
 19
 190
603
 192
 255
 139
 116
 17
 139
 
Natural gas, oil and other374
 37
 236
 115
 121
 34
 2
354
 35
 219
 104
 115
 34
 2
 64
Total inventory$3,522
 $1,055
 $1,717
 $1,076
 $641
 $137
 $504
$3,250
 $971
 $1,592
 $1,017
 $574
 $133
 $450
 $66
December 31, 2015December 31, 2016
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
  
(in millions)Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
 Piedmont
Materials and supplies$2,343
 $785
 $1,133
 $776
 $357
 $81
 $301
$2,374
 $767
 $1,167
 $813
 $354
 $84
 $312
 $1
Coal1,105
 451
 370
 192
 178
 16
 267
774
 251
 314
 148
 166
 19
 190
 
Natural gas, oil and other298
 40
 248
 120
 128
 8
 2
374
 37
 236
 115
 121
 34
 2
 65
Total inventory$3,746
 $1,276
 $1,751
 $1,088
 $663
 $105
 $570
$3,522
 $1,055
 $1,717
 $1,076
 $641
 $137
 $504
 $66
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 substantially all of the Nuclear Decommissioning Trust FundFunds (NDTF), realized and unrealized gains and losses (including any other-than-temporary impairments (OTTIs)) 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. OTTIs 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
Effective with Piedmont's change in fiscal year end to December 31, as discussed above, Piedmont changed the date of its annual impairment testing of goodwill from October 31 to August 31 to align with the other Duke Energy Registrants.
Duke Energy, Progress Energy, and Duke Energy Ohio and Piedmont 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 and Piedmont 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.
Intangible Assets
Intangible assets are included in Other in Investments and Other Noncurrent 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 on 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.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. Emission allowances are expensed to Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power on the Consolidated Statements of Operations.

131

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

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. SignificantTriggering events to reassess cash flows may include, but are not limited to, 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 reassess cash flows.asset.
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,Years Ended December 31,
2016
 2015
 2014
2017
 2016
 2015
Duke Energy2.8% 2.9% 2.8%2.8% 2.8% 2.9%
Duke Energy Carolinas2.8% 2.8% 2.7%2.8% 2.8% 2.8%
Progress Energy2.7% 2.6% 2.5%2.6% 2.7% 2.6%
Duke Energy Progress2.6% 2.6% 2.5%2.6% 2.6% 2.6%
Duke Energy Florida2.8% 2.7% 2.7%2.8% 2.8% 2.7%
Duke Energy Ohio2.6% 2.7% 2.3%2.8% 2.6% 2.7%
Duke Energy Indiana3.1% 3.0% 3.0%3.0% 3.1% 3.0%
Piedmont(a)
2.3%    
(a)Piedmont's weighted average depreciation rate was 2.4 percent, 2.4 percent, and 2.5 percent for the annualized two months ended December 31, 2016 and for the years ended October 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.
In general, when the Duke Energy Registrants retire regulated property, plant and equipment, the original cost plus the cost of retirement, less salvage value, is charged to accumulated depreciation. However, when it becomes probable the 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 Assetsassets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.Sheets if deemed recoverable (see discussion of long-lived asset impairments above). When it becomes probable that meters or other regulated mass utility assetsan asset will be abandoned, the cost of the asset and accumulated depreciation is reclassified to regulatoryRegulatory assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets for amounts recoverable in rates. 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.
Nuclear Fuel
Nuclear fuel is classified as Property, Plant and Equipment on the Consolidated Balance Sheets, except for Duke Energy Florida. Nuclear fuel amounts at Duke Energy Florida were reclassified to Regulatory assets pursuant to a settlementthe Revised and Restated Stipulation and Settlement Agreement approved in November 2013 among Duke Energy Florida, the Florida Office of Public Counsel (Florida OPC) and other customer advocates (the 2013 Settlement). Portions of the nuclear fuel balances that were under contract for sale were subsequently moved to Other within Current Assets and Other within Investments and Other Assets on the

132

PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION – DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC – PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, LLC – DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. – DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, LLC– PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS COMPANY, INC.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Balance Sheets.Financial Statements – (Continued)

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 on the Consolidated Statements of Operations. Amortization is recorded using the units-of-production method.

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

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 (ETR) when capitalized and increases the ETR 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 (AROs) are recognized for legal obligations associated with the retirement of property, plant and equipment. Substantially all AROs are related to regulated operations. When recording an ARO, 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 unless determined not to be recoverable.
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 ARO for regulated operations through a combination of regulated revenues and earnings on the NDTF. As a result, amounts recovered in regulated revenues, earnings on the NDTF, accretion expense and depreciation of the associated asset are netted and 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 Nuclear Plant (Crystal River Unit 3) will be placed into a safe storage configuration until eventual dismantlement is completed by 2074. 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 yet to be built U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) facility.
Obligations for closure of ash basins are based upon discounted cash flows of estimated costs for site-specific plans, if known, or probability weightings of the potential closure methods if the closure plans are under development and multiple closure options are being considered and evaluated on a site-by-site basis. See Note 9 for additional information.
Revenue Recognition and Unbilled Revenue
Revenues on sales of electricity and natural 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 or natural gas 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, timing of rendering customer bills and meter reading schedules.schedules, and the impact of weather normalization or margin decoupling mechanisms.
Unbilled revenues are included within Receivables and Restricted receivablesReceivables of VIEs on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as shown in the following table.
December 31,December 31,
(in millions)2016
 2015
2017
 2016
Duke Energy$831
 $677
$944
 $831
Duke Energy Carolinas313
 283
342
 313
Progress Energy161
 172
228
 161
Duke Energy Progress102
 102
143
 102
Duke Energy Florida59
 70
85
 59
Duke Energy Ohio2
 3
4
 2
Duke Energy Indiana32
 31
21
 32
Piedmont86
 77

133

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

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)2016
 2015
Duke Energy Ohio$97
 $71
Duke Energy Indiana123
 97

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

 December 31,
(in millions)2017
 2016
Duke Energy Ohio$104
 $97
Duke Energy Indiana132
 123
Allowance for Doubtful Accounts
Allowances for doubtful accounts are presented in the following table.
December 31,December 31,
(in millions)2016
 2015
 2014
2017
 2016
 2015
Allowance for Doubtful Accounts          
Duke Energy$14
 $12
 $14
$14
 $14
 $12
Duke Energy Carolinas2
 3
 3
2
 2
 3
Progress Energy6
 6
 8
4
 6
 6
Duke Energy Progress4
 4
 7
1
 4
 4
Duke Energy Florida2
 2
 2
3
 2
 2
Duke Energy Ohio2
 2
 2
3
 2
 2
Duke Energy Indiana1
 1
 1
2
 1
 1
Piedmont(a)
2
 3
  
Allowance for Doubtful Accounts VIEs
          
Duke Energy$54
 $53
 $51
$54
 $54
 $53
Duke Energy Carolinas7
 7
 6
7
 7
 7
Progress Energy7
 8
 8
7
 7
 8
Duke Energy Progress5
 5
 5
5
 5
 5
Duke Energy Florida2
 3
 3
2
 2
 3
(a)    Piedmont's allowance for doubtful accounts was $2 million as of October 31, 2016, and 2015.
Derivatives and Hedging
Derivative and non-derivative instruments may be used in connection with commodity price and interest rate 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 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.
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 andfinancial losses, such asprimarily related to 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.

134

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

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. The gain or loss on extinguishment associated with refinancing higher-cost debt obligations in the regulated operations is 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.
Premiums, discounts and expenses are presented as an adjustment to the carrying value of the debt amount and included in Long-Term Debt on the Consolidated Balance Sheets presented.
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 become 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.

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

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 a severance planplans 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 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
LiabilitiesIf necessary, 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 begins at either the applicable service inception date or grant date and continues throughout the requisite service period. 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 intoare parties to 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. Investment tax credits (ITCs) associated with regulated operations are deferred and amortized as a reduction of income tax expense over the estimated useful lives of the related properties.
Positions takenAccumulated deferred income taxes are valued using the enacted tax rate expected to apply to taxable income in the periods in which the deferred tax asset or liability is expected to be taken onsettled or realized. In the event of a change in tax returns, includingrates, deferred tax assets and liabilities are remeasured as of the decision to exclude certain income or transactions from a return, are recognizedenactment date of the new rate. To the extent that the change in the financial statements when itvalue of the deferred tax represents an obligation to customers, the impact of the remeasurement is more likely than notdeferred to a regulatory liability. Remaining impacts are recorded in income from continuing operations. Other impacts of the Tax Act have been recorded on a provisional basis, see Note 22, “Income Taxes,” for additional information. If Duke Energy's estimate of the tax position can be sustained based solely on the technical meritseffect of reversing temporary differences is not reflective of actual outcomes, is modified to reflect new developments or interpretations 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 intendlaw, revised to appealincorporate new accounting principles, or litigate the tax position includedchanges in the completed examination; and (iii) it is remote thatexpected timing or manner of the taxing authority would examine or re-examine the tax position. The amountreversal then Duke Energy's results 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 willoperations could be a decrease in income tax expense or a reclassification 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 tax expense or a reclassification between deferred and current taxes payable. Changes in assumptions on tax benefits may also impact interest expense or interest income and may result in the recognition of tax penalties.impacted.

135

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

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 ITCs 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 ultimately recognized in the statement of operations through reduced depreciation expense. Additionally, certain tax credits and government grants result in an initial tax depreciable base in excess of the book carrying value by an amount equal to one half of the ITC or government grant.ITC. Deferred tax benefits are recorded as a reduction to income tax expense in the period that the basis difference is created.

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

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 aswithin both operating revenuesOperating Revenues and propertyProperty and other taxes in the Consolidated Statements of Operations were as follows.
Years Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2016
 2015
 2014
2017
 2016
 2015
Duke Energy$362
 $396
 $498
$376
 $362
 $396
Duke Energy Carolinas31
 31
 94
36
 31
 31
Progress Energy213
 229
 263
220
 213
 229
Duke Energy Progress18
 16
 56
19
 18
 16
Duke Energy Florida195
 213
 207
201
 195
 213
Duke Energy Ohio100
 102
 103
98
 100
 102
Duke Energy Indiana17
 34
 38
20
 17
 34
Piedmont(a)
2
    
On July 23, 2013, North Carolina House Bill 998, or the North Carolina Tax Simplification and Rate Reduction Act (HB 998) was signed into law. HB 998 repealed the utility franchise tax effective July 1, 2014. The utility franchise tax was a 3.22 percent gross receipts tax on sales of electricity. The result of this change in law is 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.
(a)Piedmont's excise taxes were immaterial for the two months ended December 31, 2016, and $2 million for the years ended October 31, 2016, and 2015.
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, Duke Energy Indiana and Piedmont have restrictions on paying dividends or otherwise advancing funds to Duke Energy. At December 31, 20162017, and 2015,2016, an insignificant amount of Duke Energy’s consolidated Retained earnings balance represents undistributed earnings of equity method investments.
New Accounting Standards
The following new accounting standards have been issued, but have not yet beenadopted for 2017 and 2016 had no material impact on the presentation or results of operations, cash flows or financial position of the Duke Energy Registrants. The following accounting standards were adopted by the Duke Energy Registrants as of December 31, 2016.during 2017.
Goodwill Impairment. Stock-Based Compensation and Income Taxes.In Januaryfirst quarter 2017, theDuke Energy adopted Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) guidance, which revised the accounting for stock-based compensation and the associated income taxes. The adopted guidance changed certain aspects of accounting for stock-based payment awards to employees including the accounting for income taxes and classification on the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows. The primary impact to Duke Energy as a result of implementing this guidance was a cumulative-effect adjustment to retained earnings for tax benefits not previously recognized and additional income tax expense for the 12 months ended December 31, 2017. See the Duke Energy Consolidated Statements of Changes in Equity for further information.
Goodwill Impairment. In January 2017, the FASB issued revised guidance for the subsequent measurement of goodwill. Under the updated guidance, a company will recognize an impairment to goodwill for the amount by which a reporting unit's carrying value exceeds the reporting unit's fair value, not to exceed the amount of goodwill allocated to that reporting unit. Duke Energy is unable to determineearly adopted this guidance for the future impact of adopting this guidance.2017 annual goodwill impairment test.
ForThe following new accounting standards have been issued, but have not yet been adopted by the Duke Energy this guidance is effective for interim and annual periods beginning January 1, 2020, but may be early adopted for interim or annual goodwill tests performed on testing dates after January 1,Registrants, as of December 31, 2017. The guidance will be applied on a prospective basis.
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.

136

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

Duke Energy has identified material revenue streams, which served as the basis for accounting analysis and documentation of the impact of this guidance on revenue recognition. The accounting analysis included reviewing representative contracts and tariffs for each material revenue stream. Most of Duke Energy’s revenue is expected towill be in scope of the new guidance. The majority of our sales, including energy provided to residential customers, are from tariff offerings that provide natural gas or electricity without a defined contractual term (‘at-will’("at-will"). For such arrangements, Duke Energy expects that the revenue from contracts with customers will be equivalent to the electricity or natural gas supplied and billed in that period (including estimated billings). As such, Duke Energy does not expect that there will not be a significant shift in the timing or pattern of revenue recognition for such sales. The
Also included in the accounting analysis was the evaluation of othercertain long-term revenue streams is ongoing, including long-termelectric wholesale contracts with industrial customers and long-termrenewables power purchase power agreements (PPA)(PPAs).
For such arrangements, Duke Energy continuesdoes not expect material changes to evaluate what information would be most useful for usersthe pattern of revenue recognition on the registrants. In addition, Duke Energy has monitored the activities of the financial statements,power and utilities industry revenue recognition task force including information already provideddraft accounting positions released in October 2017 and the impact, if any, on Duke Energy’s specific contracts and conclusions. Potential revisions to processes, policies and controls, primarily related to evaluating supplemental disclosures outsiderequired as a result of adopting this guidance, will be evaluated and implemented as necessary. Some revenue arrangements, such as alternative revenue programs and certain PPAs accounted for as leases, are excluded from the scope of the financial statement footnotes. These additional disclosures could include the disaggregation of revenues by geographic location, type of service, customer class or by duration of contract (‘at-will’ versus contracted revenue). Revenues from contracts with customers,new revenue recognizedrecognition guidance and, therefore, will be accounted for and evaluated for separate presentation and disclosure under regulated operationsother relevant accounting and revenue from lease accounting will also be disclosed.guidance.
Duke Energy intends to use the modified retrospective method of adoption effective January 1, 2018. ThisUnder the modified retrospective method of adoption, prior year reported results inare not restated and a cumulative change effect that will becumulative-effect adjustment, if applicable, is recorded as an adjustment to retained earnings as ofat January 1, 2018, as if the standard had always been in effect. Disclosures for 2018 willIn addition, disclosures, if applicable, include a comparison to what would have been reported for 2018 under the currentprevious revenue recognition rules in order to assist financial statement users in understanding how revenue recognition has changed as a result of this standard and to facilitate comparability with prior year reported results, which are not restated under the modified retrospective approach.

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

Leases. In February 2016,approach as described above. Duke Energy will utilize certain practical expedients including applying this guidance to open contracts at the FASB issued revised accounting guidancedate of adoption and recognizing revenues for leases. The core principlecertain contracts under the invoice practical expedient, which allows revenue recognition to be consistent with invoiced amounts (including estimated billings) provided certain criteria are met, including consideration of whether the invoiced amounts reasonably represent the value provided to customers. While the adoption of this guidance is thatnot expected to have a lessee should recognizematerial impact on either the assets and liabilities that arise from leases on the balance sheet.
Fortiming or amount of revenues recognized in Duke Energy's financial statements, Duke Energy this guidance is effective for interimanticipates additional disclosures around the nature, amount, timing and annual periods beginning January 1, 2019, although it can be early adopted. The guidance is applied using a modified retrospective approach.uncertainty of our revenues and cash flows arising from contracts with customers. Duke Energy is currently evaluatingcontinues to evaluate what information will be most useful for users of the financial statements, including information already provided in disclosures outside of the financial statement impact of adopting this standard. Other than an expected increase in assets and liabilities, the ultimate impact of the new standard has not yet been determined. Significant system enhancements may be required to facilitate the identification, tracking and reporting of potential leases based upon requirements of the new lease standard.
Stock-Based Compensation and Income Taxes. In March 2016, the FASB issued revised accounting guidance for stock-based compensation and the associated income taxes. This standard changes certain aspects of accounting for stock-based payment awards to employees including the accounting for income taxes, statutory tax withholding requirements, as well as classification on the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows. The primary future impact to the Duke Energy Registrants isfootnotes. These additional disclosures are expected to be a small increase ininclude the volatilitydisaggregation of income tax expense. This guidance will be adopted prospectively, retrospectively, or using a modified retrospective approach depending on the item changed for the period beginning January 1, 2017.
Statement of Cash Flows. In November 2016, the FASB issued revised accounting guidance to reduce diversity in practice for the presentation and classification of restricted cash on the statement of cash flows. Under the updated guidance, restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents will be included within beginning-of-period and end-of-period cash and cash equivalents on the statement of cash flows.
For Duke Energy, this guidance is effective for the interim and annual periods beginning January 1, 2018, although it can be early adopted. The guidance will be applied using a retrospective transition method to each period presented. Upon adoptionrevenues by Duke Energy, the revised guidance will result in a change in total cash, cash equivalents and amounts generally described as restricted cash or restricted cash equivalents explained when reconciling the beginning-of-period and end-of-period total amounts shown on the statement of cash flows. Prior to adoption, the Duke Energy Registrants reflect changes in restricted cash within Cash Flows from Investing Activities on the Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows.customer class.
Financial Instruments Classification and Measurement. In January 2016, the FASB issued revised accounting guidance for the classification and measurement of financial instruments. Changes in the fair value of all equity securities will be required to be recorded in net income. Current GAAP allows some changes in fair value for available-for-sale equity securities to be recorded in AOCI. Additional disclosures will be required to present separately the financial assets and financial liabilities by measurement category and form of financial asset. An entity's equity investments that are accounted for under the equity method of accounting are not included within the scope of the new guidance.
For Duke Energy, the revised accounting guidance is effective for interim and annual periods beginning January 1, 2018, by recording a cumulative change effect that will be recorded as an adjustment to retained earnings as of January 1, 2018. This guidance is expected to have minimal impact on the Duke Energy Registrant's Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income as changes in the fair value of most of the Duke Energy Registrants' available-for-sale equity securities are deferred as regulatory assets or liabilities pursuant to accounting guidance for regulated operations.
Leases. In February 2016, the FASB issued revised accounting guidance for leases. The core principle of this guidance is that a lessee should recognize the assets and liabilities that arise from leases on the balance sheet.
For Duke Energy, this guidance is effective for interim and annual periods beginning January 1, 2019. The guidance is applied using a modified retrospective approach. Upon adoption, Duke Energy expects to elect the practical expedients, which would require no reassessment of whether existing contracts are or contain leases as well as no reassessment of lease classification for existing leases. Additionally, we expect to adopt the optional transition practical expedient allowing the entity not to reassess the accounting for land easements that currently exist at the adoption of the lease standard on January 1, 2019. Duke Energy is currently evaluating the financial statement impact of adopting this standard and is continuing to monitor industry implementation issues, including easements, pole attachments and renewable PPAs. Other than an expected increase in assets and liabilities, the ultimate impact of the new standard has not yet been determined. Significant system enhancements, including additional processes and controls, will be required to facilitate the identification, tracking and reporting of potential leases based upon requirements of the new lease standard. Duke Energy has begun the implementation of a third-party software tool to help with the adoption and ongoing accounting under the new standard.
Statement of Cash Flows. In November 2016, the FASB issued revised accounting guidance to reduce diversity in practice for the presentation and classification of restricted cash on the statement of cash flows. Under the updated guidance, restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents will be included within beginning-of-period and end-of-period cash and cash equivalents on the statement of cash flows.
For Duke Energy, this guidance is effective for the interim and annual periods beginning January 1, 2018. The guidance will be applied using a retrospective transition method to each period presented. Upon adoption by Duke Energy, the revised guidance will result in a change to the amount of cash and cash equivalents and restricted cash explained when reconciling the beginning-of-period and end-of-period total amounts shown on the Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows. Prior to adoption, the Duke Energy Registrants reflect changes in restricted cash within Cash Flows from Investing Activities and within Cash Flows from Operating Activities on the Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows. As a result of this change, our Cash and cash equivalents balance on the Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows as of December 31, 2017 will change by $147 million.

137

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

Retirement Benefits. In March 2017, the FASB issued revised accounting guidance for the presentation of net periodic costs related to benefit plans. Current GAAP permits the aggregation of all the components of net periodic costs on the Consolidated Statement of Operations and does not require the disclosure of the location of net periodic costs on the Consolidated Statement of Operations. Under the amended guidance, the service cost component of net periodic costs must be included within Operating Income within the same line as other compensation expenses. All other components of net periodic costs must be outside of Operating Income. In addition, the updated guidance permits only the service cost component of net periodic costs to be capitalized to Inventory or Property, Plant and Equipment. This represents a change from current GAAP, which permits all components of net periodic costs to be capitalized. These amendments should be applied retrospectively for the presentation of the various components of net periodic costs and prospectively for the change in eligible costs to be capitalized. The guidance allows for a practical expedient that permits a company to use amounts disclosed in prior-period financial statements as the estimation basis for applying the retrospective presentation requirements.
For Duke Energy, this guidance is effective for interim and annual periods beginning January 1, 2018. Duke Energy currently presents the total non-capitalized net periodic costs within Operation, maintenance and other on the Consolidated Statement of Operations. The adoption of this guidance will result in a retrospective change to reclassify the presentation of the non-service cost (benefit) components of net periodic costs to Other income and expenses. Duke Energy intends to utilize the practical expedient for retrospective presentation. The change in net periodic costs eligible for capitalization is applicable prospectively. Since Duke Energy’s service cost component is expected to be greater than the total net periodic costs, the change will result in increased capitalization of net periodic costs, higher Operation, maintenance and other and higher Other income and expenses. The resulting impact to Duke Energy is expected to be an immaterial increase in Net Income resulting from the limitation of eligible capitalization of net periodic costs to the service cost component, which is larger than the total net periodic costs.
2. ACQUISITIONS AND DISPOSITIONS
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.
2016 Acquisition of Piedmont Natural Gas
On October 3, 2016, Duke Energy acquired all outstanding common stock of Piedmont for a total cash purchase price of $5.0 billion and assumed Piedmont's existing long-term debt, which had an estimateda fair value of approximately $2.0 billion at the time of the acquisition. Piedmont is a North Carolina corporation primarily engaged in regulated natural gas distribution to residential, commercial, industrial and power generation customers in portions of North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee. Piedmont is also invested in joint-venture, energy-related businesses, including regulated interstate natural gas transportation and storage and regulated intrastate natural gas transportation. The acquisition provides a foundation for Duke Energy to establish a broader, long-term strategic natural gas infrastructure platform to complement its existing natural gas pipeline investments and regulated natural gas business in the Midwest. In connection with the closing of the acquisition, Piedmont became a wholly owned subsidiary of Duke Energy.

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

Preliminary Purchase Price Allocation
The preliminary purchase price allocation of the Piedmont acquisition is estimated as follows:
(in millions) 
Current assets$497
Property, plant and equipment, net4,714
Goodwill3,353
Other long-term assets804
Total assets9,368
Current liabilities, including current maturities of long-term debt576
Long-term liabilities1,790
Long-term debt2,002
Total liabilities4,368
Total purchase price$5,000
The fair value of Piedmont's assets and liabilities werewas determined based on significant estimates and assumptions that are judgmental in nature, including the amount and timing of projected future cash flows, (including timing); discount rates reflecting risk inherent in the future cash flows and market prices of long-term debt. The preliminary amounts are subject to revision to the extent that additional information is obtained about the facts and circumstances that existed as of the acquisition date.
The majority of Piedmont’s operations are subject to the rate-setting authority of the NCUC, the PSCSC and the TRATPUC and are accounted for pursuant to accounting guidance for regulated operations. The rate-setting and cost recovery provisions currently in place for Piedmont’s regulated operations provide revenues derived from costs, including a return on investment of assets and liabilities included in rate base. Thus, the fair value of Piedmont's assets and liabilities subject to these rate-setting provisions approximates the pre-acquisition carrying values and does not reflect any net valuation adjustments.
The significant assets and liabilities for which valuation adjustments were reflected within the purchase price allocation include the acquired equity method investments and long-term debt. The difference between the preliminary fair value and the pre-merger carrying values of long-term debt for regulated operations was recorded as a regulatory asset.
The excess of the purchase price over the estimated fair value of Piedmont's assets and liabilities on the acquisition date was recorded as goodwill. The goodwill reflects the value paid by Duke Energy primarily for establishing a broader, long-term strategic natural gas infrastructure growth platform, an improved risk profile and expected synergies resulting from the combined entities. See Note 11 for information related

138

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

Under Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations, Duke Energy elected not to apply push down accounting to the allocation of goodwill to Duke Energy’s reporting units.stand-alone Piedmont financial statements.
Accounting Charges Related to the Acquisition
Duke Energy incurred pretax non-recurring transaction and integration costs associated with the acquisition of $103 million, $439 million and $9 million for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively. Amounts recorded on the Consolidated Statements of Operations in 2017 were primarily system integration costs of $71 million related to combining the various operational and financial systems of Duke Energy and Piedmont, including a one-time software impairment resulting from planned accounting system and process integration. A $7 million charge was recorded within Impairment Charges, with the remaining $64 million recorded within Operation, maintenance and other.
Amounts recorded in 2016 include:
Interest expense of $234 million related to the acquisition financing, including realized losses on forward-starting interest rate swaps of $190 million. See Note 14 for additional information on the swaps.
Charges of $104 million related to commitments made in conjunction with the transaction, including charitable contributions and a one-time bill credit to Piedmont customers. $10 million was recorded as a reduction in Operating Revenues, with the remaining $94 million recorded within Operation, maintenance and other.
Other transaction and integration costs of $101 million recorded to Operation, maintenance and other, including professional fees and severance.
The majority of transition and integration activities are expected to be completed by the end of 2018.
Pro Forma Financial Information
The following unaudited pro forma financial information reflects the combined results of operations of Duke Energy and Piedmont as if the merger had occurred as of January 1, 2015. The pro forma financial information does not include potential cost savings, intercompany revenues, Piedmont’s earnings from a certain equity method investment sold immediately prior to the merger or non-recurring transaction and integration costs incurred by Duke Energy and Piedmont. The after-tax non-recurring transaction and integration costs incurred by Duke Energy and Piedmont were $279 million and $19 million for the years ended December 31, 2016, and 2015, respectively.
This 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 the future consolidated results of operations of Duke Energy.
 Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)20162015
Operating Revenues$23,504
$23,570
Net Income Attributable to Duke Energy Corporation2,442
2,877

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

Piedmont's Earnings
Piedmont's revenues and net income included in Duke Energy's Consolidated Statements of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2016, were $367 million and $20 million, respectively. Piedmont's revenues and net income for the year ended December 31, 2016, include the impact of non-recurring transaction costs of $10 million and $46 million, respectively.
Acquisition Related Financings and Other Matters
Duke Energy financed the Piedmont acquisition with a combination of debt and equity issuances and other cash sources, including:
$3.75 billion of long-term debt issued in August 2016.
$750 million borrowed under the $1.5 billion short-term loan facility in September 2016, which was repaid in December 2016.
10.6 million shares of common stock issued in October 2016 for net cash proceeds of approximately $723 million.
The $4.9 billion senior unsecured bridge financing facility (Bridge Facility) with Barclays Capital, Inc. (Barclays) was terminated following the issuance of the long-term debt. For additional information related to the debt and equity issuances, see Notes 6 and 18, respectively. For additional information regarding Duke Energy's and Piedmont's joint investment in Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC (ACP), see Note 4.
Purchase of NCEMPA's Generation
On July 31, 2015, Duke Energy Progress completed the purchase of North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency’s (NCEMPA) ownership interests in certain generating assets, fuel and spare parts inventory jointly owned with and operated by Duke Energy Progress for approximately $1.25 billion. This purchase was accounted for as an asset acquisition. The purchase resulted in the acquisition of a total of approximately 700 megawatts (MW) of generating capacity at Brunswick Nuclear Plant (Brunswick), Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant (Harris), Mayo Steam Plant and Roxboro Steam Plant. In connection with this transaction, Duke Energy Progress and NCEMPA entered into a 30-year wholesale power agreement, whereby Duke Energy Progress will sell power to NCEMPA to continue to meet the needs of NCEMPA customers.
139

PART II
The purchase price exceeded the historical carrying value of the acquired assets by $350 million, which was recognized as an acquisition adjustment and recorded in property, plant and equipment. Duke Energy Progress established a rider in North Carolina to recover the costs to acquire, operate and maintain interests in the assets purchased as allocated to its North Carolina retail operations, including the purchase acquisition adjustment, and included the purchase acquisition adjustment in wholesale power formula rates.DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION – DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC – PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
Duke Energy Progress received an order from the PSCSC to defer recovery of the South Carolina retail allocated costs of the asset purchased until Duke Energy Progress' next general rate case, which was filed in July 2016. In October 2016, Duke Energy Progress, the Office of Regulatory Staff (ORS) and intervenors entered into a settlement agreement that provides for recovery of the historical carrying value of the South Carolina allocated purchased costs of the transaction. The settlement agreement was approved by the PSCSC in December 2016. See Note 4 for additional information on the South Carolina rate case.DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, LLC – DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. – DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, LLC– PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS COMPANY, INC.
The ownership interests in generating assets acquired are subject to rate-setting authority of the FERC, NCUC and PSCSC and accordingly, the assets are recorded at historical cost. The assets acquired are presented in the following table.
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)
(in millions) 
Inventory$56
Net property, plant and equipment845
Total assets901
Acquisition adjustment, recorded within property, plant and equipment350
Total purchase price$1,251
In connection with the acquisition, Duke Energy Progress acquired NCEMPA's NDTF assets of $287 million and assumed AROs of $204 million associated with NCEMPA's interest in the generation assets. The NDTF and the AROs are subject to regulatory accounting treatment.
DISPOSITIONS
For the year ended December 31, 2017, the Loss from Discontinued Operations, net of tax, was immaterial. The following table summarizes the (Loss) Income from Discontinued Operations, net of tax recorded on Duke Energy's Consolidated Statements of Operations:Operations for the years ended December 31, 2016, and 2015:
Years Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2016
 2015
 2014
2016
 2015
International Energy Disposal Group$(534) $157
 $(73)$(534) $157
Midwest Generation Disposal Group36
 33
 (524)36
 33
Other(a)
90
 (13) (52)90
 (13)
(Loss) Income from Discontinued Operations, net of tax$(408) $177
 $(649)$(408) $177
(a)Relates to previously sold businesses not related to the Disposal Groups. The amount for 2016 represents an income tax benefit resulting from immaterial out of period deferred tax liability adjustments. The amountsamount for 2015 and 2014 includeincludes indemnifications provided for certain legal, tax and environmental matters and foreign currency translation adjustments.

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

2016 Sale of International Energy
In February 2016, Duke Energy announced it had initiated a process to divest its International Energy businesses, excluding the equity method investment in NMC (the International Disposal Group), and in October 2016, announced it had entered into two separate purchase and sale agreements to execute the divestiture. Both sales closed in December of 2016, resulting in available cash proceeds of $1.9 billion, excluding transaction costs. Proceeds were primarily used to reduce Duke Energy holding company (the parent) debt. Existing favorable tax attributes result in no immediate U.S. federal-level cash tax impacts. Details of each transaction are as follows:
On December 20, 2016, Duke Energy closed on the sale of its ownership interests in businesses in Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala and Peru to I Squared Capital. The assets sold included approximately 2,230 MW of hydroelectric and natural gas generation capacity, transmission infrastructure and natural gas processing facilities. I Squared Capital purchased the businesses for an enterprise value of $1.2 billion.
On December 29, 2016, Duke Energy closed on the sale of its Brazilian business, which included approximately 2,090 MW of hydroelectric generation capacity, to CTG for an enterprise value of $1.2 billion. With the closing of the CTG deal, Duke Energy finalized its exit from the Latin American market.
Assets Held For Sale and Discontinued Operations
As a result of the transactions, the International Disposal Group was classified as held for sale and as discontinued operations in the fourth quarter of 2016. Interest expense directly associated with the International Disposal Group was allocated to discontinued operations. No interest from corporate level debt was allocated to discontinued operations.
The following table presents the carrying valuesresults of the major classes of Assets held for sale and Liabilities associated with assets held for sale included in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. As a result of Duke Energy closing both transactions in December 2016, there are no Assets held for sale or Liabilities associated with assets held for sale as of December 31, 2016.
(in millions) December 31, 2015
Current assets held for sale  
Cash and cash equivalents $474
Receivables, net 188
Inventory 65
Other 19
   Total current assets held for sale 746
Noncurrent assets held for sale  
Property, Plant and Equipment  
Cost 2,859
Accumulated depreciation and amortization (930)
   Net property, plant and equipment 1,929
Goodwill 271
Other 213
Total noncurrent assets held for sale 2,413
Total assets held for sale $3,159
Current liabilities associated with assets held for sale  
Accounts payable $51
Taxes accrued 60
Current maturities of long-term debt 48
Other 120
   Total current liabilities associated with assets held for sale 279
Noncurrent liabilities associated with assets held for sale  
Long-Term Debt 653
Deferred income taxes 157
Other 90
   Total noncurrent liabilities associated with assets held for sale 900
Total liabilities associated with assets held for sale $1,179
The value of goodwill increased by $7 million from December 31, 2015 through the date of sale as a result of changes in foreign currency exchanges rates. At the time of the disposition, the International Disposal Group for the years ended December 31, 2016, and 2015, which are included goodwillin (Loss) Income from Discontinued Operations, net of $278 million.tax in Duke Energy's Consolidated Statements of Operations.
 Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2016
 2015
Operating Revenues$988
 $1,088
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power227
 306
Cost of natural gas43
 53
Operation, maintenance and other341
 334
Depreciation and amortization(a)
62
 92
Property and other taxes15
 7
Impairment charges (b)
194
 13
(Loss) Gains on Sales of Other Assets and Other, net(3) 6
Other Income and Expenses, net58
 23
Interest Expense82
 85
Pretax loss on disposal(c)
(514) 
(Loss) Income before income taxes(d)
(435)
227
Income tax expense(e)(f)
99
 70
(Loss) Income from discontinued operations of the International Disposal Group$(534)
$157


140

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

The following table presents the results of the International Disposal Group which are included in (Loss) Income from Discontinued Operations, net of tax in Duke Energy's Consolidated Statements of Operations.
 Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2016
 2015
 2014
Operating Revenues$988
 $1,088
 $1,417
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power227
 306
 486
Cost of natural gas43
 53
 63
Operation, maintenance and other341
 334
 352
Depreciation and amortization(a)
62
 92
 97
Property and other taxes15
 7
 9
Impairment charges (b)
194
 13
 
(Loss) Gains on Sales of Other Assets and Other, net(3) 6
 6
Other Income and Expenses, net58
 23
 47
Interest Expense82
 85
 93
Pretax loss on disposal(c)
(514) 
 
(Loss) Income before income taxes(d)
(435)
227

370
Income tax expense(e)(f)
99
 70
 443
(Loss) Income from discontinued operations of the International Disposal Group$(534)
$157

$(73)
(a)Upon meeting the criteria for assets held for sale, beginning in the fourth quarter of 2016 depreciation expense was ceased.
(b)In conjunction with the advancements of marketing efforts during 2016, Duke Energy performed recoverability tests of the long-lived asset groups of International Energy. As a result, Duke Energy determined the carrying value of certain assets in Central America was not fully recoverable and recorded a pretax impairment charge of $194 million. The charge represents the excess of carrying value over the estimated fair value of the assets, which was based on a Level 3 Fair Value measurement that was primarily determined from the income approach using discounted cash flows but also considered market information obtained in 2016.
(c)The pretax loss on disposal includes the recognition of cumulative foreign currency translation losses of $620 million as of the disposal date. See the Consolidated Statements of Changes in Equity for additional information.
(d)Pretax (Loss) Income attributable to Duke Energy Corporation was $(445) million $221 million and $360$221 million for the years ended December 31, 2016 2015 and 2014,2015, respectively.
(e)2016 amount includes $126 million of income tax expense on the disposal, which primarily reflects in-country taxes incurred as a result of the sale. The after-tax loss on disposal was $640 million.
(f)
2016 amount includes an income tax benefit of $95 million and 2014 amount includes an income tax charge of $373 million related to historical undistributed foreign earnings.million. See Note 22, "Income Taxes," for additional information.
Duke Energy has elected not to separately disclose discontinued operations on the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows. The following table summarizes Duke Energy's cash flows from discontinued operations related to the International Disposal Group.
Years Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2016
 2015
 2014
2016
 2015
Cash flows provided by (used in):        
Operating activities$204
 $248
 $339
$204
 $248
Investing activities(434) 177
 111
(434) 177
Other Sale Related Matters
During 2017, Duke Energy will provideprovided certain transition services to CTG and I Squared for a periodCapital. Cash flows related to providing the transition services were not material as of December 31, 2017. All transition services related to extend beyond March 2017 and September 2017, respectively. In addition,the International Disposal Group ended in 2017. Additionally, Duke Energy will reimburse CTG and I Squared Capital for all tax obligations arising from the period preceding consummation on the transactions, totaling approximately $78 million. Duke Energy has not recorded any other liabilities, contingent liabilities or indemnifications related to the International Disposal Group.
2015 Midwest Generation Exit
Duke Energy, through indirect subsidiaries, completed the sale of the Midwest Generation Disposal Group to a subsidiary of Dynegy on April 2, 2015, for approximately $2.8 billion in cash. The nonregulated Midwest generation business included generation facilities with approximately 5,900 MW of owned capacity located in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Illinois. On April 1, 2015, prior to the sale, Duke Energy Ohio distributed its indirect ownership interest in the nonregulated Midwest generation business to a subsidiary of Duke Energy Corporation.
Duke Energy utilized a revolving credit agreement (RCA) to support the operations of the nonregulated Midwest generation business. Duke Energy Ohio had a power purchase agreement with the Midwest Generation Disposal Group for a portion of its standard service offer (SSO) supply requirement. The agreement and the SSO expired in May 2015.

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

The results of operations of the Midwest Generation Disposal Group prior to the date of sale are classified as discontinued operations in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations. Interest expense associated with the RCA was allocated to discontinued operations. No other interest expense related to corporate level debt was allocated to discontinued operations. Certain immaterial costs that were eliminated as a result of the sale remained in continuing operations. The following table summarizes the Midwest Generation Disposal Group activity recorded within discontinued operations.
Duke Energy Duke Energy OhioDuke Energy Duke Energy Ohio
Years Ended December 31, Years Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31, Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2016
 2015
 2014
 2016
 2015
 2014
2016
 2015
 2016
 2015
Operating Revenues$
 $543
 $1,748
 $
 $412
 $1,299
$
 $543
 $
 $412
Pretax Loss on disposal(a)

 (45) (929) 
 (52) (959)
 (45) 
 (52)
                  
Income (loss) before income taxes(b)
$
 $59
 $(818) $
 $44
 $(863)$
 $59
 $
 $44
Income tax (benefit) expense(c)
(36) 26
 (294) (36) 21
 (300)(36) 26
 (36) 21
Income (loss) from discontinued operations$36
 $33
 $(524) $36
 $23
 $(563)$36
 $33
 $36
 $23
(a)The Loss on disposal includes impairments recorded to adjust the carrying amount of the assets to the estimated fair value of the business, based on the selling price to Dynegy less cost to sell.
(b)2015 amounts include the impact of an $81 million charge for the settlement agreement reached in a lawsuit related to the Midwest Generation Disposal Group. Refer to Note 5 for further information about the lawsuit.
(c)2016 amounts result from immaterial out of period deferred tax liability adjustments.

141

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

3. BUSINESS SEGMENTS
Operating segments are determined based on information used by the chief operating decision-maker in deciding how to allocate resources and evaluate the performance of the business. 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 inon 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 of the business.
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
Due to the Piedmont acquisition and the sale of International Energy in the fourth quarter of 2016, Duke Energy's segment structure has been realigned to includeincludes the following segments: Electric Utilities and Infrastructure, Gas Utilities and Infrastructure and Commercial Renewables. Prior period information has been recast to conform to the current segment structure. See Note 2 for further information on the Piedmont and International Energy transactions.
The Electric Utilities and Infrastructure segment includes Duke Energy's regulated electric utilities in the Carolinas, Florida and the Midwest. The regulated electric utilities conduct operations through the Subsidiary Registrants that are substantially all regulated and, accordingly, qualify for regulatory accounting treatment. Electric Utilities and Infrastructure also includes Duke Energy's commercial electric transmission infrastructure investments.
The Gas Utilities and Infrastructure containssegment includes Piedmont, Duke Energy's natural gas local distribution companies in Ohio and Kentucky, and Duke Energy's natural gas storage and midstream pipeline investments. Gas Utilities and Infrastructure's operations are substantially all regulated and, accordingly, qualify for regulatory accounting treatment.
The Commercial Renewables segment is primarily comprised of nonregulated utility scale wind and solar generation assets located throughout the U.S.
In December 2016,The remainder of Duke Energy’s operations is presented as Other, which is primarily comprised of corporate interest expense, unallocated corporate costs, contributions to the Duke Energy closed onFoundation and the saleoperations of the International Disposal Group, whichDuke Energy’s wholly owned captive insurance subsidiary, Bison Insurance Company Limited (Bison). Other also includes the former International Energy business segment, excluding the equity method investmentDuke Energy's interest in NMC. Results of the International Disposal Group are presented within Discontinued Operations for all periods and results of NMC are presented within Other for all periods, as described below. See Note 2, "Acquisitions and Dispositions"12 for additional information related toon the sale.investment in NMC.
Business segment information is presented in the following tables. Segment assets presented exclude intercompany assets.
 Year Ended December 31, 2017
 Electric
 Gas
   Total
      
 Utilities and
 Utilities and
 Commercial
 Reportable
      
(in millions)Infrastructure
 Infrastructure
 Renewables
 Segments
 Other
 Eliminations
 Total
Unaffiliated Revenues$21,300
 $1,743
 $460
 $23,503
 $62
 $
 $23,565
Intersegment Revenues31
 93
 
 124
 76
 (200) 
Total Revenues$21,331
 $1,836
 $460
 $23,627
 $138
 $(200) $23,565
Interest Expense$1,240
 $105
 $87
 $1,432
 $574
 $(20) $1,986
Depreciation and amortization3,010
 231
 155
 3,396
 131
 
 3,527
Equity in earnings (losses) of unconsolidated affiliates5
 62
 (5) 62
 57
 
 119
Income tax expense (benefit)(a)
1,355
 116
 (628) 843
 353
 
 1,196
Segment income (loss)(b)(c)(d)
3,210
 319
 441
 3,970
 (905) 
 3,065
Add back noncontrolling interest component  
   
   
   
   
   
 5
Loss from discontinued operations, net of tax  
   
   
   
   
   
 (6)
Net income  
   
   
   
   
   
 $3,064
Capital investments expenditures and acquisitions$7,024
 $907
 $92
 $8,023
 $175
 $
 $8,198
Segment assets119,423
 11,462
 4,156
 135,041
 2,685
 188
 137,914
(a)All segments include impacts of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the Tax Act). Electric Utilities and Infrastructure includes a $231 million benefit, Gas Utilities and Infrastructure includes a $26 million benefit, Commercial Renewables includes a $442 million benefit and Other includes charges of $597 million.
(b)Electric Utilities and Infrastructure includes after-tax regulatory settlement charges of $98 million. See Note 4 for additional information.
(c)Commercial Renewables includes after-tax impairment charges of $74 million related to certain wind projects and the Energy Management Solutions reporting unit. See Notes 10 and 11 for additional information.
(d)Other includes $64 million of after-tax costs to achieve the Piedmont merger. See Note 2 for additional information.


142

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

The remainder of Duke Energy’s operations is presented as Other, which is primarily comprised of unallocated corporate interest expense, unallocated corporate costs, contributions to the Duke Energy Foundation and the operations of Duke Energy’s wholly owned captive insurance subsidiary, Bison Insurance Company Limited (Bison). As discussed above, Other also includes Duke Energy's 25 percent interest in 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.
 Year Ended December 31, 2016
 Electric
 Gas
   Total
      
 Utilities and
 Utilities and
 Commercial
 Reportable
      
(in millions)Infrastructure
 Infrastructure
 Renewables
 Segments
 Other
 Eliminations
 Total
Unaffiliated Revenues$21,336
 $875
 $484
 $22,695
 $48
 $
 $22,743
Intersegment Revenues30
 26
 
 56
 69
 (125) 
Total Revenues$21,366
 $901
 $484
 $22,751
 $117
 $(125) $22,743
Interest Expense$1,136
 $46
 $53
 $1,235
 $693
 $(12) $1,916
Depreciation and amortization2,897
 115
 130
 3,142
 152
 
 3,294
Equity in earnings (losses) of unconsolidated affiliates(a)
5
 19
 (82) (58) 43
 
 (15)
Income tax expense (benefit)1,672
 90
 (160) 1,602
 (446) 
 1,156
Segment income (loss)(b)(c)
3,040
 152
 23
 3,215
 (645) 1
 2,571
Add back noncontrolling interest component  
   
   
   
   
   
 7
Loss from discontinued operations, net of tax(d)
  
   
   
   
   
   
 (408)
Net income  
   
   
   
   
   
 $2,170
Capital investments expenditures and acquisitions(e)
$6,649
 $5,519
 $857
 $13,025
 $190
 $
 $13,215
Segment assets114,993
 10,760
 4,377
 130,130
 2,443
 188
 132,761
(a)    Commercial Renewables includes a pretax impairment charge of $71 million. See Note 12 for additional information.
(b)Other includes $329 million of after-tax costs to achieve mergers. Refer to Note 2 for additional information on costs related to the Piedmont merger.
(c)Other includes after-tax charges of $57 million related to cost savings initiatives. Refer to Note 19 for further information.
(d)Includes a loss on sale of the International Disposal Group. Refer to Note 2 for further information.
(e)Other includes $26 million of capital investments expenditures related to the International Disposal Group. Gas Utilities and Infrastructure includes the Piedmont acquisition of $5 billion. Refer to Note 2 for more information on the Piedmont acquisition.
 Year Ended December 31, 2015
 Electric
 Gas
   Total
      
 Utilities and
 Utilities and
 Commercial
 Reportable
      
(in millions)Infrastructure
 Infrastructure
 Renewables
 Segments
 Other
 Eliminations
 Total
Unaffiliated Revenues$21,489
 $536
 $286
 $22,311
 $60
 $
 $22,371
Intersegment Revenues32
 5
 
 37
 75
 (112) 
Total Revenues$21,521
 $541
 $286
 $22,348
 $135
 $(112) $22,371
Interest Expense$1,074
 $25
 $44
 $1,143
 $393
 $(9) $1,527
Depreciation and amortization2,735
 79
 104
 2,918
 135
 
 3,053
Equity in earnings (losses) of unconsolidated affiliates(2) 1
 (6) (7) 76
 
 69
Income tax expense (benefit)1,602
 44
 (128) 1,518
 (262) 
 1,256
Segment income (loss)(a)(b)(c)
2,819
 73
 52
 2,944
 (299) 
 2,645
Add back noncontrolling interest component  
   
   
   
   
   
 9
Income from discontinued operations, net of tax(d)
  
   
   
   
   
   
 177
Net income  
   
   
   
   
   
 $2,831
Capital investments expenditures and acquisitions(e)
$6,852
 $234
 $1,019
 $8,105
 $258
 $
 $8,363
Segment assets(f)
109,097
 2,637
 3,861
 115,595
 5,373
 188
 121,156

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

 Year Ended December 31, 2015
 Electric
 Gas
   Total
      
 Utilities and
 Utilities and
 Commercial
 Reportable
      
(in millions)Infrastructure
 Infrastructure
 Renewables
 Segments
 Other
 Eliminations
 Total
Unaffiliated Revenues$21,489
 $536
 $286
 $22,311
 $60
 $
 $22,371
Intersegment Revenues32
 5
 
 37
 75
 (112) 
Total Revenues$21,521
 $541
 $286
 $22,348
 $135
 $(112) $22,371
Interest Expense$1,074
 $25
 $44
 $1,143
 $393
 $(9) $1,527
Depreciation and amortization2,735
 79
 104
 2,918
 135
 
 3,053
Equity in (losses) earnings of unconsolidated affiliates(2) 1
 (6) (7) 76
 
 69
Income tax expense (benefit)1,602
 44
 (128) 1,518
 (262) 
 1,256
Segment income (loss) (a)(b)(c)
2,819
 73
 52
 2,944
 (299) 
 2,645
Add back noncontrolling interest component  
   
   
   
   
   
 9
Income from discontinued operations, net of tax(d)
  
   
   
   
   
   
 177
Net income  
   
   
   
   
   
 $2,831
Capital investments expenditures and acquisitions(e)
$6,852
 $234
 $1,019
 $8,105
 $258
 $
 $8,363
Segment assets(f)
109,097
 2,637
 3,861
 115,595
 5,373
 188
 121,156
(a)Electric Utilities and Infrastructure includes an after-tax charge of $58 million related to the Edwardsport settlement. Refer to Note 4 for further information.
(b)    Other includes $60 million of after-tax costs to achieve mergers.
(b)Other includes $60 million of after-tax costs to achieve mergers.
(c)Other includes after-tax charges of $77 million related to cost savings initiatives. Refer to Note 19 for further information.
(d)Includes the impact of a settlement agreement reached in a lawsuit related to the Midwest Generation Disposal Group. Refer to Note 5 for further information related to the lawsuit and Note 2 for further information on discontinued operations.
(e)Other includes capital investment expenditures of $45 million related to the International Disposal Group.
(f)Other includes Assets Held for Sale balances related to the International Disposal Group. Refer to Note 2 for further information.
 Year Ended December 31, 2014
 Electric
 Gas
   Total
      
 Utilities and
 Utilities and
 Commercial
 Reportable
      
(in millions)Infrastructure
 Infrastructure
 Renewables
 Segments
 Other
 Eliminations
 Total
Unaffiliated Revenues$21,655
 $573
 $235
 $22,463
 $46
 $
 $22,509
Intersegment Revenues36
 5
 1
 42
 70
 (112) 
Total Revenues$21,691
 $578
 $236
 $22,505
 $116
 $(112) $22,509
Interest Expense$1,057
 $37
 $50
 $1,144
 $409
 $(24) $1,529
Depreciation and amortization2,686
 73
 90
 2,849
 120
 
 2,969
Equity in earnings (losses) of unconsolidated affiliates(1) 
 8
 7
 123
 
 130
Income tax expense (benefit)1,582
 45
 (88) 1,539
 (314) 
 1,225
Segment income (loss) (a)(b)
2,714
 80
 53
 2,847
 (332) 18
 2,533
Add back noncontrolling interest component  
   
   
   
   
   
 5
Loss from discontinued operations, net of tax(c)
  
   
   
   
   
   
 (649)
Net income  
   
   
   
   
   
 $1,889
Capital investments expenditures and acquisitions(d)
$4,642
 $121
 $514
 $5,277
 $251
 $
 $5,528
Segment assets(e)
104,119
  2,512
 2,981
 109,612
 10,755
 190
 120,557
(a)Other includes a $94 million pretax impairment charge related to Ohio Valley Electric Corporation (OVEC) and costs to achieve mergers.
(b)Electric Utilities and Infrastructure includes pretax charges of $102 million related to the criminal investigation of the Dan River coal ash spill. See Note 5 for additional information.
(c)Includes an impairment of the Midwest Generation Disposal Group. Refer to Note 2 for further information.
(d)Other includes $67 million of capital investments expenditures and acquisitions of the International Disposal Group.
(e)Other includes Assets Held for Sale balances related to the International Disposal Group and Midwest Generation Disposal Group. Refer to Note 2 for further information.
Geographical Information
For the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, all assets and revenues are within the U.S.

143

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

Geographical Information
For the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, all assets and revenues from continuing operations are within the U.S.
Major Customers
For the year ended December 31, 2017, revenues from one customer of Duke Energy Progress are $521 million. Duke Energy Progress has one reportable segment, Electric Utilities and Infrastructure. No other subsidiary registrant has an individual customer representing more than 10 percent of its revenues.
Products and Services
The following table summarizes revenues of the reportable segments by type.
Retail
 Wholesale
 Retail
   Total
Retail
 Wholesale
 Retail
   Total
(in millions)Electric
 Electric
 Natural Gas
 Other
 Revenues
Electric
 Electric
 Natural Gas
 Other
 Revenues
2017        
Electric Utilities and Infrastructure$18,177
 $2,104
 $
 $1,050
 $21,331
Gas Utilities and Infrastructure
 
 1,732
 104
 1,836
Commercial Renewables
 375
 
 85
 460
Total Reportable Segments$18,177
 $2,479
 $1,732

$1,239
 $23,627
2016        
        
Electric Utilities and Infrastructure$18,338
 $2,095
 $
 $933
 $21,366
$18,338
 $2,095
 $
 $933
 $21,366
Gas Utilities and Infrastructure
 
 871
 30
 901

 
 871
 30
 901
Commercial Renewables
 303
 
 181
 484

 303
 
 181
 484
Total Reportable Segments$18,338
 $2,398
 $871
 $1,144
 $22,751
$18,338
 $2,398
 $871

$1,144
 $22,751
2015        
        
Electric Utilities and Infrastructure$18,695
 $2,014
 $
 $812
 $21,521
$18,695
 $2,014
 $
 $812
 $21,521
Gas Utilities and Infrastructure
 
 546
 (5) 541

 
 546
 (5) 541
Commercial Renewables
 245
 
 41
 286

 245
 
 41
 286
Total Reportable Segments$18,695
 $2,259
 $546
 $848
 $22,348
$18,695
 $2,259
 $546

$848
 $22,348
2014        
Electric Utilities and Infrastructure$19,007
 $1,879
 $
 $805
 $21,691
Gas Utilities and Infrastructure
 
 571
 7
 578
Commercial Renewables
 236
 
 
 236
Total Reportable Segments$19,007
 $2,115
 $571

$812
 $22,505
Duke Energy Ohio
Duke Energy Ohio has two reportable operating segments, Electric Utilities and Infrastructure and Gas Utilities and Infrastructure.
Electric Utilities and Infrastructure transmits and distributes electricity in portions of Ohio and generates, distributes and sells electricity in portions of Northern Kentucky. Gas Utilities and Infrastructure transports and sells natural gas in portions of Ohio and northernNorthern Kentucky. It conducts operations primarily through Duke Energy Ohio and its wholly owned subsidiary, Duke Energy Kentucky.

144

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

The remainder of Duke Energy Ohio's operations is presented as Other, which is primarily comprised of governance costs allocated by its parent, Duke Energy, and revenues and expenses related to Duke Energy Ohio's contractual arrangement to buy power from OVEC's (Ohio Valley Electric Corporation) power plants. ForSee Note 13 for additional information on related party transactions refer to Note 13. 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, 2016
 Electric
 Gas
 Total
      
 Utilities and
 Utilities and
 Reportable
      
(in millions)  
Infrastructure
 Infrastructure
 Segments
 Other
 Eliminations
 Total
Total revenues$1,410
 $503
 $1,913
 $31
 $
 $1,944
Interest expense  $58
 $27
 $85
 $1
 $
 $86
Depreciation and amortization  151
 80
 231
 2
 
 233
Income tax expense (benefit)  55
 44
 99
 (21) 
 78
Segment income (loss)154
 77
 231
 (39) 
 192
Income from discontinued operations, net of tax          36
Net income

 

 

 

   $228
Capital expenditures  $322
 $154
 $476
 $
 $
 $476
Segment assets  4,782
 2,696
 7,478
 62
 (12) 7,528
 Year Ended December 31, 2015
 Electric
 Gas
 Total
      
 Utilities and
 Utilities and
 Reportable
      
(in millions)  Infrastructure
 Infrastructure
 Segments
 Other
 Eliminations
 Total
Total revenues$1,331
 $541
 $1,872
 $33
 $
 $1,905
Interest expense  $53
 $25
 $78
 $1
 $
 $79
Depreciation and amortization  147
 79
 226
 1
 
 227
Income tax expense (benefit)  59
 45
 104
 (23) 
 81
Segment income (loss)118
 73
 191
 (41) (1) 149
Income from discontinued operations, net of tax          23
Net income

 

 

 

   $172
Capital expenditures  $264
 $135
 $399
 $
 $
 $399
Segment assets  4,534
 2,516
 7,050
 56
 (9) 7,097
 Year Ended December 31, 2014
 Electric
 Gas
 Total
      
 Utilities and
 Utilities and
 Reportable
      
(in millions)  Infrastructure
 Infrastructure
 Segments
 Other
 Eliminations
 Total
Total revenues$1,317
 $578
 $1,895
 $19
 $(1) $1,913
Interest expense  $43
 $37
 $80
 $5
 $1
 $86
Depreciation and amortization  138
 73
 211
 3
 
 214
Income tax expense (benefit)  71
 45
 116
 (73) 
 43
Segment income (loss)(a)
122
 80
 202
 (133) (1) 68
Loss from discontinued operations, net of tax(b)
          (563)
Net loss

 

 

 

   $(495)
Capital expenditures  $193
 $107
 $300
 $22
 $
 $322
Segment assets(c)
4,428
 2,487
 6,915
 3,321
 (243) 9,993
(a)Other includes a $94 million pretax impairment charge related to OVEC.
(b)Includes an impairment of the Midwest Generation Disposal Group. Refer to Note 2 for further information.
(c)Other includes Assets Held for Sale balances related to the Midwest Generation Disposal Group. Refer to Note 2 for further information.

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

DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, PROGRESS ENERGY, DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA AND DUKE ENERGY INDIANA
The remaining Subsidiary Registrants each have one reportable operating segment, Electric Utilities and Infrastructure, 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 $221 million, $240 million and $241 million fortransactions. For the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, and 2014. The following table summarizes the net loss for Other for each of these entities.
  Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2016
 2015
 2014
Duke Energy Carolinas$(104) $(95) $(79)
Progress Energy(200) (159) (190)
Duke Energy Progress(56) (32) (31)
Duke Energy Florida(23) (16) (19)
Duke Energy Indiana(13) (10) (11)
The assets ofall Duke Energy Carolinas, Progress Energy, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy FloridaOhio assets and Duke Energy Indianarevenues are substantially all included within the Electric Utilities and Infrastructure segment at December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014.
U.S.

  Year Ended December 31, 2017
 Electric
 Gas
 Total
      
 Utilities and
 Utilities and
 Reportable
      
(in millions)  
Infrastructure
 Infrastructure
 Segments
 Other
 Eliminations
 Total
Total revenues$1,373
 $508
 $1,881
 $42
 $
 $1,923
Interest expense  $62
 $28
 $90
 $1
 $
 $91
Depreciation and amortization  178
 83
 261
 $
 
 261
Income tax expense (benefit)  40
 39
 79
 $(20) 
 59
Segment income (loss)138
 85
 223
 $(30) 
 193
Loss from discontinued operations, net of tax          (1)
Net income

 

 

 

   $192
Capital expenditures  $491
 $195
 $686
 $
 $
 $686
Segment assets  5,066
 2,758
 7,824
 66
 (15) 7,875
PART II
 Year Ended December 31, 2016
 Electric
 Gas
 Total
      
 Utilities and
 Utilities and
 Reportable
      
(in millions)  Infrastructure
 Infrastructure
 Segments
 Other
 Eliminations
 Total
Total revenues$1,410
 $503
 $1,913
 $31
 $
 $1,944
Interest expense  $58
 $27
 $85
 $1
 $
 $86
Depreciation and amortization  151
 80
 231
 2
 
 233
Income tax expense (benefit)  55
 44
 99
 (21) 
 78
Segment income (loss)154
 77
 231
 (39) 
 192
Income from discontinued operations, net of tax          36
Net income

 

 

 

   $228
Capital expenditures  $322
 $154
 $476
 $
 $
 $476
Segment assets  4,782
 2,696
 7,478
 62
 (12) 7,528
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION – DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC – PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, LLC – DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. – DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, LLC
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)
 Year Ended December 31, 2015
 Electric
 Gas
 Total
      
 Utilities and
 Utilities and
 Reportable
      
(in millions)  Infrastructure
 Infrastructure
 Segments
 Other
 Eliminations
 Total
Total revenues$1,331
 $541
 $1,872
 $33
 $
 $1,905
Interest expense  $53
 $25
 $78
 $1
 $
 $79
Depreciation and amortization  147
 79
 226
 1
 
 227
Income tax expense (benefit)  59
 45
 104
 (23) 
 81
Segment income (loss)118
 73
 191
 (41) (1) 149
Income from discontinued operations, net of tax          23
Net income

 

 

 

   $172
Capital expenditures  $264
 $135
 $399
 $
 $
 $399
Segment assets4,534
 2,516
 7,050
 56
 (9) 7,097

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, 2016
   Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
(in millions)Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Regulatory Assets             
AROs – coal ash$3,761
 $1,536
 $1,830
 $1,822
 $8
 $12
 $276
AROs – nuclear and other684
 9
 569
 275
 294
 
 
Accrued pension and OPEB2,387
 481
 882
 423
 458
 135
 222
Retired generation facilities534
 39
 422
 165
 257
 
 73
Debt fair value adjustment1,313
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net regulatory asset related to income taxes894
 484
 231
 7
 224
 63
 119
Storm cost deferrals153
 
 148
 148
 
 5
 
Nuclear asset securitized balance, net1,193
 
 1,193
 
 1,193
 
 
Hedge costs and other deferrals217
 93
 91
 66
 25
 7
 26
Derivatives – gas supply contracts187
 
 
 
 
 
 
Demand side management (DSM)/Energy efficiency (EE)407
 122
 278
 263
 15
 6
 
Grid Modernization65
 
 
 
 
 65
 
Vacation accrual196
 76
 38
 38
 
 4
 10
Deferred fuel and purchased power156
 
 111
 24
 87
 5
 40
Nuclear deferral226
 92
 134
 38
 96
 
 
Post-in-service carrying costs and deferred operating expenses413
 70
 42
 42
 
 20
 281
Gasification services agreement buyout8
 
 
 
 
 
 8
Transmission expansion obligation71
 
 
 
 
 71
 
Manufactured gas plant (MGP)99
 
 
 
 
 99
 
Advanced metering infrastructure218
 172
 
 
 
 
 46
NCEMPA deferrals51
 
 51
 51
 
 
 
East Bend deferrals32
 
 
 
 
 32
 
Other636
 223
 103
 69
 36
 33
 121
Total regulatory assets13,901
 3,397
 6,123
 3,431
 2,693
 557
 1,222
Less: current portion1,023
 238
 401
 188
 213
 37
 149
Total noncurrent regulatory assets$12,878
 $3,159
 $5,722
 $3,243
 $2,480
 $520
 $1,073


145

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

The following tables present the regulatory assets and liabilities recorded on the Consolidated Balance Sheets of Duke Energy and Progress Energy. See separate tables below for balances by individual registrant.
December 31, 2016
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
Duke Energy Progress Energy
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
December 31, December 31,
(in millions)Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
2017
 2016
 2017
 2016
Regulatory Assets       
AROs – coal ash$4,025
 $3,761
 $1,984
 $1,830
AROs – nuclear and other852
 684
 655
 569
Accrued pension and OPEB2,249
 2,387
 906
 882
Retired generation facilities480
 534
 386
 422
Debt fair value adjustment1,197
 1,313
 
 
Net regulatory asset related to income taxes
 894
 
 231
Storm cost deferrals531
 153
 526
 148
Nuclear asset securitized balance, net1,142
 1,193
 1,142
 1,193
Hedge costs deferrals234
 217
 94
 91
Derivatives – natural gas supply contracts142
 187
 
 
Demand side management (DSM)/Energy efficiency (EE)530
 407
 281
 278
Grid modernization39
 65
 
 
Vacation accrual213
 196
 42
 38
Deferred fuel and purchased power507
 156
 349
 111
Nuclear deferral119
 226
 35
 134
Post-in-service carrying costs (PISCC) and deferred operating expenses366
 413
 38
 42
Transmission expansion obligation46
 71
 
 
Manufactured gas plant (MGP)91
 99
 
 
Advanced metering infrastructure (AMI)362
 218
 150
 
NCEMPA deferrals53
 51
 53
 51
East Bend deferrals45
 32
 
 
Deferred pipeline integrity costs54
 36
 
 
Amounts due from customers64
 66
 
 
Other538
 542
 110
 103
Total regulatory assets13,879
 13,901

6,751

6,123
Less: current portion1,437
 1,023
 741
 401
Total noncurrent regulatory assets$12,442
 $12,878

$6,010

$5,722
Regulatory Liabilities
                    
Costs of removal$6,074
 $2,476
 $2,198
 $1,840
 $358
 $212
 $660
$5,968
 $5,613
 $2,537
 $2,198
ARO – nuclear and other806
 461
 
 
Net regulatory liability related to income taxes8,113
 
 2,802
 
Amounts to be refunded to customers45
 
 
 
 
 
 45
10
 45
 
 
Storm reserve83
 22
 60
 
 60
 1
 
20
 83
 
 60
Accrued pension and OPEB174
 46
 
 
 
 19
 72
146
 174
 
 
Deferred fuel and purchased power192
 105
 81
 64
 17
 6
 
47
 192
 1
 81
Other722
 352
 245
 200
 44
 19
 11
622
 722
 179
 245
Total regulatory liabilities
7,290
 3,001
 2,584
 2,104
 479
 257
 788
15,732
 7,290
 5,519
 2,584
Less: current portion
409
 161
 189
 158
 31
 21
 40
402
 409
 213
 189
Total noncurrent regulatory liabilities
$6,881
 $2,840
 $2,395
 $1,946
 $448
 $236
 $748
$15,330
 $6,881
 $5,306
 $2,395
Descriptions of regulatory assets and liabilities summarized in the tables above and below follow. See tables below for recovery and amortization periods at the separate registrants.
AROs coal ash. Represents deferred depreciation and accretion related to the legal obligation to close ash basins. The costs are deferred until recovery treatment has been determined. See Notes 1 and 9 for additional information.

146

 December 31, 2015
   Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
(in millions)Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Regulatory Assets  
             
AROs – coal ash$2,555
 $1,120
 $1,394
 $1,386
 $8
 $4
 $37
AROs – nuclear and other838
 104
 487
 195
 292
 
 
Accrued pension and OPEB2,151
 479
 807
 366
 441
 139
 220
Retired generation facilities509
 49
 409
 179
 230
 
 51
Debt fair value adjustment1,191
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net regulatory asset related to income taxes1,075
 564
 318
 106
 212
 55
 120
Nuclear asset securitizable balance, net1,237
 
 1,237
 
 1,237
 
 
Hedge costs and other deferrals571
 127
 410
 171
 239
 7
 27
DSM/EE340
 80
 250
 237
 13
 10
 
Grid Modernization68
 
 
 
 
 68
 
Vacation accrual192
 79
 38
 38
 
 5
 10
Deferred fuel and purchased power151
 21
 129
 93
 36
 1
 
Nuclear deferral245
 107
 138
 62
 76
 
 
Post-in-service carrying costs and deferred operating expenses383
 97
 38
 38
 
 21
 227
Gasification services agreement buyout  32
 
 
 
 
 
 32
Transmission expansion obligation72
 
 
 
 
 72
 
MGP104
 
 
 
 
 104
 
NCEMPA deferrals21
 
 21
 21
 
 
 
East Bend deferrals16
 
 
 
 
 16
 
Other499
 244
 121
 82
 39
 31
 94
Total regulatory assets12,250
 3,071
 5,797
 2,974
 2,823
 533
 818
Less: current portion877
 305
 362
 264
 98
 36
 102
Total noncurrent regulatory assets$11,373
 $2,766
 $5,435
 $2,710
 $2,725
 $497
 $716

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

 December 31, 2015
   Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
(in millions)Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Regulatory Liabilities  
             
Costs of removal$5,329
 $2,413
 $2,078
 $1,725
 $353
 $222
 $616
Amounts to be refunded to customers71
 
 
 
 
 
 71
Storm reserve150
 24
 125
 
 125
 1
 
Accrued pension and OPEB288
 68
 51
 25
 26
 21
 83
Deferred fuel and purchased power311
 55
 255
 58
 197
 1
 
Other506
 281
 164
 155
 8
 12
 46
Total regulatory liabilities6,655
 2,841
 2,673
 1,963
 709
 257
 816
Less: current portion400
 39
 286
 85
 200
 12
 62
Total noncurrent regulatory liabilities$6,255
 $2,802
 $2,387
 $1,878
 $509
 $245
 $754
Descriptions of regulatory assets and liabilities, summarized in the tables above, as well as their recovery and amortization periods follow. Items are excluded from rate base unless otherwise noted.
AROs coal ash. Represents regulatory assets including deferred depreciation and accretion related to the legal obligation to close ash basins. The costs are deferred until recovery treatment has been determined. The recovery period for these costs has yet to be established. Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Ohio earn a debt return on their expenditures. See Notes 1 and 9 for additional information.
AROs nuclear and other. Represents regulatory assets or liabilities, including deferred depreciation and accretion, related to legal obligations associated with the future retirement of property, plant and equipment, excluding amounts related to coal ash. The AROs relate primarily to decommissioning nuclear power facilities. The amounts also include certain deferred gains and losses on NDTF investments. The recovery period for costs related to nuclear facilities runs through the decommissioning period of each nuclear unit, the latest of which is currently estimated to be 2086. See Notes 1 and 9 for additional information.
Accrued pension and OPEB. Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit obligations (OPEB) represent regulatory assets and liabilities related to each of the Duke Energy Registrants’ respective shares of unrecognized actuarial gains and losses and unrecognized prior service cost and credit attributable to Duke Energy’s pension plans and OPEB plans. The regulatory asset or liability is amortized with the recognition of actuarial gains and losses and prior service cost and credit to net periodic benefit costs for pension and OPEB plans. The accrued pension and OPEB regulatory asset is expected to be recovered primarily over the average remaining service periods or life expectancies of active employees covered by the benefit plans, which is approximately 9 years.plans. See Note 21 for additional detail.
Retired generation facilities. Duke Energy Carolinas earns a return on the outstanding retail balance with recovery periods ranging from oneRepresents amounts to six years. Duke Energy Progress earns a return on the outstanding balance with recovery over a periodbe recovered for facilities that have been retired and are probable of 10 years beginning in 2013 for retail purposes and over the longer of 10 years or the previously estimated planned retirement date for wholesale purposes. Duke Energy Indiana earns a return on the outstanding balances and the costs are included in rate base. Duke Energy Indiana’s recovery period will be determined in the next general rate case. Duke Energy Florida earns a full return on a portion of the regulatory asset related to the retired nuclear plant currently recovered in the nuclear cost recovery clause (NCRC), with the remaining portion earning a reduced return. Duke Energy Florida’s recovery period varies.recovery.
Debt fair value adjustment. Purchase accounting adjustments recorded to state the carrying value of Progress Energy and Piedmont at fair value in connection with the 2012 and 2016 mergers, respectively. Amount is amortized over the life of the related debt.
Net regulatory asset or liability related to income taxes. Regulatory assets principally associated withAmounts for all registrants include regulatory liabilities related primarily to impacts from the depreciation and recovery of AFUDC equity.Tax Act. See Note 22 for additional information. Amounts have no immediate impact on rate base as regulatory assets are offset by deferred tax liabilities. The recovery period is over the life of the associated assets. Amounts for all registrants include regulatory liabilities related to the gross up of federal ITCs. Amounts for Duke Energy, Duke Energy Carolinas, Progress Energy and Duke Energy Progress include regulatory liabilities related to the change in the North Carolina corporate tax rate discussed in Note 22.
Storm cost deferrals. Represents deferred incremental costs incurred related to extraordinary weather-related events, primarily damage resulting from Hurricane Matthew in the fourth quarter of 2016. The recovery period is unknown.events.
Nuclear asset securitizablesecuritized balance, net. Represents the balance associated with Crystal River Unit 3 retirement approved for recovery by the FPSC on September 15, 2015, and the upfront financing costs securitized in 2016 with issuance of the associated bonds. The regulatory asset balance is net of the AFUDC equity portion. The recovery period is through 2036.
Hedge costs and other deferrals. Amounts relate to unrealized gains and losses on derivatives recorded as a regulatory asset or liability, respectively, until the contracts are settled. The recovery period varies for these costs and currently extends to 2048.
Derivatives – natural gas supply contracts held for utility operations. Represents costs for certain long-dated, fixed quantity forward gas supply contracts, which are recoverable through Piedmont's PGA clauses.

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

DSM/EE. The recovery period varies for theseDeferred costs with some currently unknown. Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progressrelated to various DSM 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.programs recoverable through various mechanisms.
Grid Modernization.modernization. Duke Energy Ohio amountsAmounts represent deferred depreciation and operating expenses as well as carrying costs on the portion of capital expenditures placed in service but not yet reflected in retail rates as plant in service. Recovery period is generally one year for depreciation and operating expenses. Recovery for post-in-service carrying costs is over the life of the assets. Duke Energy Ohio is earning a return on these costs.
Vacation accrual. Generally recovered within one year. Duke Energy Carolinas earns a return on the North Carolina balance.
Deferred fuel and purchased power. Represents certain energy-related costs that are recoverable or refundable as approved by the applicable regulatory body. Duke Energy Florida amount includes capacity costs. Duke Energy Florida earns a return on the retail portion of under-recovered costs. Duke Energy Ohio earns a return on under-recovered costs. Duke Energy Florida and Duke Energy Ohio pay interest on over-recovered costs. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress amounts include certain purchased power costs in both North Carolina and South Carolina and costs of distributed energy resource programs in South Carolina. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress pay interest on over-recovered costs in North Carolina. Recovery period is generally over one year. Duke Energy Indiana recovery period is quarterly.
Nuclear deferral. Includes (i) amounts related to levelizing nuclear plant outage costs, at Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress in North Carolina and South Carolina, which allows for the recognition of nuclear outage expenses over the refueling cycle rather than when the outage occurs, resulting in the deferral of operations and maintenance costs associated with refueling and (ii) certain deferred preconstruction and carrying costs at Duke Energy Florida as approved by the FPSC, primarily associated with the Levy nuclear project (Levy), with a final true-up to be filed by May 2017.refueling.
Post-in-service carrying costs and deferred operating expenses. Represents deferred depreciation and operating expenses as well as carrying costs on the portion of capital expenditures placed in service but not yet reflected in retail rates as plant in service. Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana earn a return on the outstanding balance. For Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana, some amounts are included in rate base. Recovery is over various lives and the latest recovery period is 2083.
Gasification services agreement buyout. The IURC authorized Duke Energy Indiana to recover costs incurred to buyoutbuy out a gasification services agreement, including carrying costs through 2017. Duke Energy Indiana earns a return on this balance.
Transmission expansion obligation. Represents transmission expansion obligations related to Duke Energy Ohio’s withdrawal from Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO).
MGP. Represents remediation costs incurred at former MGP sites and the deferral of costs to be incurred at the East End and West End sites through 2019. Costs incurred between 2008 and 2012 are recovered through an approved MGP rider. Recovery of costs incurred after 2012 has been requested but is pending approval from the PUCO. Duke Energy Ohio does not earn a return on these costs.
Advanced metering infrastructure (AMI).AMI. Duke Energy Carolinas amount representsRepresents deferred costs related to the installation of AMI meters and remaining net book value of non-AMI meters to be replaced.replaced at Duke Energy Carolinas, earns a return on a portionnet book value of the costs and the recovery period varies.existing meters at Duke Energy Indiana amount representsFlorida, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Ohio and expected future recovery of net book value of electromechanical meters that have been replaced with AMI meters.meters at Duke Energy Indiana expects to recover this asset over a six-year period and the meters will remain in rate base until the next general rate case.Indiana. 
NCEMPA deferrals. Represents retail allocated cost deferrals and returns associated with the additional ownership interest in assets acquired from NCEMPA discussed in Note 2. The North Carolina retail allocated costs are generally being recovered over a period of time between three years and the remaining life of the assets purchased through a rider that became effective on December 1, 2015. The South Carolina retail allocated costs will be amortized over an average of 24 years beginning January 2017 are earning a return.
East Bend deferrals. Represents both deferred operating expenses and deferred depreciation as well as carrying costs on the portion of East Bend Generating Station (East Bend) that was acquired from Dayton Power and Light and that had been previously operated as a jointly owned facility. Recovery will not commence until resolution of the next electric rate case
Deferred pipeline integrity costs. Represents pipeline integrity management costs in Kentucky. Duke Energy Ohio is earningcompliance with federal regulations recovered through a return on these deferred costs.rider mechanism.
Amounts due from customers. Relates primarily to margin decoupling and IMR recovery mechanisms. 

147

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

Costs of removal. Represents funds received from customers to cover the future removal of property, plant and equipment from retired or abandoned sites as property is retired. Also includes certain deferred gains on NDTF investments.
Amounts to be refunded to customers. Represents required rate reductions to retail customers by the applicable regulatory body. The period of refund for Duke Energy Indiana is through 2018.
Storm reserve. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Florida are allowed to petition the PSCSC and FPSC, respectively, to seek recovery of incremental or allowable costs incurred for named storms. FundsAmounts are used to offset future incurred costs.costs for named storms as approved by regulatory commissions.
RESTRICTIONS ON THE ABILITY OF CERTAIN SUBSIDIARIES TO MAKE DIVIDENDS, ADVANCES AND LOANS TO DUKE ENERGY
As a condition to the approval of merger transactions, the NCUC, PSCSC, PUCO, KPSC and IURC imposed conditions on the ability of Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Ohio, Duke Energy Kentucky, Duke Energy Indiana and Piedmont to transfer funds to Duke Energy through loans or advances, as well as restricted amounts available to pay dividends to Duke Energy. Certain subsidiaries may transfer funds to Duke Energy Corporation Holding Company (the parent)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.

PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION – DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC – PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, LLC – DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. – DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, LLC
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, 2016.2017.
Additionally, certain other subsidiaries of Duke Energy have restrictions on their ability to dividend, loan or advance funds to Duke Energy due to specific legal or regulatory restrictions, including, but not limited to, minimum working capital and tangible net worth requirements.
The restrictions discussed below were less than 25 percent of Duke Energy's and Progress Energy's net assets at December 31, 2016.2017.
Duke Energy Carolinas
Duke Energy Carolinas must limit cumulative distributions subsequent to mergers to (i) the amount of retained earnings on the day prior to the closing of the mergers, plus (ii) any future earnings recorded.
Duke Energy Progress
Duke Energy Progress must limit cumulative distributions subsequent to the mergers between Duke Energy and Progress Energy and Duke Energy and Piedmont to (i) the amount of retained earnings on the day prior to the closing of the respective mergers, plus (ii) any future earnings recorded.
Duke Energy Ohio
Duke Energy Ohio will not declare and pay dividends out of capital or unearned surplus without the prior authorization of the PUCO. Duke Energy Ohio received FERC and PUCO approval to pay dividends from its equity accounts that are reflective of the amount that it would have in its retained earnings account had push-down accounting for the Cinergy Corp. (Cinergy) merger not been applied to Duke Energy Ohio’s balance sheet. The conditions include a commitment from Duke Energy Ohio that equity, adjusted to remove the impacts of push-down accounting, will not fall below 30 percent of total capital.
Duke Energy Kentucky is required to pay dividends solely out of retained earnings and to maintain a minimum of 35 percent equity in its capital structure.
Duke Energy Indiana
Duke Energy Indiana must limit cumulative distributions subsequent to the merger between Duke Energy and Cinergy to (i) the amount of retained earnings on the day prior to the closing of the merger, plus (ii) any future earnings recorded. In addition, Duke Energy Indiana will not declare and pay dividends out of capital or unearned surplus without prior authorization of the IURC.
Piedmont
Piedmont must limit cumulative distributions subsequent to the acquisition of Piedmont by Duke Energy to (i) the amount of retained earnings on the day prior to the closing of the merger, plus (ii) any future earnings recorded.
RATE RELATED INFORMATION
The NCUC, PSCSC, FPSC, IURC, PUCO, TRATPUC and KPSC approve rates for retail electric and natural gas services within their states. The FERC approves rates for electric sales to wholesale customers served under cost-based rates (excluding Ohio and Indiana), as well as sales of transmission service. The FERC also regulates certification and siting of new interstate natural gas pipeline projects.

148

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

All Registrants
Tax Act Impacts
On December 22, 2017, President Trump signed the Tax Act into law, which, among other provisions, reduces the maximum federal corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, effective January 1, 2018. As a result of the Tax Act, the Subsidiary Registrants revalued their deferred tax assets and deferred tax liabilities, as of December 31, 2017, to account for the future impact of lower corporate tax rates on these deferred tax amounts. For the Subsidiary Registrants regulated operations, where the reduction is expected to be accounted for and applied to customers’ rates in future commission proceedings, including rate proceedings, the net remeasurement has been deferred as a regulatory liability. Each of the Subsidiary Registrant's regulatory commissions is reviewing the Tax Act to determine the potential impacts on customer rates. Beginning in January 2018, the Subsidiary Registrants will defer the estimated ongoing impacts of the Tax Act that are expected to be returned to customers. See Note 22 for additional information.
Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress
Ash Basin Closure Costs Deferral
On July 13, 2016, in response to a joint petition of Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress, the PSCSC issued an accounting order for the deferment into a regulatory account of certain costs incurred in connection with federal and state environmental remediation requirements related to the permanent closure of ash basins and other ash storage units at coal-fired generating facilities that have provided or are providing generation to customers located in South Carolina. The decision allows for ash basin closure expenses to be partially offset with excess regulatory liability amounts from the deferral of nuclear decommissioning costs that are collected from South Carolina retail customers and for Duke Energy Progress to partially offset incurred ash basin closure costs with costs of removal amounts collected from customers. The PSCSC's ruling does not change retail rates or the tariff amounts and does not limit the ability of interested parties to challenge the reasonableness of expenditures in subsequent proceedings. In connection with Duke Energy Progress' base rate case filed in July 2016, in December 2016, the PSCSC approved recovery of coal ash costs incurred from January 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016, over a 15-year period and ongoing deferral of future ash basin closure costs incurred from July 1, 2016, until its next base rate case in South Carolina.
On December 30, 2016, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a joint petition with the NCUC seeking an accounting order authorizing deferral of certain costs incurred in connection with federal and state environmental remediation requirements related to the permanent closure of ash basins and other ash storage units at coal-fired generating facilities that have provided or are providing generation to customers located in North Carolina. Initial comments are due bywere received in March 1, 2017, and reply comments are due by March 29,were filed on April 19, 2017. The NCUC has consolidated Duke Energy Carolinas' and Duke Energy Progress’ coal ash deferral requests into their respective general rate case dockets for decision. See "2017 North Carolina Rate Case" sections below for additional discussion. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Duke Energy Carolinas
Regulatory Assets and Liabilities
The following tables present the regulatory assets and liabilities recorded on Duke Energy Carolinas' Consolidated Balance Sheets.
 December 31, Earns/PaysRecovery/Refund
(in millions)2017
2016
 a ReturnPeriod Ends
Regulatory Assets(a)
     
AROs - coal ash$1,645
$1,536
 (i)(b)
AROs - nuclear and other
9
   
Accrued pension and OPEB410
481
  (j)
Retired generation facilities(c)
29
39
 X2023
Net regulatory asset related to income taxes(d)

484
   
Hedge costs deferrals(c)
109
93
 X2041
DSM/EE210
122
 (h)(h)
Vacation accrual83
76
 (e)2018
Deferred fuel and purchased power140

 (f)2018
Nuclear deferral84
92
  2019
PISCC(c)
35
70
 X(b)
AMI185
172
 X(b)
Other222
223
  (b)
Total regulatory assets3,152
3,397
   
Less: current portion299
238
   
Total noncurrent regulatory assets$2,853
$3,159
   
Regulatory Liabilities(a)
     
Costs of removal(c)
$2,054
$2,015
 X(g)
ARO - nuclear and other806
461
  (b)
Net regulatory liability related to income taxes(d)
3,028

  (b)
Storm reserve(c)
20
22
  (b)
Accrued pension and OPEB44
46
  (j)
Deferred fuel and purchased power46
105
 (f)2018
Other359
352
  (b)
Total regulatory liabilities6,357
3,001
   
Less: current portion126
161
   
Total noncurrent regulatory liabilities$6,231
$2,840
   

149

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

(a)Regulatory assets and liabilities are excluded from rate base unless otherwise noted.
(b)The expected recovery or refund period varies or has not been determined.
(c)Included in rate base.
(d)Includes regulatory liabilities related to the change in the North Carolina tax rate discussed in Note 22.
(e)Earns a return on outstanding balance in North Carolina.
(f)Pays interest on over-recovered costs in North Carolina. Includes certain purchased power costs in North Carolina and South Carolina and costs of distributed energy in South Carolina.
(g)Recovered over the life of the associated assets.
(h)Includes incentives on DSM/EE investments and is recovered through an annual rider mechanism.
(i)Earns a debt return on coal ash expenditures for North Carolina and South Carolina retail customers.
(j)Recovered primarily over the average remaining service periods or life expectancies of employees covered by the benefit plans. See Note 21 for additional detail.
FERC Transmission Return on Equity Complaints2017 North Carolina Rate Case
On August 25, 2017, Duke Energy Carolinas filed an application with the NCUC for a rate increase for retail customers of approximately $647 million, which represents an approximate 13.6 percent increase in annual base revenues. The rate increase is driven by capital investments subsequent to the previous base rate case, including grid improvement projects, AMI, investments in customer service technologies, costs of complying with coal combustion residuals (CCR) regulations and the North Carolina Coal Ash Management Act of 2014 (Coal Ash Act) and recovery of costs related to licensing and development of the William States Lee III Nuclear Station (Lee Nuclear Station) discussed below. On January 7, 2016,23, 2018, the North Carolina Public Staff filed testimony recommending an overall rate decrease of approximately $290 million. An evidentiary hearing is scheduled to begin on February 27, 2018, and a groupdecision and revised customer rates are expected by mid-2018. Duke Energy Carolinas cannot predict the outcome of transmission service customersthis matter.
FERC Formula Rate Matter
On July 31, 2017, Piedmont Municipal Power Agency (PMPA) filed a complaint with FERC that the rate of return on equity of 10.2 percent inagainst Duke Energy Carolinas' transmission formula rates is excessive and should be reduced to no higher than 8.49 percent, effective upon the complaint date. On the same date, a similar complaint was filed with FERC claimingCarolinas alleging that the rate of return on equity of 10.8 percent in Duke Energy Progress' transmissionCarolinas misapplied the formula rate under the purchase power agreement (PPA) between the parties by including regulatory amortization in its rates is excessive and should be reduced to no higher than 8.49 percent, effective upon the complaint date.without FERC approval. Duke Energy Carolinas disagreed with PMPA as it believed it was properly applying its FERC filed rate. On April 21, 2016,February 15, 2018, FERC issued an order which consolidated the cases, set a refund effective dateruling in favor of January 7, 2016,PMPA and set the consolidated case for settlement and hearing. On June 14, 2016,ordered Duke Energy Carolinas to refund to PMPA all amounts improperly collected under the PPA. Resolution of this matter is not expected to be material.
Lincoln County Combustion Turbine
On December 7, 2017, the NCUC issued an order approving a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) for Duke Energy Progress reachedCarolinas' proposed 402-megawatt (MW) simple cycle, advanced combustion turbine natural gas-fueled electric generating unit at its existing Lincoln County site. The CPCN also includes construction of related transmission and natural gas pipeline interconnection facilities. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2018 with an extended commissioning and validation period from 2020-2024 and an estimated commercial operation date in 2024. As a settlement agreement in principle to reducecondition of the return on equity for both companies to 10 percent. On November 21, 2016, the FERC approved the settlement agreement resolving the complaints. The Impact on results of operations, cash flows and the financial position ofapproval, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress will not be material.
Duke Energy Carolinasseek recovery of costs associated with the project until it is placed into commercial operation.
Advanced Metering Infrastructure Deferral
On July 12, 2016, the PSCSC issued an accounting order for Duke Energy Carolinas to defer the financial effects of depreciation expense incurred for the installation of AMI meters, the carrying costs on the investment at its weighted average cost of capital (WACC) and the carrying costs on the deferred costs at its WACC not to exceed $45 million. The decision also allows Duke Energy Carolinas to continue to depreciate the non-AMI meters to be replaced. Current retail rates will not change as a result of the decision and the ability of interested parties to challenge the reasonableness of expenditures in subsequent proceedings is not limited.
William States Lee Combined Cycle Facility
On April 9, 2014, the PSCSC granted Duke Energy Carolinas and North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation (NCEMC) a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Convenience and Necessity (CECPCN) for the construction and operation of a 750 MW750-MW combined-cycle natural gas-fired generating plant at Duke Energy Carolinas' existing William States Lee Generating Station in Anderson, South Carolina. Duke Energy Carolinas began construction in July 2015 and estimates a cost to build of $600 million for its share of the facility, including AFUDC.allowance for funds used during construction (AFUDC). The project is expected to be commercially available in late 2017.the first quarter of 2018. NCEMC will own approximately 13 percent of the project. On July 3, 2014, the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League (SCCL) and Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) jointly filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeals of South Carolina (S.C. Court of Appeals) seeking the court's review of the PSCSC's decision, claiming the PSCSC did not properly consider a request related to a proposed solar facility prior to granting approval of the CECPCN. The S.C. Court of Appeals affirmed the PSCSC's decision on February 10, 2016, and on March 24, 2016, denied a request for rehearing filed by SCCL and SACE. On April 21, 2016, SCCL and SACE petitioned the South Carolina Supreme Court for review of the S.C. Court of Appeals decision. Duke Energy Carolinas filed its response on June 13, 2016, and SCCL and SACE filed a reply on June 23, 2016. On September 6, 2016, the Small Business Chamber of Commerce filed a motion for permission to file a brief supporting the environmental intervenors’ position. On September 22, 2016,March 24, 2017, the South Carolina Supreme Court granted permissiondenied the request for review, thus concluding the brief and allowed Duke Energy Carolinas an opportunity to file a response, which was filed on October 3, 2016. Duke Energy Carolinas cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
William States Lee III Nuclear Station
In December 2007, Duke Energy Carolinas applied to the NRC for combined operating licenses (COLs) for two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors for the proposed William States Lee III Nuclear Station to be located at a site in Cherokee County, South Carolina. The NCUC and PSCSC have concurred with the prudency of Duke Energy Carolinas incurring certain project development and preconstruction costs through several separately issued orders, although full cost recovery is not guaranteed. In December 2016, the NRC issued a COL for each reactor. Duke Energy Carolinas is not required to build the nuclear reactors as result of the COLs being issued.

150

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

On March 29, 2017, Westinghouse filed for voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. As part of its 2017 North Carolina Rate Case discussed above, Duke Energy Carolinas is seeking NCUC approval to cancel the development of the Lee Nuclear Station project due to the Westinghouse bankruptcy filing and other market activity and is requesting recovery of incurred licensing and development costs. Duke Energy Carolinas will maintain the license issued by the NRC in December 2016 as an option for potential future development. As of December 31, 2016,2017, Duke Energy Carolinas has incurred approximately $520$558 million of costs, including AFUDC, related to the project. These project costs are included in Net property, plant and equipment on Duke Energy Carolinas’ Consolidated Balance Sheets. Duke Energy Carolinas cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Duke Energy Progress
Regulatory Assets and Liabilities
The following tables present the regulatory assets and liabilities recorded on Duke Energy Progress' Consolidated Balance Sheets.
 December 31, Earns/PaysRecovery/Refund
(in millions)2017
2016
 a ReturnPeriod Ends
Regulatory Assets(a)
     
AROs - coal ash$1,975
$1,822
 (i)(b)
AROs - nuclear and other359
275
  (c)
Accrued pension and OPEB430
423
  (l)
Retired generation facilities170
165
 X2023
Net regulatory asset related to income taxes
7
  (d)
Storm cost deferrals(e)
150
148
 X(b)
Hedge costs deferrals64
66
  (b)
DSM/EE(f)
264
263
 (j)2018
Vacation accrual42
38
  2018
Deferred fuel and purchased power130
24
 (g)2018
Nuclear deferral35
38
  2019
PISCC and deferred operating expenses38
42
 X2054
AMI75

  (b)
NCEMPA deferrals53
51
 (h)2042
Other74
69
  (b)
Total regulatory assets3,859
3,431
   
Less: current portion352
188
   
Total noncurrent regulatory assets$3,507
$3,243
   
Regulatory Liabilities(a)
     
Costs of removal$2,122
$1,840
 X(k)
Net regulatory liability related to income taxes1,854

  (b)
Deferred fuel and purchased power1
64
 (g)2018
Other161
200
  (b)
Total regulatory liabilities4,138
2,104
   
Less: current portion139
158
   
Total noncurrent regulatory liabilities$3,999
$1,946
   
(a)Regulatory assets and liabilities are excluded from rate base unless otherwise noted.
(b)The expected recovery or refund period varies or has not been determined.
(c)Recovery period for costs related to nuclear facilities runs through the decommissioning period of each unit.
(d)Recovery over the life of the associated assets. Includes regulatory liabilities related to the change in the North Carolina tax rate discussed in Note 22.
(e)South Carolina storm costs are included in rate base.
(f)Included in rate base.
(g)Pays interest on over-recovered costs in North Carolina. Includes certain purchased power costs in North Carolina and South Carolina and costs of distributed energy in South Carolina.
(h)South Carolina retail allocated costs are earning a return.
(i)Earns a debt return on coal ash expenditures for North Carolina and South Carolina retail customers.
(j)Includes incentives on DSM/EE investments.
(k)Recovered over the life of the associated assets.
(l)Recovered primarily over the average remaining service periods or life expectancies of employees covered by the benefit plans. See Note 21 for additional detail.

151

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

2017 North Carolina Rate Case
On June 1, 2017, Duke Energy Progress filed an application with the NCUC for a rate increase for retail customers of approximately $477 million, which represented an approximate 14.9 percent increase in annual base revenues. Subsequent to the filing, Duke Energy Progress adjusted the requested amount to $420 million, representing an approximate 13 percent increase. The rate increase is not requireddriven by capital investments subsequent to build the nuclear reactors asprevious base rate case, costs of complying with CCR regulations and the Coal Ash Act, costs relating to storm recovery, investments in customer service technologies and recovery of costs associated with renewable purchased power. On November 22, 2017, Duke Energy Progress and the North Carolina Public Staff filed an Agreement and Stipulation of Partial Settlement resolving certain portions of the proceeding, pending NCUC approval. Terms of the settlement include a return on equity of 9.9 percent and a capital structure of 52 percent equity and 48 percent debt. As a result of the COLs being issued.
settlement, in 2017 Duke Energy Progress recorded pretax charges totaling approximately $25 million to Impairment charges and Operation, maintenance and other on the Consolidated Income Statements, principally related to disallowances from rate base of certain projects at the Mayo and Sutton plants. The settlement does not include agreement on portions of the rate case relating to recovery of deferred storm recovery costs and coal ash basin deferred costs, which will be decided by the NCUC separately. Taking into consideration the settled portions and Duke Energy Progress’ requested recovery of the non-settled portions, the requested rate increase is reduced to approximately $300 million. An evidentiary hearing ended December 7, 2017, and a decision and revised customer rates are expected in the first quarter of 2018. Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Storm Cost Deferral Filings
On December 16, 2016, Duke Energy Progress filed a petition with the NCUC requesting an accounting order to defer certain costs incurred in connection with response to Hurricane Matthew and other significant storms in 2016. Current estimatedThe final estimate of incremental operation and maintenance and capital costs total approximately $140 million. Additional costs could be incurredof $116 million was filed with the NCUC in September 2017. On March 15, 2017, related to storms in the fourth quarterNCUC Public Staff filed comments supporting deferral of 2016.a portion of Duke Energy Progress’ requested amount. Duke Energy Progress proposes to true-upfiled reply comments on April 12, 2017. On July 10, 2017, the total costs quarterly through August 2017.NCUC consolidated Duke Energy Progress' storm deferral request into the Duke Energy Progress rate case docket for decision. See "2017 North Carolina Rate Case" for additional discussion. As of December 31, 2017, Duke Energy Progress has approximately $77 million included in Regulatory assets on its Consolidated Balance Sheets. Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
On December 16, 2016, Duke Energy Progress filed a petition with the PSCSC requesting an accounting order to defer certain costs incurred related to repairs and restoration of service following Hurricane Matthew. Estimated total restorationThe final estimate of incremental operation and maintenance and capital costs arewas approximately $60$74 million. Actual total costs would be trued-up quarterly through 2017. In January 2017, the PSCSC approved the deferral request and issued an accounting order.

PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION – DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC – PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, LLC – DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. – DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, LLC
Combined Notes To As of December 31, 2017, Duke Energy Progress has approximately $73 million included in Regulatory assets on its Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Balance Sheets.
South Carolina Rate Case
On July 1,In December 2016, the PSCSC approved a rate case settlement agreement among the ORS (Office of Regulatory Staff), intervenors and Duke Energy Progress filed an application with the PSCSC requesting an average 14.5 percent increase in retail revenues. The requested rate change would increase annual revenues by approximately $79 million, with a rate of return on equity of 10.75 percent. The increase is designed to recover the cost of investment in new generation infrastructure, environmental expenditures including allocated historical ash basin closure costs and increased nuclear operating costs. Duke Energy Progress has requested new rates to be effective January 1, 2017. On October 19, 2016, Duke Energy Progress, the ORS and intervenors entered into a settlement agreement that was filed with the PSCSC on the same day.Progress. Terms of the settlement agreement includeincluded an approximate $56 million increase in revenues over a two-year period. An increase of approximately $38 million in revenues was effective January 1, 2017, and an additional increase of approximately $18.5 million in revenues will bewas effective January 1, 2018. Duke Energy Progress will amortizeamortized approximately $18.5 million from the cost of removal reserve in 2017. Other settlement terms includeincluded a rate of return on equity of 10.1 percent, recovery of coal ash costs incurred from January 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016, over a 15-year15‑year period and ongoing deferral of allocated ash basin closure costs from July 1, 2016, until the next base rate case. The settlement also provides that Duke Energy Progress will not seek an increase in rates in South Carolina to occur prior to 2019, with limited exceptions. In December 2016, the PSCSC approved the settlement and issued an approval order.
Western Carolinas Modernization Plan
On November 4, 2015, in response to community feedback, Duke Energy Progress announced a revised Western Carolinas Modernization Plan, with an estimated cost of $1.1 billion. The revised plan includeswhich included retirement of the existing Asheville coal-fired plant, the construction of two 280MW combined-cycle natural gas plants having dual fuel capability, with the option to build a third natural gas simple cycle unit in 2023 based upon the outcome of initiatives to reduce the region's power demand. The revised plan includesalso included upgrades to existing transmission lines and substations, but eliminates the need for a new transmission line and a new substation associated with the project in South Carolina. The revised plan has the same overall project cost as the original plan and the plans to installinstallation of solar generation remain unchanged. Duke Energy Progress has also proposed to addand a pilot battery storage project. These investments will be made within the next seven years. Duke Energy Progress is also working with the local natural gas distribution company to upgrade an existing natural gas pipeline to serve the natural gas plant. The plan requires various approvals including regulatory approvals in North Carolina.
Duke Energy Progress filed for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) with the NCUC for the new natural gas units on January 15, 2016. On March 28, 2016, the NCUC issued an order approving thea CPCN for the new combined-cycle natural gas plants, but denying the CPCN for the contingent simple cycle unit without prejudice to Duke Energy Progress to refile for approval in the future. On March 28, 2017, Duke Energy Progress filed an annual progress report for the construction of the combined-cycle plants with the NCUC, with an estimated cost of $893 million. Site preparation activities for the combined-cycle plants are underway and construction of these plants is scheduled to beginbegan in early 2017. The plants are2017, with an expected to bein-service date in service by late 2019. Duke Energy Progress plans to file for future approvals related to the proposed solar generation and pilot battery storage project.
On May 27, 2016, N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network (NC WARN) and The Climate Times filed a notice of appeal from the CPCN order to the N.C. Court of Appeals. On May 31, 2016, Duke Energy Progress filed a motion to dismiss the notice of appeal with the NCUC due to NC WARN's and The Climate Times' failure to post a required appeal bond. After a series of filings, an NCUC order, petitions to the N.C. Court of Appeals and an evidentiary hearing, on July 8, 2016, the NCUC issued an order setting NC WARN's and The Climate Times' appeal bond at $98 million. On July 28, 2016, NC WARN and The Climate Times filed a notice of appeal and exceptions from the NCUC's July 8, 2016, appeal bond order. On August 2, 2016, the NCUC granted Duke Energy Progress' motion to dismiss NC WARN's and The Climate Times' notice of appeal from the CPCN order due to failure to post the requisite bond. On August 18, 2016, NC WARN and The Climate Times filed a petition with the N.C. Court of Appeals seeking appellate review of the NCUC’s CPCN order, the July 8, 2016, appeal bond order and the August 2, 2016, order dismissing their notice of appeal, which the N.C. Court of Appeals denied on September 6, 2016. On September 19, 2016, the NCUC granted Duke Energy Progress' motion to dismiss NC WARN's and The Climate Times' subsequent appeal of the second bond order dated July 28, 2016, and NC WARN's and The Climate Times' subsequent appeal of the CPCN order and dismissal order dated August 18, 2016. On October 17, 2016, NC WARN and The Climate Times filed another petition for review with the N.C. Court of Appeals asking the court to reverse the CPCN order, the second bond order and the dismissal of their first and second notices of appeal as to the CPCN order. On November 3, 2016, the N.C. Court of Appeals denied NC WARN's and The Climate Times' petition for review. All appeals have been concluded.
The carrying value of the 376 MW376-MW Asheville coal-fired plant, including associated ash basin closure costs, of $492$385 million and $548$492 million are included in Generation facilities to be retired, net on Duke Energy Progress' Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2017, and 2016, and 2015, respectively.

152

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

Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant Expansion
In 2006, Duke Energy Progress selected a site at Harris to evaluate for possible future nuclear expansion. On February 19, 2008, Duke Energy Progress filed its COL application with the NRC for two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors at Harris, which the NRC docketed for review. On May 2, 2013, Duke Energy Progress filed a letter with the NRC requesting the NRC to suspend its review activities associated with the COL at the Harris site. The NCUC and PSCSC have approved deferral for $48 million of retail costs. Total deferred costs whichwere approximately $47 million as of December 31, 2017, and are recorded in Regulatory assets on Duke Energy Progress’ Consolidated Balance Sheets. On November 17, 2016, the FERC approved Duke Energy Progress’ rate recovery request filing for the wholesale ratepayers’ share of the abandonment costs, including a debt only return to be recovered through revised formula rates and amortized over a 15-year period beginning May 1, 2014. As part of the settlement agreement for the 2017 North Carolina Rate Case discussed above, Duke Energy Progress will amortize the regulatory asset over an eight-year period. The settlement is subject to NCUC approval. Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Duke Energy Florida
Regulatory Assets and Liabilities
The following tables present the regulatory assets and liabilities recorded on Duke Energy Florida's Consolidated Balance Sheets.
 December 31, Earns/PaysRecovery/Refund
(in millions)2017
2016
 a ReturnPeriod Ends
Regulatory Assets(a)
     
AROs - coal ash(c)
$9
$8
 X(b)
AROs - nuclear and other(c)
296
294
 X(b)
Accrued pension and OPEB(c)
476
458
 X(h)
Retired generation facilities(c)
216
257
 X(b)
Net regulatory asset related to income taxes(c)

224
 X(d)
Storm cost deferrals(c)
376

 (f)2021
Nuclear asset securitized balance, net1,142
1,193
  2036
Hedge costs deferrals30
25
  2018
DSM/EE(c)
17
15
 X2018
Deferred fuel and purchased power(c)
219
87
 (g)2019
Nuclear deferral
96
   
AMI(c)
75

 X2032
Other36
36
  (b)
Total regulatory assets2,892
2,693
   
Less: current portion389
213
   
Total noncurrent regulatory assets$2,503
$2,480
   
Regulatory Liabilities(a)
     
Costs of removal(c)
$415
$358
 (e)(b)
Net regulatory liability related to income taxes(c)
948

  (b)
Storm reserve(c)

60
   
Deferred fuel and purchased power(c)

17
 (g) 
Other18
44
  (b)
Total regulatory liabilities1,381
479
   
Less: current portion74
31
   
Total noncurrent regulatory liabilities$1,307
$448
   
(a)Regulatory assets and liabilities are excluded from rate base unless otherwise noted.
(b)The expected recovery or refund period varies or has not been determined.
(c)Included in rate base.
(d)Recovery over the life of the associated assets.
(e)Certain costs earn a return.
(f)Earns a debt return/interest once collections begin.
(g)Earns commercial paper rate.
(h)Recovered primarily over the average remaining service periods or life expectancies of employees covered by the benefit plans. See Note 21 for additional detail.


153

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

Storm Restoration Cost Recovery
In September 2017, Duke Energy Florida’s service territory suffered significant damage from Hurricane Irma, resulting in approximately 1.3 million customers experiencing outages. In the fourth quarter of 2017, Duke Energy Florida also incurred preparation costs related to Hurricane Nate. On December 28, 2017, Duke Energy Florida filed a petition with the FPSC to recover incremental storm restoration costs for Hurricanes Irma and Nate and to replenish the storm reserve. The estimated recovery amount is approximately $513 million to be recovered over a three-year period beginning in March 2018, subject to true up, which includes reestablishment of a $132 million storm reserve. At December 31, 2017, Duke Energy Florida's Consolidated Balance Sheets included approximately $376 million of recoverable costs under the FPSC's storm rule in Regulatory assets within Other Noncurrent Assets related to storm recovery. On February 6, 2018, the FPSC approved Duke Energy Florida's motion to approve a stipulation that would apply tax savings resulting from the Tax Act toward storm costs in lieu of implementing a storm surcharge.
2017 Second Revised and Restated Settlement Agreement
On November 20, 2017, the FPSC issued an order to approve the 2017 Second Revised and Restated Settlement Agreement (2017 Settlement) filed by Duke Energy Florida. The 2017 Settlement replaces and supplants the 2013 Settlement. The 2017 Settlement extends the base rate case stay-out provision from the 2013 Settlement through the end of 2021 unless actual or projected return on equity falls below 9.5 percent; however, Duke Energy Florida is allowed a multiyear increase to its base rates of $67 million per year in 2019, 2020 and 2021, as well as base rate increases for solar generation. In addition to carrying forward the provisions contained in the 2013 Settlement related to the Crystal River 1 and 2 coal units discussed below and future generation needs in Florida, the 2017 Settlement contains provisions related to future investments in solar and renewable energy technology, future investments in AMI technology as well as recovery of existing meters, impacts of the Tax Act, an electric vehicle charging station pilot program and the termination of the proposed Levy Nuclear Project discussed below. As part of the 2017 Settlement, Duke Energy Florida will not move forward with building the Levy nuclear plant and recorded a pretax impairment charge of approximately $135 million in 2017 to write off all unrecovered Levy Nuclear Project costs, including the COL. As a result of the 2017 Settlement, Duke Energy Florida transferred $75 million to a regulatory asset for the net book value of existing meter technology, which will be recovered over a 15-year period.
The 2017 Settlement includes provisions to recover 2017 under-recovered fuel costs of approximately $196 million over a 24-month period beginning in January 2018. On September 1, 2017, Duke Energy Florida submitted Alternate 2018 Fuel and Capacity clause projection filings consistent with the terms of the 2017 Settlement. The updated capacity filing reflects the removal of all Levy costs. The FPSC approved Duke Energy Florida's 2018 Alternate projection filings on October 25, 2017.
Hines Chiller Uprate Project
On May 20, 2016,February 2, 2017, Duke Energy Florida filed a petition seeking approval to include in base rates the revenue requirement for a Chiller Uprate Project (Uprate Project) at the Hines Energy Complex (Hines). Duke Energy Florida proposed to complete theComplex. The Uprate Project was placed into service in two phases: Phase one to include work on Hines units 1-3 and common equipment, to be placed in service during October 2016; and Phase two work on Hines Unit 4 to be placed in service during January 2017. The final combined constructionMarch 2017 at a cost estimate for both phases of approximately $150 million is below the cost estimate provided during the need determination proceeding. Duke Energy Florida estimated anmillion. The annual retail revenue requirement for Phase one and Phase two ofis approximately $17 million and $3 million, respectively.$19 million. On August 29, 2016,March 28, 2017, the FPSC approvedissued an order approving the Phase one revenue requirement, to be effectivewhich was included in customerbase rates in November 2016. However, Duke Energy Florida made filings withfor the FPSC in October 2016 to remove the Uprate Project from customer rates because a portionfirst billing cycle of the common equipment required for either phase to be considered in service was not completed as expected. Duke Energy Florida filed for recovery of the costs associated with the Uprate Project in FebruaryApril 2017. Duke Energy Florida cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Citrus County Combined Cycle Facility
On October 2, 2014, the FPSC granted Duke Energy Florida a Determination of Need for the construction of a 1,640 MW1,640-MW combined-cycle natural gas plant in Citrus County, Florida. On May 5, 2015, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection approved Duke Energy Florida's Site Certification Application. The project has received all required permits and approvals and construction began in October 2015. The facility is expected to be commercially available in 2018 at an estimated cost of $1.5 billion, including AFUDC. The plant will receive natural gas from the Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC (Sabal Trail) pipeline discussed below.
Purchase of Osprey Energy Center
In December 2014, Duke Energy Florida and Osprey Energy Center, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Calpine Corporation (Calpine), entered into an Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement for the purchase of a 599 MW combined-cycle natural gas plant in Auburndale, Florida (Osprey Plant acquisition) for approximately $166 million. On August 2, 2016, Duke Energy Florida filed a petition seeking approval to include in base rates the revenue requirements for the Osprey Plant acquisition to be included in customer bills beginning in February 2017. Duke Energy Florida estimated the retail revenue requirements for the Osprey acquisition to be approximately $48 million. On November 1, 2016, the FPSC approved the petition to include the revenue requirements in base rates. Closing of the acquisition occurred on January 3, 2017.
Duke Energy Florida received a Civil Investigative Demand from the Department of Justice (DOJ) related to alleged violation of the waiting period for the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976.1976 related to the purchase of the Osprey Energy Center, LLC, which was completed in January 2017. The DOJ alleged Duke Energy Florida assumed operational control of the Osprey Plant before the waiting period expiration on February 27, 2015. On January 17, 2017, Duke Energy Florida entered into a stipulation agreement to settle with the DOJ for $600,000 without admission of liability. On January 18, 2017, the DOJ filed a complaint and the stipulation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The stipulation is subject to court approval. Duke Energy recorded a reserveColumbia, which was approved by the court. A final order dismissing the case was entered in the fourth quarter of 2016.
FPSC Settlement Agreements
On February 22, 2012, the FPSC approved a settlement agreement (the 2012 Settlement) among Duke Energy Florida, the Florida OPC and other customer advocates. The 2012 Settlement was to continue through the last billing cycle of December 2016. On October 17, 2013, the FPSC approved a settlement agreement (the 2013 Settlement) between Duke Energy Florida, Florida OPC and other customer advocates. The 2013 Settlement replaces and supplants the 2012 Settlement and substantially resolves issues related to (i) Crystal River Unit 3, (ii) Levy, (iii) Crystal River 1 and 2 coal units and (iv) future generation needs in Florida. Refer to the remaining sections below for further discussion of these settlement agreements.April 2017.
Crystal River Unit 3
In December 2014, the FPSC approved Duke Energy Florida's decision to construct an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) for the retired Crystal River Unit 3 nuclear plant and approved Duke Energy Florida's request to defer amortization of the ISFSI pending resolution of litigation against the federal government as a result of the Department of Energy's breach of its obligation to accept spent nuclear fuel. The return rate is based on the currently approved AFUDC rate with a return on equity of 7.35 percent, or 70 percent of the currently approved 10.5 percent. The return rate is subject to change if the return on equity changes in the future. In September 2016, the FPSC approved an amendment to the 2013 Settlement authorizing recovery of the ISFSI through the Capacity Cost Recovery Clause. Through December 31, 2016,2017, Duke Energy Florida has deferred approximately $93$113 million for recovery associated with building the ISFSI. See Note 5 for additional information on spent nuclear fuel litigation.
The regulatory asset associated with the original Crystal River Unit 3 power uprate project will continue to be recovered through the NCRC over an estimated seven yearsseven-year period that began in 2013 with a remaining uncollected balance of $128$87 million at December 31, 2016.2017.

154

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

Crystal River Unit 3 Regulatory Asset
On May 22, 2015, Duke Energy Florida petitioned the FPSC for approval to include in base rates the revenue requirement for the projected $1.298 billion Crystal River Unit 3 regulatory asset as authorized by the 2013 Revised and Restated Stipulation and Settlement Agreement (2013 Agreement). On September 15, 2015, the FPSC approved Duke Energy Florida's motion for approval of a settlement agreement with intervenors to reduce the value of the projected Crystal River Unit 3 regulatory asset to be recovered to $1.283 billion as of December 31, 2015. An impairment charge of $15 million was recognized in the third quarter of 2015 to adjust the regulatory asset balance.
In June 2015, the governor of Florida signed legislation to allow utilities to issue nuclear asset-recovery bonds to finance the recovery of certain retired nuclear generation assets, with approval of the FPSC. In November 2015, the FPSC issued a financing order approving Duke Energy Florida’s request to issue nuclear asset-recovery bonds to finance its unrecovered regulatory asset related to Crystal River Unit 3 through a wholly owned special purpose entity. Nuclear asset-recovery bonds replace the base rate recovery methodology authorized by the 2013 AgreementSettlement and result in a lower rate impact to customers with a recovery period of approximately 20 years.

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

Pursuant to provisions in Florida Statutes and the FPSC financing order, in 2016, Duke Energy Florida formed Duke Energy Florida Project Finance, LLC (DEFPF), a wholly owned, bankruptcy remote special purpose subsidiary for the purpose of issuing nuclear asset-recovery bonds. In June 2016, DEFPF issued $1,294 million aggregate principal amount of senior secured bonds (nuclear asset-recovery bonds) to finance the recovery of Duke Energy Florida's Crystal River 3 regulatory asset.
In connection with this financing, net proceeds to DEFPF of approximately $1,287 million, after underwriting costs, were used to acquire nuclear asset-recovery property from Duke Energy Florida and to pay transaction related expenses. The nuclear asset-recovery property includes the right to impose, bill, collect and adjust a non-bypassable nuclear asset-recovery charge, to be collected on a per kilowatt-hour basis, from all Duke Energy Florida retail customers until the bonds are paid in full. Duke Energy Florida began collecting the nuclear asset-recovery charge on behalf of DEFPF in customer rates in July 2016.
See Notes 6 andNote 17 for additional information.
Customer Rate Matters
Pursuant to the 2013 Settlement, Duke Energy Florida will maintain base rates at the current level through the last billing period of 2018, subject to the return on equity range of 9.5 percent to 11.5 percent, with exceptions for base rate increases for new generation through 2018, per the provisions of the 2013 Settlement. Duke Energy Florida is not required to file a depreciation study, fossil dismantlement study or nuclear decommissioning study until the earlier of the next rate case filing or March 31, 2019. The 2013 Settlement also provided for a $150 million increase in base revenue effective with the first billing cycle of January 2013. If Duke Energy Florida’s retail base rate earnings fall below the return on equity range, as reported on a FPSC-adjusted or pro forma basis on a monthly earnings surveillance report, it may petition the FPSC to amend its base rates during the term of the 2013 Settlement.
Levy Nuclear Project
On July 28, 2008, Duke Energy Florida applied to the NRC for a COLCOLs for two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors at Levy.Levy (Levy Nuclear Project). In 2008, the FPSC granted Duke Energy Florida’s petition for an affirmative Determination of Need and related orders requesting cost recovery under Florida’s nuclear cost-recovery rule, together with the associated facilities, including transmission lines and substation facilities. In October 2016, the NRC issued COLs for the proposed Levy Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2. Duke Energy Florida is not required to build the nuclear reactors as a result of the COLs being issued.
On January 28, 2014, Duke Energy Florida terminated the Levy engineering, procurement and construction agreement (EPC). Duke Energy Florida may be required to pay for work performed under the EPC 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.EPC. Duke Energy Florida recorded an exit obligation in 2014 for the termination of the EPC. This liability was recorded within Other in Deferred Credits and Other Noncurrent 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 On May 1, 2017, Duke Energy Florida include the allocated wholesale cost of Levy asfiled a retail regulatory asset and include this asset as a component of rate base and amortization expense for regulatory reporting. In accordancerequest with the 2013 Settlement, Duke Energy Florida ceased amortization of the wholesale allocation of Levy investments against retail rates.
On October 27, 2014, the FPSC approved Duke Energy Florida rates for 2015 for Levy as filed and consistent with those established in the 2013 Revised and Restated Settlement Agreement. Recovery of the remaining retail portion of the project costs may occur over 5 years from 2013 through 2017. Duke Energy Florida has an ongoing responsibility to demonstrate prudency related to the wind down of the Levy investment and the potential for salvage of Levy assets. As of December 31, 2016, Duke Energy Florida has a net uncollected investment in Levy ofrecover approximately $219$82 million including AFUDC. Of this amount, $119 million related to land and the COL is included in Net, property, plant and equipment and will be recovered through base rates and $100 million is included in Regulatory assets within Regulatory Assets and Deferred Debits on the Consolidated Balance Sheets and will be recovered through the NCRC.
On April 16, 2015, the FPSC approved Duke Energy Florida’s petition to cease collection of the Levy Nuclear Project fixed charge beginning with the first billing cycle in May 2015. On August 18, 2015, the FPSC approved leaving the Levy Nuclear Project portion of the NCRC charge at zero dollars for 2016 and 2017, consistent with the 2013 Settlement. Duke Energy Florida will submit by May 2017 a true-up of Levy Nuclear Project costs or credits to be recovered no earlier than Januaryfrom retail customers in 2018. ToAs part of the extent costs become known after May 2017 Settlement discussed above, Duke Energy Florida will petition foris no longer seeking recovery at that time.of costs related to the Levy Nuclear Project and the ongoing Westinghouse litigation discussed in Note 5. All remaining Levy Nuclear Project issues have been resolved.
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 likelyare expected to be retired by the end of 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.

155

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

Duke Energy Ohio
Regulatory Assets and Liabilities
The following tables present the regulatory assets and liabilities recorded on Duke Energy Ohio's Consolidated Balance Sheets.
 December 31, Earns/PaysRecovery/Refund
(in millions)2017
2016
 a ReturnPeriod Ends
Regulatory Assets(a)
     
AROs - coal ash$17
$12
 X(b)
Accrued pension and OPEB139
135
  (g)
Net regulatory asset related to income taxes(c)

63
  (d)
Storm cost deferrals5
5
  (b)
Hedge costs deferrals6
7
  (b)
DSM/EE18
6
 (f)(e)
Grid modernization39
65
 X(e)
Vacation accrual5
4
  2018
Deferred fuel and purchased power
5
   
PISCC and deferred operating expenses(c)
19
20
 X2083
Transmission expansion obligation50
71
  (e)
MGP91
99
  (b)
AMI6

  (b)
East Bend deferrals45
32
 X(b)
Deferred pipeline integrity costs12
7
 X(b)
Other42
26
  (b)
Total regulatory assets494
557
   
Less: current portion49
37
   
Total noncurrent regulatory assets$445
$520
   
Regulatory Liabilities(a)
     
Costs of removal$189
$212
  (d)
Net regulatory liability related to income taxes688

  (b)
Accrued pension and OPEB16
19
  (g)
Deferred fuel and purchased power
6
   
Other34
20
  (b)
Total regulatory liabilities927
257
   
Less: current portion36
21
   
Total noncurrent regulatory liabilities$891
$236
   
(a)Regulatory assets and liabilities are excluded from rate base unless otherwise noted.
(b)The expected recovery or refund period varies or has not been determined.
(c)Included in rate base.
(d)Recovery over the life of the associated assets.
(e)Recovered via a rider mechanism.
(f)Includes incentives on DSM/EE investments.
(g)Recovered primarily over the average remaining service periods or life expectancies of employees covered by the benefit plans. See Note 21 for additional detail.
Duke Energy Kentucky Rate Case
On September 1, 2017, Duke Energy Kentucky filed a rate case with the KPSC requesting an increase in electric base rates of approximately $49 million, which represents an approximate 15 percent increase on the average customer bill. The rate increase is driven by increased investment in utility plant, increased operations and maintenance expenses and recovery of regulatory assets. The application also includes implementation of the Environmental Surcharge Mechanism to recover environmental costs not included in base rates, requests to establish a Distribution Capital Investment Rider to recover incremental costs of specific programs, requests to establish a FERC Transmission Cost Reconciliation Rider to recover escalating transmission costs and modification to the Profit Sharing Mechanism to increase customers' share of proceeds from the benefits of owning generation and to mitigate shareholder risks associated with that generation. An evidentiary hearing is scheduled to begin on March 6, 2018.Duke Energy Kentucky anticipates that rates will go into effect in mid-April 2018. Duke Energy Kentucky cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

156

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

2017 Electric Security Plan
On June 1, 2017, Duke Energy Ohio filed with the PUCO a request for a standard service offer in the form of an electric security plan (ESP). If approved by the PUCO, the term of the ESP would be from June 1, 2018, to May 31, 2024. Terms of the ESP include continuation of market-based customer rates through competitive procurement processes for generation, continuation and expansion of existing rider mechanisms and proposed new rider mechanisms relating to regulatory mandates, costs incurred to enhance the customer experience and transform the grid and a service reliability rider for vegetation management. On February 15, 2018, the procedural schedule was suspended to facilitate ongoing settlement discussions. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Woodsdale Station Fuel System Filing
On June 9, 2015, the FERC ruled in favor of PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM) on a revised Tariff and Reliability Assurance Agreement including implementation of a Capacity Performance (CP) proposal and to amend sections of the Operating Agreement related to generation non-performance. The CP proposal includes performance-based penalties for non-compliance. Duke Energy Kentucky is a Fixed Resource Requirement (FRR) entity, and therefore is subject to the compliance standards through its FRR plans. A partial CP obligation will apply to Duke Energy Kentucky in the delivery year beginning June 1, 2019, with full compliance beginning June 1, 2020. Duke Energy Kentucky has developed strategies for CP compliance investments. On December 21, 2017, the KPSC issued an order approving Duke Energy Kentucky's request for a CPCN to construct an ultra-low sulfur diesel backup fuel system for the Woodsdale Station. The backup fuel system is projected to cost approximately $55 million and is anticipated to be in service prior to the CP compliance deadline of April 2019.
Ohio Valley Electric Corporation
On March 31, 2017, Duke Energy Ohio filed for approval to adjust its existing price stabilization rider (Rider PSR), which is currently set at zero dollars, to pass through net costs related to its contractual entitlement to capacity and energy from the generating assets owned by OVEC. The filing seeks to adjust Rider PSR for OVEC costs subsequent to April 1, 2017. Duke Energy Ohio is seeking deferral authority for net costs incurred from April 1, 2017, until the new rates under Rider PSR are put into effect. Various intervenors have filed motions to dismiss or stay the proceeding and Duke Energy Ohio has opposed these filings. See Note 13 for additional discussion of Duke Energy Ohio's ownership interest in OVEC. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
East Bend Coal Ash Basin Filing
On December 2, 2016, Duke Energy Kentucky filed with the KPSC a request for a CPCN for construction projects necessary to close and repurpose an ash basin at the East Bend necessitated byfacility as a result of current and proposed EPA regulations. Duke Energy Kentucky is targeting a completion date in fourth quarter 2018 for these projects and estimatesestimated a total cost of approximately $93 million. Duke Energy Kentucky has requested an order to be issuedmillion in the filing and expects in-service date by April 30, 2017.the first quarter of 2021. On June 6, 2017, the KPSC approved the CPCN request.

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

Electric Base Rate Case
In connection with Duke Energy Ohio’s deployment of SmartGrid network, consisting of investments in AMI and distribution automation, a rider was established to recover these investments and return expected savings to customers. A stipulation updating this rider was approved by the PUCO in 2012, whereby Duke Energy Ohio committed to filing a base electric distribution case within one year of full deployment of SmartGrid. On October 22, 2015, PUCO staff concluded that full deployment had occurred thereby, absent relief byfiled with the PUCO Duke Energy Ohio would be required to file a base electric rate case. Pursuant to an order (PUCO order) authorizing a modification in the filing date, Duke Energy Ohio notified the PUCO of its intent to file an electric distribution rate case in Ohio. The base rate case application and supporting testimony in March 2017. Duke Energy Ohio requested an estimated annual increase of approximately $15 million and a return on equity of 10.4 percent. The application also includes requests to continue certain current riders and establish new riders. On September 26, 2017, the PUCO staff filed a report recommending a revenue decrease between approximately $18 million and $29 million and a return on equity between 9.22 percent and 10.24 percent. On February 15, 2018, the procedural schedule was suspended to facilitate ongoing settlement discussions. Duke Energy Ohio expects rates will be filed March 2, 2017, and March 16, 2017, respectively.go into effect the second quarter of 2018. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Natural Gas Pipeline ExtensionDuke Energy Indiana
Duke Energy Indiana must limit cumulative distributions subsequent to the merger between Duke Energy and Cinergy to (i) the amount of retained earnings on the day prior to the closing of the merger, plus (ii) any future earnings recorded. In addition, Duke Energy Indiana will not declare and pay dividends out of capital or unearned surplus without prior authorization of the IURC.
Piedmont
Piedmont must limit cumulative distributions subsequent to the acquisition of Piedmont by Duke Energy to (i) the amount of retained earnings on the day prior to the closing of the merger, plus (ii) any future earnings recorded.
RATE RELATED INFORMATION
The NCUC, PSCSC, FPSC, IURC, PUCO, TPUC and KPSC approve rates for retail electric and natural gas services within their states. The FERC approves rates for electric sales to wholesale customers served under cost-based rates (excluding Ohio is proposing to install aand Indiana), as well as sales of transmission service. The FERC also regulates certification and siting of new interstate natural gas pipeline in its Ohio service territory to increase system reliability and enable the retirement of older infrastructure. The proposed project involves the installation of a natural gas line and is estimated to cost between $86 million and $110 million, excluding AFUDC. On September 13, 2016, Duke Energy Ohio filed with the Ohio Power Siting Board for approval of one of two proposed routes. If approved, construction of the pipeline extension is expected to be completed by 2019.projects.
Advanced Metering Infrastructure
On April 25, 2016, Duke Energy Kentucky filed with the KPSC an application for approval of a CPCN for the construction of AMI. Duke Energy Kentucky anticipates that the estimated $49 million project, if approved, will take about two years to complete. Duke Energy Kentucky also requested approval to establish a regulatory asset of approximately $10 million for the remaining book value of existing meter equipment and inventory that will be replaced. On July 20, 2016, the Kentucky Attorney General, the only intervenor in the proceeding, moved to dismiss the application. Duke Energy Kentucky filed its opposition to the Kentucky Attorney General's motion to dismiss on July 27, 2016. On September 28, 2016, the KPSC denied the Kentucky Attorney General's motion to dismiss and granted Duke Energy Kentucky's motion to file rebuttal testimony. Duke Energy Kentucky and the Kentucky Attorney General entered into a stipulation resolving the matters raised in the application. An evidentiary hearing was held on December 8, 2016. Duke Energy Kentucky cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Accelerated Natural Gas Service Line Replacement Rider
On January 20, 2015, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application for approval of an accelerated natural gas service line replacement program (ASRP). Under the ASRP, Duke Energy Ohio proposed to replace certain natural gas service lines on an accelerated basis over a 10-year period. Duke Energy Ohio also proposed to complete preliminary survey and investigation work related to natural gas service lines that are customer owned and for which it does not have valid records and, further, to relocate interior natural gas meters to suitable exterior locations where such relocation can be accomplished. Duke Energy Ohio's current projected total capital and operations and maintenance expenditures under the ASRP are approximately $240 million. The filing also sought approval of Rider ASRP to recover related expenditures. Duke Energy Ohio proposed to update Rider ASRP on an annual basis. Intervenors opposed the ASRP, primarily because they believe the program is neither required nor necessary under federal pipeline regulation. On October 26, 2016, the PUCO issued an order denying the proposed ASRP. The PUCO did, however, encourage Duke Energy Ohio to work with the PUCO Staff and intervenors to identify a reasonable solution for the risks attributed to service line leaks caused by corrosion. Duke Energy Ohio filed an application for rehearing of the PUCO decision. In December 2016, the PUCO granted the request for the purpose of further review. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Energy Efficiency Cost Recovery
On March 28, 2014, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application for recovery of program costs, lost distribution revenue and performance incentives related to its energy efficiency and peak demand reduction programs. These programs are undertaken to comply with environmental mandates set forth in Ohio law. After a comment period, the PUCO approved Duke Energy Ohio’s application, but found that Duke Energy Ohio was not permitted to use banked energy savings from previous years in order to calculate the amount of allowed incentive. This conclusion represented a change to the cost recovery mechanism that had been agreed to by intervenors and approved by the PUCO in previous cases. The PUCO granted the applications for rehearing filed by Duke Energy Ohio and an intervenor on July 8, 2015. On January 6, 2016, Duke Energy Ohio and PUCO Staff entered into a stipulation pending PUCO approval, resolving the issues related to, among other things, performance incentives and the PUCO Staff audit of 2013 costs. Based on the stipulation, in December 2015, Duke Energy Ohio re-established approximately $20 million of the revenues that had been reversed in the second quarter. On October 26, 2016, the PUCO issued an order approving the stipulation without modification. Intervenors requested rehearing of the PUCO decision and, in December 2016, the PUCO granted rehearing for the purpose of further review. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
2014 Electric Security Plan
In April 2015, the PUCO modified and approved Duke Energy Ohio's proposed electric security plan (ESP), with a three-year term and an effective date of June 1, 2015. The PUCO approved a competitive procurement process for SSO load, a distribution capital investment rider and a tracking mechanism for incremental distribution expenses caused by major storms. The PUCO also approved a placeholder tariff for a price stabilization rider, but denied Duke Energy Ohio's specific request to include Duke Energy Ohio's entitlement to generation from OVEC in the rider at this time; however, the order allows Duke Energy Ohio to submit additional information to request recovery in the future. On May 4, 2015, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application for rehearing requesting the PUCO to modify or amend certain aspects of the order. On May 28, 2015, the PUCO granted all applications for rehearing filed in the case for future consideration. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of the appeals in this matter.
During May and November 2016, Duke Energy Ohio completed two competitive bidding processes with results approved by the PUCO to procure a portion of the supply for its SSO load for the term of the ESP. In 2016, Duke Energy Ohio also issued requests for proposal (RFP) to serve a portion of the load attributed to its customers on the state’s percentage of income payment plan. This RFP was issued consistent with state law enacted in 2016.

148

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

2012 Natural Gas Rate Case/Manufactured Gas Plant Cost RecoveryAll Registrants
Tax Act Impacts
On November 13, 2013,December 22, 2017, President Trump signed the PUCO issued an order approvingTax Act into law, which, among other provisions, reduces the maximum federal corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, effective January 1, 2018. As a settlementresult of Duke Energy Ohio’s natural gas base rate casethe Tax Act, the Subsidiary Registrants revalued their deferred tax assets and authorizing the recovery of costs incurred between 2008 and 2012 for environmental investigation and remediation of two former MGP sites. The PUCO order also authorized Duke Energy Ohio to continue deferring MGP environmental investigation and remediation costs incurred subsequent to 2012 and to submit annual filings to adjust the MGP rider for future costs. Intervening parties appealed this decision to the Ohio Supreme Court and that appeal remains pending. Oral argument is scheduled for February 28, 2017. Incurred and projected investigation and remediation expenses at these MGP sites that have not been collected through the MGP rider are approximately $99 million and are recorded as Regulatory assets on Duke Energy Ohio's Consolidated Balance Sheetdeferred tax liabilities, as of December 31, 2016. 2017, to account for the future impact of lower corporate tax rates on these deferred tax amounts. For the Subsidiary Registrants regulated operations, where the reduction is expected to be accounted for and applied to customers’ rates in future commission proceedings, including rate proceedings, the net remeasurement has been deferred as a regulatory liability. Each of the Subsidiary Registrant's regulatory commissions is reviewing the Tax Act to determine the potential impacts on customer rates. Beginning in January 2018, the Subsidiary Registrants will defer the estimated ongoing impacts of the Tax Act that are expected to be returned to customers. See Note 22 for additional information.
Duke Energy OhioCarolinas and Duke Energy Progress
Ash Basin Closure Costs Deferral
On December 30, 2016, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a joint petition with the NCUC seeking an accounting order authorizing deferral of certain costs incurred in connection with federal and state environmental remediation requirements related to the permanent closure of ash basins and other ash storage units at coal-fired generating facilities that have provided or are providing generation to customers located in North Carolina. Initial comments were received in March 2017, and reply comments were filed on April 19, 2017. The NCUC has consolidated Duke Energy Carolinas' and Duke Energy Progress’ coal ash deferral requests into their respective general rate case dockets for decision. See "2017 North Carolina Rate Case" sections below for additional discussion. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
The PUCO order also contained deadlines for completing the MGP environmental investigation and remediation costs at the MGP sites. For the property known as the East End site, the PUCO order established a deadline of December 31, 2016. The PUCO order authorized Duke Energy Ohio to seek to extend these deadlines due to certain circumstances. On May 16, 2016, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application to extend the deadline for cost recovery applicable to the East End site. In December 2016, the PUCO approved the request, extending the deadline to complete the remediation work until December 31, 2019. In January 2017, intervening parties filed for rehearing of the PUCO's decision. On February 8, 2017, the PUCO denied the rehearing request. As of December 31, 2016, $46 million of the regulatory asset represents future remediation cost expected to be incurred at the East End site. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter.Carolinas
Regional Transmission Organization Realignment
Duke Energy Ohio, including Duke Energy Kentucky, transferred control of its transmission assets from MISO to PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM), effective December 31, 2011. The PUCO approved a settlement related to Duke Energy Ohio’s recovery of certain costs of the Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) realignment via a non-bypassable rider. Duke Energy Ohio is allowed to recover all MISO Transmission Expansion Planning (MTEP) costs, including but not limited to Multi Value Project (MVP) costs, directly or indirectly charged to Ohio customers. Duke Energy Ohio also agreed to vigorously defend against any charges for MVP projects from MISO. The KPSC also approved a request to effect the RTO realignment, subject to a commitment not to seek double recovery in a future rate case of the transmission expansion fees that may be charged by MISORegulatory Assets and PJM in the same period or overlapping periods.Liabilities
The following table provides a reconciliation oftables present the beginningregulatory assets and ending balance of Duke Energy Ohio’sliabilities recorded liability for its exit obligation and share of MTEP costs, excluding MVP, recorded within Other in Current liabilities and Other in Deferred credits and other liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. The retail portions of MTEP costs billed by MISO are recovered by Duke Energy Ohio through a non-bypassable rider. As of December 31, 2016 and 2015, $71 million and $72 million are recorded in Regulatory assets on Duke Energy Ohio'sCarolinas' Consolidated Balance Sheets, respectively.Sheets.
  Provisions/
 Cash
  December 31, Earns/PaysRecovery/Refund
(in millions)December 31, 2015
 Adjustments
 Reductions
 December 31, 2016
2017
2016
 a ReturnPeriod Ends
Duke Energy Ohio$92
 $3
 $(5) $90
Regulatory Assets(a)
  
AROs - coal ash$1,645
$1,536
 (i)(b)
AROs - nuclear and other
9
 
Accrued pension and OPEB410
481
 (j)
Retired generation facilities(c)
29
39
 X2023
Net regulatory asset related to income taxes(d)

484
 
Hedge costs deferrals(c)
109
93
 X2041
DSM/EE210
122
 (h)
Vacation accrual83
76
 (e)2018
Deferred fuel and purchased power140

 (f)2018
Nuclear deferral84
92
 2019
PISCC(c)
35
70
 X(b)
AMI185
172
 X(b)
Other222
223
 (b)
Total regulatory assets3,152
3,397
 
Less: current portion299
238
 
Total noncurrent regulatory assets$2,853
$3,159
 
Regulatory Liabilities(a)
  
Costs of removal(c)
$2,054
$2,015
 X(g)
ARO - nuclear and other806
461
 (b)
Net regulatory liability related to income taxes(d)
3,028

 (b)
Storm reserve(c)
20
22
 (b)
Accrued pension and OPEB44
46
 (j)
Deferred fuel and purchased power46
105
 (f)2018
Other359
352
 (b)
Total regulatory liabilities6,357
3,001
 
Less: current portion126
161
 
Total noncurrent regulatory liabilities$6,231
$2,840
 
MVP. MISO approved 17 MVP proposals prior to Duke Energy Ohio’s exit from MISO on December 31, 2011. Construction of these projects is expected to continue through 2020. Costs of these projects, including operating and maintenance costs, property and income taxes, depreciation and an allowed return, are allocated and billed to MISO transmission owners.
On December 29, 2011, MISO filed a tariff with the FERC providing for the allocation of MVP costs to a withdrawing owner based on monthly energy usage. The FERC set for hearing (i) whether MISO’s proposed cost allocation methodology to transmission owners who withdrew from MISO prior to January 1, 2012, is consistent with the tariff at the time of their withdrawal from MISO and, (ii) if not, what the amount of and methodology for calculating any MVP cost responsibility should be. In 2012, MISO estimated Duke Energy Ohio’s MVP obligation over the period from 2012 to 2071 at $2.7 billion, on an undiscounted basis. On July 16, 2013, a FERC Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an initial decision. Under this initial decision, Duke Energy Ohio would be liable for MVP costs. Duke Energy Ohio filed exceptions to the initial decision, requesting FERC to overturn the ALJ’s decision.
On October 29, 2015, the FERC issued an order reversing the ALJ's decision. The FERC ruled the cost allocation methodology is not consistent with the MISO tariff and that Duke Energy Ohio has no liability for MVP costs after its withdrawal from MISO. On May 19, 2016, the FERC denied the request for rehearing filed by MISO and the MISO Transmission Owners. On July 15, 2016, the MISO Transmission Owners filed a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

149

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

(a)Regulatory assets and liabilities are excluded from rate base unless otherwise noted.
(b)The expected recovery or refund period varies or has not been determined.
(c)Included in rate base.
(d)Includes regulatory liabilities related to the change in the North Carolina tax rate discussed in Note 22.
(e)Earns a return on outstanding balance in North Carolina.
(f)Pays interest on over-recovered costs in North Carolina. Includes certain purchased power costs in North Carolina and South Carolina and costs of distributed energy in South Carolina.
(g)Recovered over the life of the associated assets.
(h)Includes incentives on DSM/EE investments and is recovered through an annual rider mechanism.
(i)Earns a debt return on coal ash expenditures for North Carolina and South Carolina retail customers.
(j)Recovered primarily over the average remaining service periods or life expectancies of employees covered by the benefit plans. See Note 21 for additional detail.
2017 North Carolina Rate Case
On August 25, 2017, Duke Energy Carolinas filed an application with the NCUC for a rate increase for retail customers of approximately $647 million, which represents an approximate 13.6 percent increase in annual base revenues. The rate increase is driven by capital investments subsequent to the previous base rate case, including grid improvement projects, AMI, investments in customer service technologies, costs of complying with coal combustion residuals (CCR) regulations and the North Carolina Coal Ash Management Act of 2014 (Coal Ash Act) and recovery of costs related to licensing and development of the William States Lee III Nuclear Station (Lee Nuclear Station) discussed below. On January 23, 2018, the North Carolina Public Staff filed testimony recommending an overall rate decrease of approximately $290 million. An evidentiary hearing is scheduled to begin on February 27, 2018, and a decision and revised customer rates are expected by mid-2018. Duke Energy Carolinas cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
FERC Formula Rate Matter
On July 31, 2017, Piedmont Municipal Power Agency (PMPA) filed a complaint with FERC against Duke Energy Carolinas alleging that Duke Energy Carolinas misapplied the formula rate under the purchase power agreement (PPA) between the parties by including regulatory amortization in its rates without FERC approval. Duke Energy Carolinas disagreed with PMPA as it believed it was properly applying its FERC filed rate. On February 15, 2018, FERC issued an order ruling in favor of PMPA and ordered Duke Energy Carolinas to refund to PMPA all amounts improperly collected under the PPA. Resolution of this matter is not expected to be material.
Lincoln County Combustion Turbine
On December 7, 2017, the NCUC issued an order approving a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) for Duke Energy Carolinas' proposed 402-megawatt (MW) simple cycle, advanced combustion turbine natural gas-fueled electric generating unit at its existing Lincoln County site. The CPCN also includes construction of related transmission and natural gas pipeline interconnection facilities. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2018 with an extended commissioning and validation period from 2020-2024 and an estimated commercial operation date in 2024. As a condition of the approval, Duke Energy Carolinas will not seek recovery of costs associated with the project until it is placed into commercial operation.
Advanced Metering Infrastructure Deferral
On July 12, 2016, the PSCSC issued an accounting order for Duke Energy Carolinas to defer the financial effects of depreciation expense incurred for the installation of AMI meters, the carrying costs on the investment at its weighted average cost of capital (WACC) and the carrying costs on the deferred costs at its WACC not to exceed $45 million. The decision also allows Duke Energy Carolinas to continue to depreciate the non-AMI meters to be replaced. Current retail rates will not change as a result of the decision and the ability of interested parties to challenge the reasonableness of expenditures in subsequent proceedings is not limited.
William States Lee Combined Cycle Facility
On April 9, 2014, the PSCSC granted Duke Energy Carolinas and North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation (NCEMC) a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Convenience and Necessity (CECPCN) for the construction and operation of a 750-MW combined-cycle natural gas-fired generating plant at Duke Energy Carolinas' existing William States Lee Generating Station in Anderson, South Carolina. Duke Energy Carolinas began construction in July 2015 and estimates a cost to build of $600 million for its share of the facility, including allowance for funds used during construction (AFUDC). The project is expected to be commercially available in the first quarter of 2018. NCEMC will own approximately 13 percent of the project. On July 3, 2014, the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League (SCCL) and Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) jointly filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeals of South Carolina (S.C. Court of Appeals) seeking the court's review of the PSCSC's decision, claiming the PSCSC did not properly consider a request related to a proposed solar facility prior to granting approval of the CECPCN. The S.C. Court of Appeals affirmed the PSCSC's decision on February 10, 2016, and on March 24, 2016, denied a request for rehearing filed by SCCL and SACE. On April 21, 2016, SCCL and SACE petitioned the South Carolina Supreme Court for review of the S.C. Court of Appeals decision. On March 24, 2017, the South Carolina Supreme Court denied the request for review, thus concluding the matter.
Lee Nuclear Station
In December 2007, Duke Energy Carolinas applied to the NRC for combined operating licenses (COLs) for two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors for the proposed William States Lee III Nuclear Station to be located at a site in Cherokee County, South Carolina. The NCUC and PSCSC concurred with the prudency of Duke Energy Carolinas incurring certain project development and preconstruction costs through several separately issued orders, although full cost recovery is not guaranteed. In December 2016, the NRC issued a COL for each reactor. Duke Energy Carolinas is not required to build the nuclear reactors as result of the COLs being issued.

150

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

On March 29, 2017, Westinghouse filed for voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. As part of its 2017 North Carolina Rate Case discussed above, Duke Energy Carolinas is seeking NCUC approval to cancel the development of the Lee Nuclear Station project due to the Westinghouse bankruptcy filing and other market activity and is requesting recovery of incurred licensing and development costs. Duke Energy Carolinas will maintain the license issued by the NRC in December 2016 as an option for potential future development. As of December 31, 2017, Duke Energy Carolinas has incurred approximately $558 million of costs, including AFUDC, related to the project. These project costs are included in Net property, plant and equipment on Duke Energy Carolinas’ Consolidated Balance Sheets. Duke Energy Carolinas cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Duke Energy Progress
Regulatory Assets and Liabilities
The following tables present the regulatory assets and liabilities recorded on Duke Energy Progress' Consolidated Balance Sheets.
 December 31, Earns/PaysRecovery/Refund
(in millions)2017
2016
 a ReturnPeriod Ends
Regulatory Assets(a)
     
AROs - coal ash$1,975
$1,822
 (i)(b)
AROs - nuclear and other359
275
  (c)
Accrued pension and OPEB430
423
  (l)
Retired generation facilities170
165
 X2023
Net regulatory asset related to income taxes
7
  (d)
Storm cost deferrals(e)
150
148
 X(b)
Hedge costs deferrals64
66
  (b)
DSM/EE(f)
264
263
 (j)2018
Vacation accrual42
38
  2018
Deferred fuel and purchased power130
24
 (g)2018
Nuclear deferral35
38
  2019
PISCC and deferred operating expenses38
42
 X2054
AMI75

  (b)
NCEMPA deferrals53
51
 (h)2042
Other74
69
  (b)
Total regulatory assets3,859
3,431
   
Less: current portion352
188
   
Total noncurrent regulatory assets$3,507
$3,243
   
Regulatory Liabilities(a)
     
Costs of removal$2,122
$1,840
 X(k)
Net regulatory liability related to income taxes1,854

  (b)
Deferred fuel and purchased power1
64
 (g)2018
Other161
200
  (b)
Total regulatory liabilities4,138
2,104
   
Less: current portion139
158
   
Total noncurrent regulatory liabilities$3,999
$1,946
   
(a)Regulatory assets and liabilities are excluded from rate base unless otherwise noted.
(b)The expected recovery or refund period varies or has not been determined.
(c)Recovery period for costs related to nuclear facilities runs through the decommissioning period of each unit.
(d)Recovery over the life of the associated assets. Includes regulatory liabilities related to the change in the North Carolina tax rate discussed in Note 22.
(e)South Carolina storm costs are included in rate base.
(f)Included in rate base.
(g)Pays interest on over-recovered costs in North Carolina. Includes certain purchased power costs in North Carolina and South Carolina and costs of distributed energy in South Carolina.
(h)South Carolina retail allocated costs are earning a return.
(i)Earns a debt return on coal ash expenditures for North Carolina and South Carolina retail customers.
(j)Includes incentives on DSM/EE investments.
(k)Recovered over the life of the associated assets.
(l)Recovered primarily over the average remaining service periods or life expectancies of employees covered by the benefit plans. See Note 21 for additional detail.

151

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

2017 North Carolina Rate Case
On June 1, 2017, Duke Energy Progress filed an application with the NCUC for a rate increase for retail customers of approximately $477 million, which represented an approximate 14.9 percent increase in annual base revenues. Subsequent to the filing, Duke Energy Progress adjusted the requested amount to $420 million, representing an approximate 13 percent increase. The rate increase is driven by capital investments subsequent to the previous base rate case, costs of complying with CCR regulations and the Coal Ash Act, costs relating to storm recovery, investments in customer service technologies and recovery of costs associated with renewable purchased power. On November 22, 2017, Duke Energy Progress and the North Carolina Public Staff filed an Agreement and Stipulation of Partial Settlement resolving certain portions of the proceeding, pending NCUC approval. Terms of the settlement include a return on equity of 9.9 percent and a capital structure of 52 percent equity and 48 percent debt. As a result of the settlement, in 2017 Duke Energy Progress recorded pretax charges totaling approximately $25 million to Impairment charges and Operation, maintenance and other on the Consolidated Income Statements, principally related to disallowances from rate base of certain projects at the Mayo and Sutton plants. The settlement does not include agreement on portions of the rate case relating to recovery of deferred storm recovery costs and coal ash basin deferred costs, which will be decided by the NCUC separately. Taking into consideration the settled portions and Duke Energy Progress’ requested recovery of the non-settled portions, the requested rate increase is reduced to approximately $300 million. An evidentiary hearing ended December 7, 2017, and a decision and revised customer rates are expected in the first quarter of 2018. Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Storm Cost Deferral Filings
On December 16, 2016, Duke Energy Progress filed a petition with the NCUC requesting an accounting order to defer certain costs incurred in connection with response to Hurricane Matthew and other significant storms in 2016. The final estimate of incremental operation and maintenance and capital costs of $116 million was filed with the NCUC in September 2017. On March 15, 2017, the NCUC Public Staff filed comments supporting deferral of a portion of Duke Energy Progress’ requested amount. Duke Energy Progress filed reply comments on April 12, 2017. On July 10, 2017, the NCUC consolidated Duke Energy Progress' storm deferral request into the Duke Energy Progress rate case docket for decision. See "2017 North Carolina Rate Case" for additional discussion. As of December 31, 2017, Duke Energy Progress has approximately $77 million included in Regulatory assets on its Consolidated Balance Sheets. Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
On December 16, 2016, Duke Energy Progress filed a petition with the PSCSC requesting an accounting order to defer certain costs incurred related to repairs and restoration of service following Hurricane Matthew. The final estimate of incremental operation and maintenance and capital costs was approximately $74 million. In January 2017, the PSCSC approved the deferral request and issued an accounting order. As of December 31, 2017, Duke Energy Progress has approximately $73 million included in Regulatory assets on its Consolidated Balance Sheets.
South Carolina Rate Case
In December 2016, the PSCSC approved a rate case settlement agreement among the ORS (Office of Regulatory Staff), intervenors and Duke Energy Progress. Terms of the settlement agreement included an approximate $56 million increase in revenues over a two-year period. An increase of approximately $38 million in revenues was effective January 1, 2017, and an additional increase of approximately $18.5 million in revenues was effective January 1, 2018. Duke Energy Progress amortized approximately $18.5 million from the cost of removal reserve in 2017. Other settlement terms included a rate of return on equity of 10.1 percent, recovery of coal ash costs incurred from January 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016, over a 15‑year period and ongoing deferral of allocated ash basin closure costs from July 1, 2016, until the next base rate case. The settlement also provides that Duke Energy Progress will not seek an increase in rates in South Carolina to occur prior to 2019, with limited exceptions.
Western Carolinas Modernization Plan
On November 4, 2015, Duke Energy Progress announced a Western Carolinas Modernization Plan, which included retirement of the existing Asheville coal-fired plant, the construction of two 280MW combined-cycle natural gas plants having dual fuel capability, with the option to build a third natural gas simple cycle unit in 2023 based upon the outcome of initiatives to reduce the region's power demand. The plan also included upgrades to existing transmission lines and substations, installation of solar generation and a pilot battery storage project. These investments will be made within the next seven years. Duke Energy Progress is also working with the local natural gas distribution company to upgrade an existing natural gas pipeline to serve the natural gas plant.
On March 28, 2016, the NCUC issued an order approving a CPCN for the new combined-cycle natural gas plants, but denying the CPCN for the contingent simple cycle unit without prejudice to Duke Energy Progress to refile for approval in the future. On March 28, 2017, Duke Energy Progress filed an annual progress report for the construction of the combined-cycle plants with the NCUC, with an estimated cost of $893 million. Site preparation activities for the combined-cycle plants are underway and construction of these plants began in 2017, with an expected in-service date in late 2019. Duke Energy Progress plans to file for future approvals related to the proposed solar generation and pilot battery storage project.
The carrying value of the 376-MW Asheville coal-fired plant, including associated ash basin closure costs, of $385 million and $492 million are included in Generation facilities to be retired, net on Duke Energy Progress' Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2017, and 2016, respectively.

152

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

Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant Expansion
In 2006, Duke Energy Progress selected a site at Harris to evaluate for possible future nuclear expansion. On February 19, 2008, Duke Energy Progress filed its COL application with the NRC for two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors at Harris, which the NRC docketed for review. On May 2, 2013, Duke Energy Progress filed a letter with the NRC requesting the NRC to suspend its review activities associated with the COL at the Harris site. The NCUC and PSCSC approved deferral of retail costs. Total deferred costs were approximately $47 million as of December 31, 2017, and are recorded in Regulatory assets on Duke Energy Progress’ Consolidated Balance Sheets. On November 17, 2016, the FERC approved Duke Energy Progress’ rate recovery request filing for the wholesale ratepayers’ share of the abandonment costs, including a debt only return to be recovered through revised formula rates and amortized over a 15-year period beginning May 1, 2014. As part of the settlement agreement for the 2017 North Carolina Rate Case discussed above, Duke Energy Progress will amortize the regulatory asset over an eight-year period. The settlement is subject to NCUC approval. Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Duke Energy Florida
Regulatory Assets and Liabilities
The following tables present the regulatory assets and liabilities recorded on Duke Energy Florida's Consolidated Balance Sheets.
 December 31, Earns/PaysRecovery/Refund
(in millions)2017
2016
 a ReturnPeriod Ends
Regulatory Assets(a)
     
AROs - coal ash(c)
$9
$8
 X(b)
AROs - nuclear and other(c)
296
294
 X(b)
Accrued pension and OPEB(c)
476
458
 X(h)
Retired generation facilities(c)
216
257
 X(b)
Net regulatory asset related to income taxes(c)

224
 X(d)
Storm cost deferrals(c)
376

 (f)2021
Nuclear asset securitized balance, net1,142
1,193
  2036
Hedge costs deferrals30
25
  2018
DSM/EE(c)
17
15
 X2018
Deferred fuel and purchased power(c)
219
87
 (g)2019
Nuclear deferral
96
   
AMI(c)
75

 X2032
Other36
36
  (b)
Total regulatory assets2,892
2,693
   
Less: current portion389
213
   
Total noncurrent regulatory assets$2,503
$2,480
   
Regulatory Liabilities(a)
     
Costs of removal(c)
$415
$358
 (e)(b)
Net regulatory liability related to income taxes(c)
948

  (b)
Storm reserve(c)

60
   
Deferred fuel and purchased power(c)

17
 (g) 
Other18
44
  (b)
Total regulatory liabilities1,381
479
   
Less: current portion74
31
   
Total noncurrent regulatory liabilities$1,307
$448
   
(a)Regulatory assets and liabilities are excluded from rate base unless otherwise noted.
(b)The expected recovery or refund period varies or has not been determined.
(c)Included in rate base.
(d)Recovery over the life of the associated assets.
(e)Certain costs earn a return.
(f)Earns a debt return/interest once collections begin.
(g)Earns commercial paper rate.
(h)Recovered primarily over the average remaining service periods or life expectancies of employees covered by the benefit plans. See Note 21 for additional detail.

153

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

Storm Restoration Cost Recovery
In September 2017, Duke Energy Florida’s service territory suffered significant damage from Hurricane Irma, resulting in approximately 1.3 million customers experiencing outages. In the fourth quarter of 2017, Duke Energy Florida also incurred preparation costs related to Hurricane Nate. On December 28, 2017, Duke Energy Florida filed a petition with the FPSC to recover incremental storm restoration costs for Hurricanes Irma and Nate and to replenish the storm reserve. The estimated recovery amount is approximately $513 million to be recovered over a three-year period beginning in March 2018, subject to true up, which includes reestablishment of a $132 million storm reserve. At December 31, 2017, Duke Energy Florida's Consolidated Balance Sheets included approximately $376 million of recoverable costs under the FPSC's storm rule in Regulatory assets within Other Noncurrent Assets related to storm recovery. On February 6, 2018, the FPSC approved Duke Energy Florida's motion to approve a stipulation that would apply tax savings resulting from the Tax Act toward storm costs in lieu of implementing a storm surcharge.
2017 Second Revised and Restated Settlement Agreement
On November 20, 2017, the FPSC issued an order to approve the 2017 Second Revised and Restated Settlement Agreement (2017 Settlement) filed by Duke Energy Florida. The 2017 Settlement replaces and supplants the 2013 Settlement. The 2017 Settlement extends the base rate case stay-out provision from the 2013 Settlement through the end of 2021 unless actual or projected return on equity falls below 9.5 percent; however, Duke Energy Florida is allowed a multiyear increase to its base rates of $67 million per year in 2019, 2020 and 2021, as well as base rate increases for solar generation. In addition to carrying forward the provisions contained in the 2013 Settlement related to the Crystal River 1 and 2 coal units discussed below and future generation needs in Florida, the 2017 Settlement contains provisions related to future investments in solar and renewable energy technology, future investments in AMI technology as well as recovery of existing meters, impacts of the Tax Act, an electric vehicle charging station pilot program and the termination of the proposed Levy Nuclear Project discussed below. As part of the 2017 Settlement, Duke Energy Florida will not move forward with building the Levy nuclear plant and recorded a pretax impairment charge of approximately $135 million in 2017 to write off all unrecovered Levy Nuclear Project costs, including the COL. As a result of the 2017 Settlement, Duke Energy Florida transferred $75 million to a regulatory asset for the net book value of existing meter technology, which will be recovered over a 15-year period.
The 2017 Settlement includes provisions to recover 2017 under-recovered fuel costs of approximately $196 million over a 24-month period beginning in January 2018. On September 1, 2017, Duke Energy Florida submitted Alternate 2018 Fuel and Capacity clause projection filings consistent with the terms of the 2017 Settlement. The updated capacity filing reflects the removal of all Levy costs. The FPSC approved Duke Energy Florida's 2018 Alternate projection filings on October 25, 2017.
Hines Chiller Uprate Project
On February 2, 2017, Duke Energy Florida filed a petition seeking approval to include in base rates the revenue requirement for a Chiller Uprate Project (Uprate Project) at the Hines Energy Complex. The Uprate Project was placed into service in March 2017 at a cost of approximately $150 million. The annual retail revenue requirement is approximately $19 million. On March 28, 2017, the FPSC issued an order approving the revenue requirement, which was included in base rates for the first billing cycle of April 2017.
Citrus County Combined Cycle Facility
On October 2, 2014, the FPSC granted Duke Energy Florida a Determination of Need for the construction of a 1,640-MW combined-cycle natural gas plant in Citrus County, Florida. On May 5, 2015, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection approved Duke Energy Florida's Site Certification Application. The project has received all required permits and approvals and construction began in October 2015. The facility is expected to be commercially available in 2018 at an estimated cost of $1.5 billion, including AFUDC. The plant will receive natural gas from the Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC (Sabal Trail) pipeline discussed below.
Purchase of Osprey Energy Center
Duke Energy Florida received a Civil Investigative Demand from the Department of Justice (DOJ) related to alleged violation of the waiting period for the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 related to the purchase of the Osprey Energy Center, LLC, which was completed in January 2017. The DOJ alleged Duke Energy Florida assumed operational control of the Osprey Plant before the waiting period expiration on February 27, 2015. On January 17, 2017, Duke Energy Florida entered into a stipulation agreement to settle with the DOJ for $600,000 without admission of liability. On January 18, 2017, the DOJ filed a complaint and the stipulation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which was approved by the court. A final order dismissing the case was entered in April 2017.
Crystal River Unit 3
In December 2014, the FPSC approved Duke Energy Florida's decision to construct an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) for the retired Crystal River Unit 3 nuclear plant and approved Duke Energy Florida's request to defer amortization of the ISFSI pending resolution of litigation against the federal government as a result of the Department of Energy's breach of its obligation to accept spent nuclear fuel. The return rate is based on the currently approved AFUDC rate with a return on equity of 7.35 percent, or 70 percent of the currently approved 10.5 percent. The return rate is subject to change if the return on equity changes in the future. In September 2016, the FPSC approved an amendment to the 2013 Settlement authorizing recovery of the ISFSI through the Capacity Cost Recovery Clause. Through December 31, 2017, Duke Energy Florida has deferred approximately $113 million for recovery associated with building the ISFSI. See Note 5 for additional information on spent nuclear fuel litigation.
The regulatory asset associated with the original Crystal River Unit 3 power uprate project will continue to be recovered through the NCRC over an estimated seven-year period that began in 2013 with a remaining uncollected balance of $87 million at December 31, 2017.

154

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

Crystal River Unit 3 Regulatory Asset
On September 15, 2015, the FPSC approved Duke Energy Florida's motion for approval of a settlement agreement with intervenors to reduce the value of the projected Crystal River Unit 3 regulatory asset to be recovered to $1.283 billion as of December 31, 2015. An impairment charge of $15 million was recognized in 2015 to adjust the regulatory asset balance. In November 2015, the FPSC issued a financing order approving Duke Energy Florida’s request to issue nuclear asset-recovery bonds to finance its unrecovered regulatory asset related to Crystal River Unit 3 through a wholly owned special purpose entity. Nuclear asset-recovery bonds replace the base rate recovery methodology authorized by the 2013 Settlement and result in a lower rate impact to customers with a recovery period of approximately 20 years.
Pursuant to provisions in Florida Statutes and the FPSC financing order, in 2016, Duke Energy Florida formed Duke Energy Florida Project Finance, LLC (DEFPF), a wholly owned, bankruptcy remote special purpose subsidiary for the purpose of issuing nuclear asset-recovery bonds. In June 2016, DEFPF issued $1,294 million aggregate principal amount of senior secured bonds (nuclear asset-recovery bonds) to finance the recovery of Duke Energy Florida's Crystal River 3 regulatory asset.
In connection with this financing, net proceeds to DEFPF of approximately $1,287 million, after underwriting costs, were used to acquire nuclear asset-recovery property from Duke Energy Florida and to pay transaction related expenses. The nuclear asset-recovery property includes the right to impose, bill, collect and adjust a non-bypassable nuclear asset-recovery charge, to be collected on a per kilowatt-hour basis, from all Duke Energy Florida retail customers until the bonds are paid in full. Duke Energy Florida began collecting the nuclear asset-recovery charge on behalf of DEFPF in customer rates in July 2016.
See Note 17 for additional information.
Levy Nuclear Project
On July 28, 2008, Duke Energy Florida applied to the NRC for COLs for two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors at Levy (Levy Nuclear Project). In 2008, the FPSC granted Duke Energy Florida’s petition for an affirmative Determination of Need and related orders requesting cost recovery under Florida’s nuclear cost-recovery rule, together with the associated facilities, including transmission lines and substation facilities. In October 2016, the NRC issued COLs for the proposed Levy Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2. Duke Energy Florida is not required to build the nuclear reactors as a result of the COLs being issued.
On January 28, 2014, Duke Energy Florida terminated the Levy engineering, procurement and construction agreement (EPC). Duke Energy Florida may be required to pay for work performed under the EPC. Duke Energy Florida recorded an exit obligation in 2014 for the termination of the EPC. This liability was recorded within Other in Other Noncurrent Liabilities with an offset primarily to Regulatory assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Duke Energy Florida is allowed to recover reasonable and prudent EPC cancellation costs from its retail customers. On May 1, 2017, Duke Energy Florida filed a request with the FPSC to recover approximately $82 million of Levy Nuclear Project costs from retail customers in 2018. As part of the 2017 Settlement discussed above, Duke Energy Florida is no longer seeking recovery of costs related to the Levy Nuclear Project and the ongoing Westinghouse litigation discussed in Note 5. All remaining Levy Nuclear Project issues have been resolved.
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 are expected to be retired by the end of 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.

155

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

Duke Energy Ohio
Regulatory Assets and Liabilities
The following tables present the regulatory assets and liabilities recorded on Duke Energy Ohio's Consolidated Balance Sheets.
 December 31, Earns/PaysRecovery/Refund
(in millions)2017
2016
 a ReturnPeriod Ends
Regulatory Assets(a)
     
AROs - coal ash$17
$12
 X(b)
Accrued pension and OPEB139
135
  (g)
Net regulatory asset related to income taxes(c)

63
  (d)
Storm cost deferrals5
5
  (b)
Hedge costs deferrals6
7
  (b)
DSM/EE18
6
 (f)(e)
Grid modernization39
65
 X(e)
Vacation accrual5
4
  2018
Deferred fuel and purchased power
5
   
PISCC and deferred operating expenses(c)
19
20
 X2083
Transmission expansion obligation50
71
  (e)
MGP91
99
  (b)
AMI6

  (b)
East Bend deferrals45
32
 X(b)
Deferred pipeline integrity costs12
7
 X(b)
Other42
26
  (b)
Total regulatory assets494
557
   
Less: current portion49
37
   
Total noncurrent regulatory assets$445
$520
   
Regulatory Liabilities(a)
     
Costs of removal$189
$212
  (d)
Net regulatory liability related to income taxes688

  (b)
Accrued pension and OPEB16
19
  (g)
Deferred fuel and purchased power
6
   
Other34
20
  (b)
Total regulatory liabilities927
257
   
Less: current portion36
21
   
Total noncurrent regulatory liabilities$891
$236
   
(a)Regulatory assets and liabilities are excluded from rate base unless otherwise noted.
(b)The expected recovery or refund period varies or has not been determined.
(c)Included in rate base.
(d)Recovery over the life of the associated assets.
(e)Recovered via a rider mechanism.
(f)Includes incentives on DSM/EE investments.
(g)Recovered primarily over the average remaining service periods or life expectancies of employees covered by the benefit plans. See Note 21 for additional detail.
Duke Energy Kentucky Rate Case
On September 1, 2017, Duke Energy Kentucky filed a rate case with the KPSC requesting an increase in electric base rates of approximately $49 million, which represents an approximate 15 percent increase on the average customer bill. The rate increase is driven by increased investment in utility plant, increased operations and maintenance expenses and recovery of regulatory assets. The application also includes implementation of the Environmental Surcharge Mechanism to recover environmental costs not included in base rates, requests to establish a Distribution Capital Investment Rider to recover incremental costs of specific programs, requests to establish a FERC Transmission Cost Reconciliation Rider to recover escalating transmission costs and modification to the Profit Sharing Mechanism to increase customers' share of proceeds from the benefits of owning generation and to mitigate shareholder risks associated with that generation. An evidentiary hearing is scheduled to begin on March 6, 2018.Duke Energy Kentucky anticipates that rates will go into effect in mid-April 2018. Duke Energy Kentucky cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

156

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

2017 Electric Security Plan
On June 1, 2017, Duke Energy Ohio filed with the PUCO a request for a standard service offer in the form of an electric security plan (ESP). If approved by the PUCO, the term of the ESP would be from June 1, 2018, to May 31, 2024. Terms of the ESP include continuation of market-based customer rates through competitive procurement processes for generation, continuation and expansion of existing rider mechanisms and proposed new rider mechanisms relating to regulatory mandates, costs incurred to enhance the customer experience and transform the grid and a service reliability rider for vegetation management. On February 15, 2018, the procedural schedule was suspended to facilitate ongoing settlement discussions. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Woodsdale Station Fuel System Filing
On June 9, 2015, the FERC ruled in favor of PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM) on a revised Tariff and Reliability Assurance Agreement including implementation of a Capacity Performance (CP) proposal and to amend sections of the Operating Agreement related to generation non-performance. The CP proposal includes performance-based penalties for non-compliance. Duke Energy Kentucky is a Fixed Resource Requirement (FRR) entity, and therefore is subject to the compliance standards through its FRR plans. A partial CP obligation will apply to Duke Energy Kentucky in the delivery year beginning June 1, 2019, with full compliance beginning June 1, 2020. Duke Energy Kentucky has developed strategies for CP compliance investments. On December 21, 2017, the KPSC issued an order approving Duke Energy Kentucky's request for a CPCN to construct an ultra-low sulfur diesel backup fuel system for the Woodsdale Station. The backup fuel system is projected to cost approximately $55 million and is anticipated to be in service prior to the CP compliance deadline of April 2019.
Ohio Valley Electric Corporation
On March 31, 2017, Duke Energy Ohio filed for approval to adjust its existing price stabilization rider (Rider PSR), which is currently set at zero dollars, to pass through net costs related to its contractual entitlement to capacity and energy from the generating assets owned by OVEC. The filing seeks to adjust Rider PSR for OVEC costs subsequent to April 1, 2017. Duke Energy Ohio is seeking deferral authority for net costs incurred from April 1, 2017, until the new rates under Rider PSR are put into effect. Various intervenors have filed motions to dismiss or stay the proceeding and Duke Energy Ohio has opposed these filings. See Note 13 for additional discussion of Duke Energy Ohio's ownership interest in OVEC. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
East Bend Coal Ash Basin Filing
On December 2, 2016, Duke Energy Kentucky filed with the KPSC a request for a CPCN for construction projects necessary to close and repurpose an ash basin at the East Bend facility as a result of current and proposed EPA regulations. Duke Energy Kentucky estimated a total cost of approximately $93 million in the filing and expects in-service date by the first quarter of 2021. On June 6, 2017, the KPSC approved the CPCN request.
Electric Base Rate Case
Duke Energy Ohio filed with the PUCO an electric distribution base rate case application and supporting testimony in March 2017. Duke Energy Ohio requested an estimated annual increase of approximately $15 million and a return on equity of 10.4 percent. The application also includes requests to continue certain current riders and establish new riders. On September 26, 2017, the PUCO staff filed a report recommending a revenue decrease between approximately $18 million and $29 million and a return on equity between 9.22 percent and 10.24 percent. On February 15, 2018, the procedural schedule was suspended to facilitate ongoing settlement discussions. Duke Energy Ohio expects rates will go into effect the second quarter of 2018. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Duke Energy Indiana
Duke Energy Indiana must limit cumulative distributions subsequent to the merger between Duke Energy and Cinergy to (i) the amount of retained earnings on the day prior to the closing of the merger, plus (ii) any future earnings recorded. In addition, Duke Energy Indiana will not declare and pay dividends out of capital or unearned surplus without prior authorization of the IURC.
Piedmont
Piedmont must limit cumulative distributions subsequent to the acquisition of Piedmont by Duke Energy to (i) the amount of retained earnings on the day prior to the closing of the merger, plus (ii) any future earnings recorded.
RATE RELATED INFORMATION
The NCUC, PSCSC, FPSC, IURC, PUCO, TPUC and KPSC approve rates for retail electric and natural gas services within their states. The FERC approves rates for electric sales to wholesale customers served under cost-based rates (excluding Ohio and Indiana), as well as sales of transmission service. The FERC also regulates certification and siting of new interstate natural gas pipeline projects.

148

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

All Registrants
Tax Act Impacts
On December 22, 2017, President Trump signed the Tax Act into law, which, among other provisions, reduces the maximum federal corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, effective January 1, 2018. As a result of the Tax Act, the Subsidiary Registrants revalued their deferred tax assets and deferred tax liabilities, as of December 31, 2017, to account for the future impact of lower corporate tax rates on these deferred tax amounts. For the Subsidiary Registrants regulated operations, where the reduction is expected to be accounted for and applied to customers’ rates in future commission proceedings, including rate proceedings, the net remeasurement has been deferred as a regulatory liability. Each of the Subsidiary Registrant's regulatory commissions is reviewing the Tax Act to determine the potential impacts on customer rates. Beginning in January 2018, the Subsidiary Registrants will defer the estimated ongoing impacts of the Tax Act that are expected to be returned to customers. See Note 22 for additional information.
Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress
Ash Basin Closure Costs Deferral
On December 30, 2016, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a joint petition with the NCUC seeking an accounting order authorizing deferral of certain costs incurred in connection with federal and state environmental remediation requirements related to the permanent closure of ash basins and other ash storage units at coal-fired generating facilities that have provided or are providing generation to customers located in North Carolina. Initial comments were received in March 2017, and reply comments were filed on April 19, 2017. The NCUC has consolidated Duke Energy Carolinas' and Duke Energy Progress’ coal ash deferral requests into their respective general rate case dockets for decision. See "2017 North Carolina Rate Case" sections below for additional discussion. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Duke Energy Carolinas
Regulatory Assets and Liabilities
The following tables present the regulatory assets and liabilities recorded on Duke Energy Carolinas' Consolidated Balance Sheets.
 December 31, Earns/PaysRecovery/Refund
(in millions)2017
2016
 a ReturnPeriod Ends
Regulatory Assets(a)
     
AROs - coal ash$1,645
$1,536
 (i)(b)
AROs - nuclear and other
9
   
Accrued pension and OPEB410
481
  (j)
Retired generation facilities(c)
29
39
 X2023
Net regulatory asset related to income taxes(d)

484
   
Hedge costs deferrals(c)
109
93
 X2041
DSM/EE210
122
 (h)(h)
Vacation accrual83
76
 (e)2018
Deferred fuel and purchased power140

 (f)2018
Nuclear deferral84
92
  2019
PISCC(c)
35
70
 X(b)
AMI185
172
 X(b)
Other222
223
  (b)
Total regulatory assets3,152
3,397
   
Less: current portion299
238
   
Total noncurrent regulatory assets$2,853
$3,159
   
Regulatory Liabilities(a)
     
Costs of removal(c)
$2,054
$2,015
 X(g)
ARO - nuclear and other806
461
  (b)
Net regulatory liability related to income taxes(d)
3,028

  (b)
Storm reserve(c)
20
22
  (b)
Accrued pension and OPEB44
46
  (j)
Deferred fuel and purchased power46
105
 (f)2018
Other359
352
  (b)
Total regulatory liabilities6,357
3,001
   
Less: current portion126
161
   
Total noncurrent regulatory liabilities$6,231
$2,840
   

149

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

(a)Regulatory assets and liabilities are excluded from rate base unless otherwise noted.
(b)The expected recovery or refund period varies or has not been determined.
(c)Included in rate base.
(d)Includes regulatory liabilities related to the change in the North Carolina tax rate discussed in Note 22.
(e)Earns a return on outstanding balance in North Carolina.
(f)Pays interest on over-recovered costs in North Carolina. Includes certain purchased power costs in North Carolina and South Carolina and costs of distributed energy in South Carolina.
(g)Recovered over the life of the associated assets.
(h)Includes incentives on DSM/EE investments and is recovered through an annual rider mechanism.
(i)Earns a debt return on coal ash expenditures for North Carolina and South Carolina retail customers.
(j)Recovered primarily over the average remaining service periods or life expectancies of employees covered by the benefit plans. See Note 21 for additional detail.
2017 North Carolina Rate Case
On August 25, 2017, Duke Energy Carolinas filed an application with the NCUC for a rate increase for retail customers of approximately $647 million, which represents an approximate 13.6 percent increase in annual base revenues. The rate increase is driven by capital investments subsequent to the previous base rate case, including grid improvement projects, AMI, investments in customer service technologies, costs of complying with coal combustion residuals (CCR) regulations and the North Carolina Coal Ash Management Act of 2014 (Coal Ash Act) and recovery of costs related to licensing and development of the William States Lee III Nuclear Station (Lee Nuclear Station) discussed below. On January 23, 2018, the North Carolina Public Staff filed testimony recommending an overall rate decrease of approximately $290 million. An evidentiary hearing is scheduled to begin on February 27, 2018, and a decision and revised customer rates are expected by mid-2018. Duke Energy Carolinas cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
FERC Formula Rate Matter
On July 31, 2017, Piedmont Municipal Power Agency (PMPA) filed a complaint with FERC against Duke Energy Carolinas alleging that Duke Energy Carolinas misapplied the formula rate under the purchase power agreement (PPA) between the parties by including regulatory amortization in its rates without FERC approval. Duke Energy Carolinas disagreed with PMPA as it believed it was properly applying its FERC filed rate. On February 15, 2018, FERC issued an order ruling in favor of PMPA and ordered Duke Energy Carolinas to refund to PMPA all amounts improperly collected under the PPA. Resolution of this matter is not expected to be material.
Lincoln County Combustion Turbine
On December 7, 2017, the NCUC issued an order approving a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) for Duke Energy Carolinas' proposed 402-megawatt (MW) simple cycle, advanced combustion turbine natural gas-fueled electric generating unit at its existing Lincoln County site. The CPCN also includes construction of related transmission and natural gas pipeline interconnection facilities. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2018 with an extended commissioning and validation period from 2020-2024 and an estimated commercial operation date in 2024. As a condition of the approval, Duke Energy Carolinas will not seek recovery of costs associated with the project until it is placed into commercial operation.
Advanced Metering Infrastructure Deferral
On July 12, 2016, the PSCSC issued an accounting order for Duke Energy Carolinas to defer the financial effects of depreciation expense incurred for the installation of AMI meters, the carrying costs on the investment at its weighted average cost of capital (WACC) and the carrying costs on the deferred costs at its WACC not to exceed $45 million. The decision also allows Duke Energy Carolinas to continue to depreciate the non-AMI meters to be replaced. Current retail rates will not change as a result of the decision and the ability of interested parties to challenge the reasonableness of expenditures in subsequent proceedings is not limited.
William States Lee Combined Cycle Facility
On April 9, 2014, the PSCSC granted Duke Energy Carolinas and North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation (NCEMC) a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Convenience and Necessity (CECPCN) for the construction and operation of a 750-MW combined-cycle natural gas-fired generating plant at Duke Energy Carolinas' existing William States Lee Generating Station in Anderson, South Carolina. Duke Energy Carolinas began construction in July 2015 and estimates a cost to build of $600 million for its share of the facility, including allowance for funds used during construction (AFUDC). The project is expected to be commercially available in the first quarter of 2018. NCEMC will own approximately 13 percent of the project. On July 3, 2014, the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League (SCCL) and Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) jointly filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeals of South Carolina (S.C. Court of Appeals) seeking the court's review of the PSCSC's decision, claiming the PSCSC did not properly consider a request related to a proposed solar facility prior to granting approval of the CECPCN. The S.C. Court of Appeals affirmed the PSCSC's decision on February 10, 2016, and on March 24, 2016, denied a request for rehearing filed by SCCL and SACE. On April 21, 2016, SCCL and SACE petitioned the South Carolina Supreme Court for review of the S.C. Court of Appeals decision. On March 24, 2017, the South Carolina Supreme Court denied the request for review, thus concluding the matter.
Lee Nuclear Station
In December 2007, Duke Energy Carolinas applied to the NRC for combined operating licenses (COLs) for two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors for the proposed William States Lee III Nuclear Station to be located at a site in Cherokee County, South Carolina. The NCUC and PSCSC concurred with the prudency of Duke Energy Carolinas incurring certain project development and preconstruction costs through several separately issued orders, although full cost recovery is not guaranteed. In December 2016, the NRC issued a COL for each reactor. Duke Energy Carolinas is not required to build the nuclear reactors as result of the COLs being issued.

150

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

On March 29, 2017, Westinghouse filed for voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. As part of its 2017 North Carolina Rate Case discussed above, Duke Energy Carolinas is seeking NCUC approval to cancel the development of the Lee Nuclear Station project due to the Westinghouse bankruptcy filing and other market activity and is requesting recovery of incurred licensing and development costs. Duke Energy Carolinas will maintain the license issued by the NRC in December 2016 as an option for potential future development. As of December 31, 2017, Duke Energy Carolinas has incurred approximately $558 million of costs, including AFUDC, related to the project. These project costs are included in Net property, plant and equipment on Duke Energy Carolinas’ Consolidated Balance Sheets. Duke Energy Carolinas cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Duke Energy Progress
Regulatory Assets and Liabilities
The following tables present the regulatory assets and liabilities recorded on Duke Energy Progress' Consolidated Balance Sheets.
 December 31, Earns/PaysRecovery/Refund
(in millions)2017
2016
 a ReturnPeriod Ends
Regulatory Assets(a)
     
AROs - coal ash$1,975
$1,822
 (i)(b)
AROs - nuclear and other359
275
  (c)
Accrued pension and OPEB430
423
  (l)
Retired generation facilities170
165
 X2023
Net regulatory asset related to income taxes
7
  (d)
Storm cost deferrals(e)
150
148
 X(b)
Hedge costs deferrals64
66
  (b)
DSM/EE(f)
264
263
 (j)2018
Vacation accrual42
38
  2018
Deferred fuel and purchased power130
24
 (g)2018
Nuclear deferral35
38
  2019
PISCC and deferred operating expenses38
42
 X2054
AMI75

  (b)
NCEMPA deferrals53
51
 (h)2042
Other74
69
  (b)
Total regulatory assets3,859
3,431
   
Less: current portion352
188
   
Total noncurrent regulatory assets$3,507
$3,243
   
Regulatory Liabilities(a)
     
Costs of removal$2,122
$1,840
 X(k)
Net regulatory liability related to income taxes1,854

  (b)
Deferred fuel and purchased power1
64
 (g)2018
Other161
200
  (b)
Total regulatory liabilities4,138
2,104
   
Less: current portion139
158
   
Total noncurrent regulatory liabilities$3,999
$1,946
   
(a)Regulatory assets and liabilities are excluded from rate base unless otherwise noted.
(b)The expected recovery or refund period varies or has not been determined.
(c)Recovery period for costs related to nuclear facilities runs through the decommissioning period of each unit.
(d)Recovery over the life of the associated assets. Includes regulatory liabilities related to the change in the North Carolina tax rate discussed in Note 22.
(e)South Carolina storm costs are included in rate base.
(f)Included in rate base.
(g)Pays interest on over-recovered costs in North Carolina. Includes certain purchased power costs in North Carolina and South Carolina and costs of distributed energy in South Carolina.
(h)South Carolina retail allocated costs are earning a return.
(i)Earns a debt return on coal ash expenditures for North Carolina and South Carolina retail customers.
(j)Includes incentives on DSM/EE investments.
(k)Recovered over the life of the associated assets.
(l)Recovered primarily over the average remaining service periods or life expectancies of employees covered by the benefit plans. See Note 21 for additional detail.

151

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

2017 North Carolina Rate Case
On June 1, 2017, Duke Energy Progress filed an application with the NCUC for a rate increase for retail customers of approximately $477 million, which represented an approximate 14.9 percent increase in annual base revenues. Subsequent to the filing, Duke Energy Progress adjusted the requested amount to $420 million, representing an approximate 13 percent increase. The rate increase is driven by capital investments subsequent to the previous base rate case, costs of complying with CCR regulations and the Coal Ash Act, costs relating to storm recovery, investments in customer service technologies and recovery of costs associated with renewable purchased power. On November 22, 2017, Duke Energy Progress and the North Carolina Public Staff filed an Agreement and Stipulation of Partial Settlement resolving certain portions of the proceeding, pending NCUC approval. Terms of the settlement include a return on equity of 9.9 percent and a capital structure of 52 percent equity and 48 percent debt. As a result of the settlement, in 2017 Duke Energy Progress recorded pretax charges totaling approximately $25 million to Impairment charges and Operation, maintenance and other on the Consolidated Income Statements, principally related to disallowances from rate base of certain projects at the Mayo and Sutton plants. The settlement does not include agreement on portions of the rate case relating to recovery of deferred storm recovery costs and coal ash basin deferred costs, which will be decided by the NCUC separately. Taking into consideration the settled portions and Duke Energy Progress’ requested recovery of the non-settled portions, the requested rate increase is reduced to approximately $300 million. An evidentiary hearing ended December 7, 2017, and a decision and revised customer rates are expected in the first quarter of 2018. Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Storm Cost Deferral Filings
On December 16, 2016, Duke Energy Progress filed a petition with the NCUC requesting an accounting order to defer certain costs incurred in connection with response to Hurricane Matthew and other significant storms in 2016. The final estimate of incremental operation and maintenance and capital costs of $116 million was filed with the NCUC in September 2017. On March 15, 2017, the NCUC Public Staff filed comments supporting deferral of a portion of Duke Energy Progress’ requested amount. Duke Energy Progress filed reply comments on April 12, 2017. On July 10, 2017, the NCUC consolidated Duke Energy Progress' storm deferral request into the Duke Energy Progress rate case docket for decision. See "2017 North Carolina Rate Case" for additional discussion. As of December 31, 2017, Duke Energy Progress has approximately $77 million included in Regulatory assets on its Consolidated Balance Sheets. Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
On December 16, 2016, Duke Energy Progress filed a petition with the PSCSC requesting an accounting order to defer certain costs incurred related to repairs and restoration of service following Hurricane Matthew. The final estimate of incremental operation and maintenance and capital costs was approximately $74 million. In January 2017, the PSCSC approved the deferral request and issued an accounting order. As of December 31, 2017, Duke Energy Progress has approximately $73 million included in Regulatory assets on its Consolidated Balance Sheets.
South Carolina Rate Case
In December 2016, the PSCSC approved a rate case settlement agreement among the ORS (Office of Regulatory Staff), intervenors and Duke Energy Progress. Terms of the settlement agreement included an approximate $56 million increase in revenues over a two-year period. An increase of approximately $38 million in revenues was effective January 1, 2017, and an additional increase of approximately $18.5 million in revenues was effective January 1, 2018. Duke Energy Progress amortized approximately $18.5 million from the cost of removal reserve in 2017. Other settlement terms included a rate of return on equity of 10.1 percent, recovery of coal ash costs incurred from January 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016, over a 15‑year period and ongoing deferral of allocated ash basin closure costs from July 1, 2016, until the next base rate case. The settlement also provides that Duke Energy Progress will not seek an increase in rates in South Carolina to occur prior to 2019, with limited exceptions.
Western Carolinas Modernization Plan
On November 4, 2015, Duke Energy Progress announced a Western Carolinas Modernization Plan, which included retirement of the existing Asheville coal-fired plant, the construction of two 280MW combined-cycle natural gas plants having dual fuel capability, with the option to build a third natural gas simple cycle unit in 2023 based upon the outcome of initiatives to reduce the region's power demand. The plan also included upgrades to existing transmission lines and substations, installation of solar generation and a pilot battery storage project. These investments will be made within the next seven years. Duke Energy Progress is also working with the local natural gas distribution company to upgrade an existing natural gas pipeline to serve the natural gas plant.
On March 28, 2016, the NCUC issued an order approving a CPCN for the new combined-cycle natural gas plants, but denying the CPCN for the contingent simple cycle unit without prejudice to Duke Energy Progress to refile for approval in the future. On March 28, 2017, Duke Energy Progress filed an annual progress report for the construction of the combined-cycle plants with the NCUC, with an estimated cost of $893 million. Site preparation activities for the combined-cycle plants are underway and construction of these plants began in 2017, with an expected in-service date in late 2019. Duke Energy Progress plans to file for future approvals related to the proposed solar generation and pilot battery storage project.
The carrying value of the 376-MW Asheville coal-fired plant, including associated ash basin closure costs, of $385 million and $492 million are included in Generation facilities to be retired, net on Duke Energy Progress' Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2017, and 2016, respectively.

152

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

Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant Expansion
In 2006, Duke Energy Progress selected a site at Harris to evaluate for possible future nuclear expansion. On February 19, 2008, Duke Energy Progress filed its COL application with the NRC for two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors at Harris, which the NRC docketed for review. On May 2, 2013, Duke Energy Progress filed a letter with the NRC requesting the NRC to suspend its review activities associated with the COL at the Harris site. The NCUC and PSCSC approved deferral of retail costs. Total deferred costs were approximately $47 million as of December 31, 2017, and are recorded in Regulatory assets on Duke Energy Progress’ Consolidated Balance Sheets. On November 17, 2016, the FERC approved Duke Energy Progress’ rate recovery request filing for the wholesale ratepayers’ share of the abandonment costs, including a debt only return to be recovered through revised formula rates and amortized over a 15-year period beginning May 1, 2014. As part of the settlement agreement for the 2017 North Carolina Rate Case discussed above, Duke Energy Progress will amortize the regulatory asset over an eight-year period. The settlement is subject to NCUC approval. Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Duke Energy Florida
Regulatory Assets and Liabilities
The following tables present the regulatory assets and liabilities recorded on Duke Energy Florida's Consolidated Balance Sheets.
 December 31, Earns/PaysRecovery/Refund
(in millions)2017
2016
 a ReturnPeriod Ends
Regulatory Assets(a)
     
AROs - coal ash(c)
$9
$8
 X(b)
AROs - nuclear and other(c)
296
294
 X(b)
Accrued pension and OPEB(c)
476
458
 X(h)
Retired generation facilities(c)
216
257
 X(b)
Net regulatory asset related to income taxes(c)

224
 X(d)
Storm cost deferrals(c)
376

 (f)2021
Nuclear asset securitized balance, net1,142
1,193
  2036
Hedge costs deferrals30
25
  2018
DSM/EE(c)
17
15
 X2018
Deferred fuel and purchased power(c)
219
87
 (g)2019
Nuclear deferral
96
   
AMI(c)
75

 X2032
Other36
36
  (b)
Total regulatory assets2,892
2,693
   
Less: current portion389
213
   
Total noncurrent regulatory assets$2,503
$2,480
   
Regulatory Liabilities(a)
     
Costs of removal(c)
$415
$358
 (e)(b)
Net regulatory liability related to income taxes(c)
948

  (b)
Storm reserve(c)

60
   
Deferred fuel and purchased power(c)

17
 (g) 
Other18
44
  (b)
Total regulatory liabilities1,381
479
   
Less: current portion74
31
   
Total noncurrent regulatory liabilities$1,307
$448
   
(a)Regulatory assets and liabilities are excluded from rate base unless otherwise noted.
(b)The expected recovery or refund period varies or has not been determined.
(c)Included in rate base.
(d)Recovery over the life of the associated assets.
(e)Certain costs earn a return.
(f)Earns a debt return/interest once collections begin.
(g)Earns commercial paper rate.
(h)Recovered primarily over the average remaining service periods or life expectancies of employees covered by the benefit plans. See Note 21 for additional detail.

153

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

Storm Restoration Cost Recovery
In September 2017, Duke Energy Florida’s service territory suffered significant damage from Hurricane Irma, resulting in approximately 1.3 million customers experiencing outages. In the fourth quarter of 2017, Duke Energy Florida also incurred preparation costs related to Hurricane Nate. On December 28, 2017, Duke Energy Florida filed a petition with the FPSC to recover incremental storm restoration costs for Hurricanes Irma and Nate and to replenish the storm reserve. The estimated recovery amount is approximately $513 million to be recovered over a three-year period beginning in March 2018, subject to true up, which includes reestablishment of a $132 million storm reserve. At December 31, 2017, Duke Energy Florida's Consolidated Balance Sheets included approximately $376 million of recoverable costs under the FPSC's storm rule in Regulatory assets within Other Noncurrent Assets related to storm recovery. On February 6, 2018, the FPSC approved Duke Energy Florida's motion to approve a stipulation that would apply tax savings resulting from the Tax Act toward storm costs in lieu of implementing a storm surcharge.
2017 Second Revised and Restated Settlement Agreement
On November 20, 2017, the FPSC issued an order to approve the 2017 Second Revised and Restated Settlement Agreement (2017 Settlement) filed by Duke Energy Florida. The 2017 Settlement replaces and supplants the 2013 Settlement. The 2017 Settlement extends the base rate case stay-out provision from the 2013 Settlement through the end of 2021 unless actual or projected return on equity falls below 9.5 percent; however, Duke Energy Florida is allowed a multiyear increase to its base rates of $67 million per year in 2019, 2020 and 2021, as well as base rate increases for solar generation. In addition to carrying forward the provisions contained in the 2013 Settlement related to the Crystal River 1 and 2 coal units discussed below and future generation needs in Florida, the 2017 Settlement contains provisions related to future investments in solar and renewable energy technology, future investments in AMI technology as well as recovery of existing meters, impacts of the Tax Act, an electric vehicle charging station pilot program and the termination of the proposed Levy Nuclear Project discussed below. As part of the 2017 Settlement, Duke Energy Florida will not move forward with building the Levy nuclear plant and recorded a pretax impairment charge of approximately $135 million in 2017 to write off all unrecovered Levy Nuclear Project costs, including the COL. As a result of the 2017 Settlement, Duke Energy Florida transferred $75 million to a regulatory asset for the net book value of existing meter technology, which will be recovered over a 15-year period.
The 2017 Settlement includes provisions to recover 2017 under-recovered fuel costs of approximately $196 million over a 24-month period beginning in January 2018. On September 1, 2017, Duke Energy Florida submitted Alternate 2018 Fuel and Capacity clause projection filings consistent with the terms of the 2017 Settlement. The updated capacity filing reflects the removal of all Levy costs. The FPSC approved Duke Energy Florida's 2018 Alternate projection filings on October 25, 2017.
Hines Chiller Uprate Project
On February 2, 2017, Duke Energy Florida filed a petition seeking approval to include in base rates the revenue requirement for a Chiller Uprate Project (Uprate Project) at the Hines Energy Complex. The Uprate Project was placed into service in March 2017 at a cost of approximately $150 million. The annual retail revenue requirement is approximately $19 million. On March 28, 2017, the FPSC issued an order approving the revenue requirement, which was included in base rates for the first billing cycle of April 2017.
Citrus County Combined Cycle Facility
On October 2, 2014, the FPSC granted Duke Energy Florida a Determination of Need for the construction of a 1,640-MW combined-cycle natural gas plant in Citrus County, Florida. On May 5, 2015, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection approved Duke Energy Florida's Site Certification Application. The project has received all required permits and approvals and construction began in October 2015. The facility is expected to be commercially available in 2018 at an estimated cost of $1.5 billion, including AFUDC. The plant will receive natural gas from the Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC (Sabal Trail) pipeline discussed below.
Purchase of Osprey Energy Center
Duke Energy Florida received a Civil Investigative Demand from the Department of Justice (DOJ) related to alleged violation of the waiting period for the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 related to the purchase of the Osprey Energy Center, LLC, which was completed in January 2017. The DOJ alleged Duke Energy Florida assumed operational control of the Osprey Plant before the waiting period expiration on February 27, 2015. On January 17, 2017, Duke Energy Florida entered into a stipulation agreement to settle with the DOJ for $600,000 without admission of liability. On January 18, 2017, the DOJ filed a complaint and the stipulation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which was approved by the court. A final order dismissing the case was entered in April 2017.
Crystal River Unit 3
In December 2014, the FPSC approved Duke Energy Florida's decision to construct an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) for the retired Crystal River Unit 3 nuclear plant and approved Duke Energy Florida's request to defer amortization of the ISFSI pending resolution of litigation against the federal government as a result of the Department of Energy's breach of its obligation to accept spent nuclear fuel. The return rate is based on the currently approved AFUDC rate with a return on equity of 7.35 percent, or 70 percent of the currently approved 10.5 percent. The return rate is subject to change if the return on equity changes in the future. In September 2016, the FPSC approved an amendment to the 2013 Settlement authorizing recovery of the ISFSI through the Capacity Cost Recovery Clause. Through December 31, 2017, Duke Energy Florida has deferred approximately $113 million for recovery associated with building the ISFSI. See Note 5 for additional information on spent nuclear fuel litigation.
The regulatory asset associated with the original Crystal River Unit 3 power uprate project will continue to be recovered through the NCRC over an estimated seven-year period that began in 2013 with a remaining uncollected balance of $87 million at December 31, 2017.

154

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

Crystal River Unit 3 Regulatory Asset
On September 15, 2015, the FPSC approved Duke Energy Florida's motion for approval of a settlement agreement with intervenors to reduce the value of the projected Crystal River Unit 3 regulatory asset to be recovered to $1.283 billion as of December 31, 2015. An impairment charge of $15 million was recognized in 2015 to adjust the regulatory asset balance. In November 2015, the FPSC issued a financing order approving Duke Energy Florida’s request to issue nuclear asset-recovery bonds to finance its unrecovered regulatory asset related to Crystal River Unit 3 through a wholly owned special purpose entity. Nuclear asset-recovery bonds replace the base rate recovery methodology authorized by the 2013 Settlement and result in a lower rate impact to customers with a recovery period of approximately 20 years.
Pursuant to provisions in Florida Statutes and the FPSC financing order, in 2016, Duke Energy Florida formed Duke Energy Florida Project Finance, LLC (DEFPF), a wholly owned, bankruptcy remote special purpose subsidiary for the purpose of issuing nuclear asset-recovery bonds. In June 2016, DEFPF issued $1,294 million aggregate principal amount of senior secured bonds (nuclear asset-recovery bonds) to finance the recovery of Duke Energy Florida's Crystal River 3 regulatory asset.
In connection with this financing, net proceeds to DEFPF of approximately $1,287 million, after underwriting costs, were used to acquire nuclear asset-recovery property from Duke Energy Florida and to pay transaction related expenses. The nuclear asset-recovery property includes the right to impose, bill, collect and adjust a non-bypassable nuclear asset-recovery charge, to be collected on a per kilowatt-hour basis, from all Duke Energy Florida retail customers until the bonds are paid in full. Duke Energy Florida began collecting the nuclear asset-recovery charge on behalf of DEFPF in customer rates in July 2016.
See Note 17 for additional information.
Levy Nuclear Project
On July 28, 2008, Duke Energy Florida applied to the NRC for COLs for two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors at Levy (Levy Nuclear Project). In 2008, the FPSC granted Duke Energy Florida’s petition for an affirmative Determination of Need and related orders requesting cost recovery under Florida’s nuclear cost-recovery rule, together with the associated facilities, including transmission lines and substation facilities. In October 2016, the NRC issued COLs for the proposed Levy Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2. Duke Energy Florida is not required to build the nuclear reactors as a result of the COLs being issued.
On January 28, 2014, Duke Energy Florida terminated the Levy engineering, procurement and construction agreement (EPC). Duke Energy Florida may be required to pay for work performed under the EPC. Duke Energy Florida recorded an exit obligation in 2014 for the termination of the EPC. This liability was recorded within Other in Other Noncurrent Liabilities with an offset primarily to Regulatory assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Duke Energy Florida is allowed to recover reasonable and prudent EPC cancellation costs from its retail customers. On May 1, 2017, Duke Energy Florida filed a request with the FPSC to recover approximately $82 million of Levy Nuclear Project costs from retail customers in 2018. As part of the 2017 Settlement discussed above, Duke Energy Florida is no longer seeking recovery of costs related to the Levy Nuclear Project and the ongoing Westinghouse litigation discussed in Note 5. All remaining Levy Nuclear Project issues have been resolved.
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 are expected to be retired by the end of 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.

155

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

Duke Energy Ohio
Regulatory Assets and Liabilities
The following tables present the regulatory assets and liabilities recorded on Duke Energy Ohio's Consolidated Balance Sheets.
 December 31, Earns/PaysRecovery/Refund
(in millions)2017
2016
 a ReturnPeriod Ends
Regulatory Assets(a)
     
AROs - coal ash$17
$12
 X(b)
Accrued pension and OPEB139
135
  (g)
Net regulatory asset related to income taxes(c)

63
  (d)
Storm cost deferrals5
5
  (b)
Hedge costs deferrals6
7
  (b)
DSM/EE18
6
 (f)(e)
Grid modernization39
65
 X(e)
Vacation accrual5
4
  2018
Deferred fuel and purchased power
5
   
PISCC and deferred operating expenses(c)
19
20
 X2083
Transmission expansion obligation50
71
  (e)
MGP91
99
  (b)
AMI6

  (b)
East Bend deferrals45
32
 X(b)
Deferred pipeline integrity costs12
7
 X(b)
Other42
26
  (b)
Total regulatory assets494
557
   
Less: current portion49
37
   
Total noncurrent regulatory assets$445
$520
   
Regulatory Liabilities(a)
     
Costs of removal$189
$212
  (d)
Net regulatory liability related to income taxes688

  (b)
Accrued pension and OPEB16
19
  (g)
Deferred fuel and purchased power
6
   
Other34
20
  (b)
Total regulatory liabilities927
257
   
Less: current portion36
21
   
Total noncurrent regulatory liabilities$891
$236
   
(a)Regulatory assets and liabilities are excluded from rate base unless otherwise noted.
(b)The expected recovery or refund period varies or has not been determined.
(c)Included in rate base.
(d)Recovery over the life of the associated assets.
(e)Recovered via a rider mechanism.
(f)Includes incentives on DSM/EE investments.
(g)Recovered primarily over the average remaining service periods or life expectancies of employees covered by the benefit plans. See Note 21 for additional detail.
Duke Energy Kentucky Rate Case
On September 1, 2017, Duke Energy Kentucky filed a rate case with the KPSC requesting an increase in electric base rates of approximately $49 million, which represents an approximate 15 percent increase on the average customer bill. The rate increase is driven by increased investment in utility plant, increased operations and maintenance expenses and recovery of regulatory assets. The application also includes implementation of the Environmental Surcharge Mechanism to recover environmental costs not included in base rates, requests to establish a Distribution Capital Investment Rider to recover incremental costs of specific programs, requests to establish a FERC Transmission Cost Reconciliation Rider to recover escalating transmission costs and modification to the Profit Sharing Mechanism to increase customers' share of proceeds from the benefits of owning generation and to mitigate shareholder risks associated with that generation. An evidentiary hearing is scheduled to begin on March 6, 2018.Duke Energy Kentucky anticipates that rates will go into effect in mid-April 2018. Duke Energy Kentucky cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

156

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

2017 Electric Security Plan
On June 1, 2017, Duke Energy Ohio filed with the PUCO a request for a standard service offer in the form of an electric security plan (ESP). If approved by the PUCO, the term of the ESP would be from June 1, 2018, to May 31, 2024. Terms of the ESP include continuation of market-based customer rates through competitive procurement processes for generation, continuation and expansion of existing rider mechanisms and proposed new rider mechanisms relating to regulatory mandates, costs incurred to enhance the customer experience and transform the grid and a service reliability rider for vegetation management. On February 15, 2018, the procedural schedule was suspended to facilitate ongoing settlement discussions. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Woodsdale Station Fuel System Filing
On June 9, 2015, the FERC ruled in favor of PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM) on a revised Tariff and Reliability Assurance Agreement including implementation of a Capacity Performance (CP) proposal and to amend sections of the Operating Agreement related to generation non-performance. The CP proposal includes performance-based penalties for non-compliance. Duke Energy Kentucky is a Fixed Resource Requirement (FRR) entity, and therefore is subject to the compliance standards through its FRR plans. A partial CP obligation will apply to Duke Energy Kentucky in the delivery year beginning June 1, 2019, with full compliance beginning June 1, 2020. Duke Energy Kentucky has developed strategies for CP compliance investments. On December 21, 2017, the KPSC issued an order approving Duke Energy Kentucky's request for a CPCN to construct an ultra-low sulfur diesel backup fuel system for the Woodsdale Station. The backup fuel system is projected to cost approximately $55 million and is anticipated to be in service prior to the CP compliance deadline of April 2019.
Ohio Valley Electric Corporation
On March 31, 2017, Duke Energy Ohio filed for approval to adjust its existing price stabilization rider (Rider PSR), which is currently set at zero dollars, to pass through net costs related to its contractual entitlement to capacity and energy from the generating assets owned by OVEC. The filing seeks to adjust Rider PSR for OVEC costs subsequent to April 1, 2017. Duke Energy Ohio is seeking deferral authority for net costs incurred from April 1, 2017, until the new rates under Rider PSR are put into effect. Various intervenors have filed motions to dismiss or stay the proceeding and Duke Energy Ohio has opposed these filings. See Note 13 for additional discussion of Duke Energy Ohio's ownership interest in OVEC. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
East Bend Coal Ash Basin Filing
On December 2, 2016, Duke Energy Kentucky filed with the KPSC a request for a CPCN for construction projects necessary to close and repurpose an ash basin at the East Bend facility as a result of current and proposed EPA regulations. Duke Energy Kentucky estimated a total cost of approximately $93 million in the filing and expects in-service date by the first quarter of 2021. On June 6, 2017, the KPSC approved the CPCN request.
Electric Base Rate Case
Duke Energy Ohio filed with the PUCO an electric distribution base rate case application and supporting testimony in March 2017. Duke Energy Ohio requested an estimated annual increase of approximately $15 million and a return on equity of 10.4 percent. The application also includes requests to continue certain current riders and establish new riders. On September 26, 2017, the PUCO staff filed a report recommending a revenue decrease between approximately $18 million and $29 million and a return on equity between 9.22 percent and 10.24 percent. On February 15, 2018, the procedural schedule was suspended to facilitate ongoing settlement discussions. Duke Energy Ohio expects rates will go into effect the second quarter of 2018. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Natural Gas Pipeline Extension
Duke Energy Ohio is proposing to install a new natural gas pipeline in its Ohio service territory to increase system reliability and enable the retirement of older infrastructure. On January 20, 2017, Duke Energy Ohio filed an amended application with the Ohio Power Siting Board for approval of one of two proposed routes. A public hearing was held on June 15, 2017, and an adjudicatory hearing was scheduled to begin September 11, 2017. On August 24, 2017, an administrative law judge (ALJ) granted a request made by Duke Energy Ohio to delay the procedural schedule while it works through various issues related to the pipeline route. If approved, construction of the pipeline extension is expected to be completed before the 2020/2021 winter season. The proposed project involves the installation of a natural gas line and is estimated to cost approximately $110 million, excluding AFUDC.
Advanced Metering Infrastructure
On April 25, 2016, Duke Energy Kentucky filed with the KPSC an application for approval of a CPCN for the construction of advanced metering infrastructure. Duke Energy Kentucky estimates the $49 million project will take two years to complete. Duke Energy Kentucky also requested approval to establish a regulatory asset for the remaining book value of existing meter equipment and inventory to be replaced. Duke Energy Kentucky and the Kentucky attorney general entered into a stipulation to settle matters related to the application. On May 25, 2017, the KPSC issued an order to approve the stipulation with certain modifications. On June 1, 2017, Duke Energy Kentucky filed its acceptance of the modifications. The deployment of AMI meters began in third quarter 2017 and is expected to be completed in early 2019. Duke Energy Ohio has approximately $6 million included in Regulatory assets on its Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31, 2017, for the book value of existing meter equipment.

157

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

Accelerated Natural Gas Service Line Replacement Rider
On January 20, 2015, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application for approval of an accelerated natural gas service line replacement program (ASRP). Under the ASRP, Duke Energy Ohio proposed to replace certain natural gas service lines on an accelerated basis over a 10-year period. Duke Energy Ohio also proposed to complete preliminary survey and investigation work related to natural gas service lines that are customer owned and for which it does not have valid records and, further, to relocate interior natural gas meters to suitable exterior locations where such relocation can be accomplished. Duke Energy Ohio's projected total capital and operations and maintenance expenditures under the ASRP were approximately $240 million. The filing also sought approval of a rider mechanism (Rider ASRP) to recover related expenditures. Duke Energy Ohio proposed to update Rider ASRP on an annual basis. Intervenors opposed the ASRP, primarily because they believe the program is neither required nor necessary under federal pipeline regulation. On October 26, 2016, the PUCO issued an order denying the proposed ASRP. Duke Energy Ohio's application for rehearing of the PUCO decision was denied on May 17, 2017.
Energy Efficiency Cost Recovery
On March 28, 2014, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application for recovery of program costs, lost distribution revenue and performance incentives related to its energy efficiency and peak demand reduction programs. These programs are undertaken to comply with environmental mandates set forth in Ohio law. The PUCO approved Duke Energy Ohio’s application but found that Duke Energy Ohio was not permitted to use banked energy savings from previous years in order to calculate the amount of allowed incentive. This conclusion represented a change to the cost recovery mechanism that had been agreed upon by intervenors and approved by the PUCO in previous cases. The PUCO granted the applications for rehearing filed by Duke Energy Ohio and an intervenor. On January 6, 2016, Duke Energy Ohio and the PUCO Staff entered into a stipulation, pending the PUCO's approval, to resolve issues related to performance incentives and the PUCO Staff audit of 2013 costs, among other issues. In December 2015, based upon the stipulation, Duke Energy Ohio re-established approximately $20 million of the revenues that had been previously reversed. On October 26, 2016, the PUCO issued an order approving the stipulation without modification. In December 2016, the PUCO granted the intervenors request for rehearing for the purpose of further review. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
On June 15, 2016, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application for approval of a three-year energy efficiency and peak demand reduction portfolio of programs. A stipulation and modified stipulation were filed on December 22, 2016, and January 27, 2017, respectively. Under the terms of the stipulations, which included support for deferral authority of all costs and a cap on shared savings incentives, Duke Energy Ohio offered its energy efficiency and peak demand reduction programs throughout 2017. On February 3, 2017, Duke Energy Ohio filed for deferral authority of its costs incurred in 2017 in respect of its proposed energy efficiency and peak demand reduction portfolio. On September 27, 2017, the PUCO issued an order approving a modified stipulation. The modifications impose an annual cap of approximately $38 million on program costs and shared savings incentives combined, but allowed for Duke Energy Ohio to file for a waiver of costs in excess of the cap in 2017. The PUCO approved the waiver request up to a total cost of $56 million. On November 21, 2017, the PUCO granted Duke Energy Ohio's and intervenor's applications for rehearing of the September 27, 2017, order. On January 10, 2018, the PUCO denied the Ohio Consumers' Counsel’s application for rehearing of the PUCO order granting Duke Energy Ohio's waiver request. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
2014 Electric Security Plan
In April 2015, the PUCO modified and approved Duke Energy Ohio's proposed electric security plan (ESP), with a three-year term and an effective date of June 1, 2015. The PUCO approved a competitive procurement process for SSO load, a distribution capital investment rider and a tracking mechanism for incremental distribution expenses caused by major storms. The PUCO also approved a placeholder tariff for a price stabilization rider, but denied Duke Energy Ohio's specific request to include Duke Energy Ohio's entitlement to generation from OVEC in the rider at this time; however, the order allows Duke Energy Ohio to submit additional information to request recovery in the future. On May 4, 2015, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application for rehearing requesting the PUCO to modify or amend certain aspects of the order. On May 28, 2015, the PUCO granted all applications for rehearing filed in the case for future consideration. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of the appeals in this matter.
2012 Natural Gas Rate Case/MGP Cost Recovery
On November 13, 2013, the PUCO issued an order approving a settlement of Duke Energy Ohio’s natural gas base rate case and authorizing the recovery of costs incurred between 2008 and 2012 for environmental investigation and remediation of two former MGP sites. The PUCO order also authorized Duke Energy Ohio to continue deferring MGP environmental investigation and remediation costs incurred subsequent to 2012 and to submit annual filings to adjust the MGP rider for future costs. Intervening parties appealed this decision to the Ohio Supreme Court and on June 29, 2017, the Ohio Supreme Court issued its decision affirming the PUCO order. Appellants filed a request for reconsideration, which was denied on September 27, 2017. This matter is now final.
The PUCO order also contained deadlines for completing the MGP environmental investigation and remediation costs at the MGP sites. For the property known as the East End site, the PUCO order established a deadline of December 31, 2016, which was subsequently extended to December 31, 2019. In January 2017, intervening parties filed for rehearing of the PUCO's decision. On February 8, 2017, the PUCO denied the rehearing request. As of December 31, 2017, Duke Energy Ohio had approximately, $35 million included in Regulatory assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets for future remediation costs expected to be incurred at the East End site.
Regional Transmission Organization Realignment
Duke Energy Ohio, including Duke Energy Kentucky, transferred control of its transmission assets from MISO to PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM), effective December 31, 2011. The PUCO approved a settlement related to Duke Energy Ohio’s recovery of certain costs of the Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) realignment via a non-bypassable rider. Duke Energy Ohio is allowed to recover all MISO Transmission Expansion Planning (MTEP) costs, including but not limited to Multi Value Project (MVP) costs, directly or indirectly charged to Ohio customers. Duke Energy Ohio also agreed to vigorously defend against any charges for MVP projects from MISO. The KPSC also approved a request to effect the RTO realignment, subject to a commitment not to seek double recovery in a future rate case of the transmission expansion fees that may be charged by MISO and PJM in the same period or overlapping periods.

158

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

The following table provides a reconciliation of the beginning and ending balance of Duke Energy Ohio’s recorded liability for its exit obligation and share of MTEP costs, excluding MVP, recorded within Other in Current liabilities and Other in Other Noncurrent Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. The retail portions of MTEP costs billed by MISO are recovered by Duke Energy Ohio through a non-bypassable rider. As of December 31, 2017, and 2016, $50 million and $71 million are recorded in Regulatory assets on Duke Energy Ohio's Consolidated Balance Sheets, respectively.
   Provisions/
 Cash
  
(in millions)December 31, 2016
 Adjustments
 Reductions
 December 31, 2017
Duke Energy Ohio$90
 $(20) $(4) $66
MVP. MISO approved 17 MVP proposals prior to Duke Energy Ohio’s exit from MISO on December 31, 2011. Construction of these projects is expected to continue through 2020. Costs of these projects, including operating and maintenance costs, property and income taxes, depreciation and an allowed return, are allocated and billed to MISO transmission owners.
On December 29, 2011, MISO filed a tariff with the FERC providing for the allocation of MVP costs to a withdrawing owner based on monthly energy usage. The FERC set for hearing (i) whether MISO’s proposed cost allocation methodology to transmission owners who withdrew from MISO prior to January 1, 2012, is consistent with the tariff at the time of their withdrawal from MISO and, (ii) if not, what the amount of and methodology for calculating any MVP cost responsibility should be. In 2012, MISO estimated Duke Energy Ohio’s MVP obligation over the period from 2012 to 2071 at $2.7 billion, on an undiscounted basis. On July 16, 2013, a FERC Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an initial decision. Under this initial decision, Duke Energy Ohio would be liable for MVP costs. Duke Energy Ohio filed exceptions to the initial decision, requesting FERC to overturn the ALJ’s decision.
On October 29, 2015, the FERC issued an order reversing the ALJ's decision. The FERC ruled the cost allocation methodology is not consistent with the MISO tariff and that Duke Energy Ohio has no liability for MVP costs after its withdrawal from MISO. On May 19, 2016, the FERC denied the request for rehearing filed by MISO and the MISO Transmission Owners. On July 15, 2016, the MISO Transmission Owners filed a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On June 21, 2017, a three-judge panel affirmed FERC's 2015 decision holding that Duke Energy Ohio has no liability for the cost of the MVP projects constructed after Duke Energy Ohio's withdrawal from MISO. MISO did not file further petitions for review and this matter is now final.

159

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

Duke Energy Indiana
Regulatory Assets and Liabilities
The following tables present the regulatory assets and liabilities recorded on Duke Energy Indiana's Consolidated Balance Sheets.
 December 31, Earns/PaysRecovery/Refund
(in millions)2017
2016
 a ReturnPeriod Ends
Regulatory Assets(a)
     
AROs - coal ash$380
$276
  (b)
Accrued pension and OPEB197
222
  (g)
Retired generation facilities(c)
65
73
 X2025
Net regulatory asset related to income taxes
119
  (d)
Hedge costs deferrals25
26
  (b)
DSM/EE21

 (e)(e)
Vacation accrual11
10
  2018
Deferred fuel and purchased power18
40
  2018
PISCC and deferred operating expenses(c)
274
281
 X(b)
Gasification services agreement buyout(f)

8
   
AMI(c)
21
46
 X(b)
Other131
121
  (b)
Total regulatory assets1,143
1,222
   
Less: current portion165
149
   
Total noncurrent regulatory assets$978
$1,073
   
Regulatory Liabilities(a)
     
Costs of removal$644
$660
  (d)
Net regulatory liability related to income taxes998

  (b)
Amounts to be refunded to customers10
45
  2018
Accrued pension and OPEB64
72
  (g)
Other31
11
  (b)
Total regulatory liabilities1,747
788
   
Less: current portion24
40
   
Total noncurrent regulatory liabilities$1,723
$748
   
(a)Regulatory assets and liabilities are excluded from rate base unless otherwise noted.
(b)The expected recovery or refund period varies or has not been determined.
(c)Included in rate base.
(d)Recovery over the life of the associated assets.
(e)Includes incentives on DSM/EE investments and is recovered through a tracker mechanism over a two-year period.
(f)The IURC authorized Duke Energy Indiana to recover costs incurred to buy out a gasification services agreement, including carrying costs through 2017.
(g)Recovered primarily over the average remaining service periods or life expectancies of employees covered by the benefit plans. See Note 21 for additional detail.
Coal Combustion Residual Plan
On March 17, 2016, Duke Energy Indiana filed with the IURC a request for approval of its first group of federally mandated Coal Combustion Residual (CCR)CCR rule compliance projects (Phase I CCR Compliance Projects) to comply with the EPA's CCR rule. The projects in this Phase I filing are CCR compliance projects, including the conversion of Cayuga and Gibson Stationsstations to dry bottom ash handling and related water treatment. Duke Energy Indiana has requested timely recovery of approximately $380 million in retail capital costs, including AFUDC, and recovery of incremental operating and maintenance costs including AFUDC, under a federal mandate tracker whichthat provides for timely recovery of 80 percent of such costs and deferral with carrying costs of 20 percent of such costs for recovery in a subsequent retail base rate case. On January 24, 2017, Duke Energy Indiana and various Intervenorsintervenors filed a settlement agreement with the IURC. Terms of the settlement include recovery of 60 percent of the estimated CCR compliance construction project capital costs through existing rider mechanisms and deferral of 40 percent of these costs until Duke Energy Indiana's next general retail rate case. The deferred costs will earn a return based on Duke Energy Indiana's long-term debt rate of 4.73 percent until costs are included in retail rates, at which time the deferred costs will earn a full return. Costs are to be capped at $365 million, plus actual AFUDC. Costs above the cap maywould be recoverableconsidered for recovery in the next rate case. Terms of the settlement agreement also require Duke Energy Indiana to perform certain reporting and groundwater monitoring. TheOn May 24, 2017, the IURC approved the settlement is subject to approval by the IURC. An evidentiary hearing was held on February 23, 2017. Duke Energy Indiana cannot predict the outcome of this matter.agreement.

160

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

Edwardsport Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Plant
Costs for the Edwardsport Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) Plant are recovered from retail electric customers via a tracking mechanism (IGCC rider) with updates filed by Duke Energy Indiana. The IGCC Plant was placed into commercial operation in June 2013.
On August 24, 2016, the IURC approved a settlement (IGCC Settlement) among Duke Energy Indiana and several intervenors agreed upon a settlement (IGCC settlement) in 2015 to resolve disputes related to five IGCC riders (the 11th through 15th) and a subdocket to Duke Energy Indiana's fuel adjustment clause. The settlement agreement resolved disputes related to the determination on whether the IGCC plant was properly declared in-service for ratemaking purposes in June 2013, as well as the operational performance of the plant. The IGCC settlement resulted in customers not being billed for previously incurred plant operating costs of $87.5 million and payments and commitments from Duke Energy Indiana of $5.5 million for attorneys’ fees and consumer programs funding. Duke Energy Indiana recognized pretax impairment and related charges of $93 million in 2015. Additionally, under the IGCC settlement, the recovery of operating and maintenance expenses and ongoing maintenance capital at the plant arewere subject to certain caps during the years of 2016 and 2017. The IGCC settlement also includesincluded a commitment to either retire or stop burning coal by December 31, 2022, at the Gallagher Station. Pursuant to the IGCC settlement, the in-service date used for accounting and ratemaking will remain as June 2013. Remaining deferred costs will be recovered over eight years beginning in 2016 and not earn a carrying cost. On August 24, 2016, the IURC approved the settlement in full with no changes or conditions. The order was not appealed and the proceeding is concluded. As of December 31, 2016,2017, deferred costs related to the project are approximately $161 million.$152 million and are included in Regulatory assets in Current Assets and Other Noncurrent Assets on Duke Energy Indiana's Consolidated Balance Sheets. Under the IGCC settlement, future IGCC riders will be filed annually rather than every six months, with the next filing scheduled for first quarter 2017.2018.
The ninth semi-annual IGCC rider order was appealed by various intervenors and the matter was remanded to the IURC for further proceedings and additional findings on a tax in-service issue. On February 2, 2017, the IURC issued an order upholding the original decision, finding that an estimate of impact on customer rates due to the federal income tax in-service determination was reasonable. The intervenors could appeal this order.
FERC Transmission Return on Equity Complaint
Customer groups have filed with the FERC complaints against MISO and its transmission-owning members, including Duke Energy Indiana, alleging, among other things, that the current base rate of return on equity earned by MISO transmission owners of 12.38 percent is unjust and unreasonable. The latest complaint, filed on February 12, 2015, claimscomplaints claim, among other things, that the current base rate of return on equity earned by MISO transmission owners should be reduced to 8.67 percent and requests a consolidation of complaints. The motion to consolidate complaints was denied.percent. On January 5, 2015, the FERC issued an order accepting the MISO transmission ownersowners' adder of 0.50 percent adder to the base rate of return on equity based on participation in an RTO subject to it being applied to a return on equity that is shown to be just and reasonable in the pending return on equity complaints. A hearing in the base return on equity proceeding was held in August 2015. On December 22, 2015, the presiding FERC ALJ in the first complaint issued an Initial Decision in which the base rate of return on equity was set at 10.32 percent. On September 28, 2016, the Initial Decision in the first complaint was affirmed by FERC.FERC, but is subject to rehearing requests. On June 30, 2016, the presiding FERC ALJ in the second complaint issued an Initial Decision setting the base rate of return on equity at 9.70 percent. The Initial Decision in the second complaint is pending FERC review. On April 14, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in Emera Maine v. FERC, reversed and remanded certain aspects of the methodology employed by FERC to establish rates of return on equity. This decision may affect the outcome of the complaints against Duke Energy Indiana. Duke Energy Indiana currently believes these matters will not have a material impact on its results of operations, cash flows and financial position.
Grid Infrastructure Improvement Plan
On August 29, 2014, pursuant to a new statute, Duke Energy Indiana filed a seven-year grid infrastructure improvement plan with the IURC with an estimated cost of $1.9 billion, focusing on the reliability, integrity and modernization of the transmission and distribution system. The plan also provided for cost recovery through a transmission and distribution rider (T&D Rider). In May 2015, the IURC denied the original proposal due to an insufficient level of detailed projects and cost estimates in the plan. On December 7, 2015, Duke Energy Indiana filed a revisedgrid infrastructure improvement plan with an estimated cost of $1.8 billion in response to guidance from IURC orders and the Indiana Court of Appeals decisions related to thisa new statute. The revised plan uses a combination of advanced technology and infrastructure upgrades to improve service to customers and provide them with better information about their energy use. It also provides for cost recovery through a Ttransmission and distribution rider (T&D Rider.Rider). In March 2016, Duke Energy Indiana entered into a settlement with all parties to the proceeding except the Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc. The settlement agreement decreased the capital expenditures eligible for timely recovery of costs in the seven-year plan to approximately $1.4 billion, including the removal of an AMI project. Under the settlement, the return on equity to be used in the T&D Rider is 10 percent. The IURC approved the settlement and issued a final order on June 29, 2016. The order was not appealed and the proceeding is concluded.

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

The settlement alsoagreement provided for deferral accounting for depreciation and post-in-service carrying costs for AMI projects outside the seven-year plan. Duke Energy Indiana withdrew its request for a regulatory asset for current meters and will retain any savings associated with future AMI installation until the next retail base rate case, which is required to be filed prior to the end of the seven-year plan. InDuring the third quarter of 2016, Duke Energy Indiana decided to implement the AMI project. This decision resulted in a pretax impairment charge related to existing or non-AMI meters of approximately $8 million in 2016, based in part on Duke Energy Indiana's intentthe requirement to file a base rate case in 2022 under the approved T&D Rider plan. AtDuke Energy Indiana evaluates the need for rate cases as part of its business planning, based on the outlook of emerging costs, ongoing investment and impact related to the Tax Act enacted in late 2017 and expects to file a rate case prior to the 2022 requirement. As a result, in 2017, Duke Energy Indiana recorded an additional impairment charge of approximately $22 million. As of December 31, 2016,2017, Duke Energy Indiana's remaining net book value of non-AMI meters is approximately $46$21 million whichand will be depreciated through 2022. In the event thatJuly 2020.

161

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

Benton County Wind Farm Dispute
On December 16, 2013, Benton County Wind Farm LLC (BCWF) filed a lawsuit against Duke Energy Indiana seeking damages for past generation losses alleging Duke Energy Indiana violated its obligations under a 2006 PPA by refusing to offer electricity to the market at negative prices. Damage claims continue to increase during times that BCWF is not dispatched. Under 2013 revised MISO market rules, Duke Energy Indiana is required to make a price offer to MISO for the power it proposes to sell into MISO markets and MISO determines whether BCWF is dispatched. Because market prices would have been negative due to increased market participation, Duke Energy Indiana determined it would not bid at negative prices in order to balance customer needs against BCWF's need to run. BCWF contends Duke Energy Indiana must bid at the lowest negative price to ensure dispatch, while Duke Energy Indiana contends it is not obligated to bid at any particular price, that it cannot ensure dispatch with any bid and that it has reasonably balanced the parties' interests. On July 6, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana entered judgment against BCWF on all claims. BCWF appealed the decision and on December 9, 2016, the appeals court ruled in favor of BCWF. Duke Energy Indiana recorded an obligation and a regulatory asset related to the settlement amount in fourth quarter 2016. On June 30, 2017, the parties finalized a settlement agreement. Terms of the settlement included Duke Energy Indiana paying $29 million for back damages. Additionally, the parties agreed on the method by which the contract will be bid into the market in the future. The settlement amount was paid in June 2017. The IURC issued an order on September 27, 2017, approving recovery of the settlement amount through Duke Energy Indiana's fuel clause. The IURC order has been appealed to filethe Indiana Court of Appeals. Duke Energy Indiana cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Piedmont
Regulatory Assets and Liabilities
The following tables present the regulatory assets and liabilities recorded on Piedmont's Consolidated Balance Sheets.
 December 31, Earns/PaysRecovery/Refund
(in millions)2017
2016
 a ReturnPeriod Ends
Regulatory Assets(a)
     
AROs - other$15
$14
  (d)
Accrued pension and OPEB(c)
91
166
  (f)
Derivatives - gas supply contracts142
187
  (e)
Vacation accrual(c)
10
13
  2018
Deferred pipeline integrity costs(c)
42
36
  2018
Amount due from customers64
66
 X(b)
Other14
15
  (b)
Total regulatory assets378
497
   
Less: current portion95
124
   
Total noncurrent regulatory assets$283
$373
   
Regulatory Liabilities(a)
     
Costs of removal$544
$528
  (d)
Net regulatory liability related to income taxes597
80
  (b)
Other3

  (b)
Total regulatory liabilities1,144
608
   
Less: current portion3

   
Total noncurrent regulatory liabilities$1,141
$608
   
(a)Regulatory assets and liabilities are excluded from rate base unless otherwise noted.
(b)The expected recovery or refund period varies or has not been determined.
(c)Included in rate base.
(d)Recovery over the life of the associated assets.
(e)Balance will fluctuate with changes in the market. Current contracts extend into 2031.
(f)Recovered primarily over the average remaining service periods or life expectancies of employees covered by the benefit plans. See Note 21 for additional detail.
South Carolina Rate Stabilization Adjustment Filing
In June 2017, Piedmont filed with the PSCSC under the South Carolina Rate Stabilization Act its quarterly monitoring report for the 12-month period ending March 31, 2017. The filing included a baserevenue deficiency calculation and tariff rates in order to permit Piedmont the opportunity to earn the rate case earlier than 2022, it may incurof return on equity of 12.6 percent established in its last general rate case. On October 4, 2017, the PSCSC approved a settlement agreement between Piedmont and the SC Office of Regulatory Staff. Terms of the settlement included implementation of rates for the 12-month period beginning November 2017 with a return on equity of 10.2 percent.

162

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

North Carolina Integrity Management Rider Filings
In October 2017, Piedmont filed a petition with the NCUC under the Integrity Management Rider (IMR) mechanism to collect an additional impairment charges.$8.9 million in annual revenues, effective December 2017, based on the eligible capital investments closed to integrity and safety projects over the six-month period ending September 30, 2017. On November 28, 2017, the NCUC approved the requested rate adjustment.
Other Regulatory MattersIn May 2017, Piedmont filed, and the NCUC approved, a petition under the IMR mechanism to collect an additional $11.6 million in annual revenues, effective June 2017, based on the eligible capital investments closed to integrity and safety projects over the six-month period ending March 31, 2017.
Tennessee Integrity Management Rider Filing
In November 2017, Piedmont filed a petition with the TPUC under the IMR mechanism to collect an additional $3.3 million in annual revenues, effective January 2018, based on the eligible capital investments closed to integrity and safety projects over the 12-month period ending October 31, 2017. In January 2018, Piedmont filed an amended computation under the IMR mechanism, revising the proposed increase in annual revenues to approximately $0.4 million based on the decrease in the corporate federal income tax rate effective January 1, 2018. A hearing on this matter is scheduled for March 2018.
OTHER REGULATORY MATTERS
Atlantic Coast Pipeline
On September 2, 2014, Duke Energy, Dominion Resources (Dominion), Piedmont and Southern Company Gas formerly AGL Resources Inc., announced the formation of ACPAtlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC (ACP) to build and own the proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP pipeline), an approximately 600-mile interstate natural gas pipeline running from West Virginia to North Carolina. The ACP pipeline is designed to meet, in part, the needs identified in RFPs by Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Piedmont. The ACP pipeline development costs are estimated between $5.0 billion to $5.5 billion. Dominion will build and operate the ACP pipeline. Originally, Dominion held a 45 percent membership interest in ACP, Duke Energy held a 40 percent interest, Piedmont held a 10 percent interestpipeline and Southern Company Gas held a 5 percent interest. On October 3, 2016, Duke Energy and Piedmont completed a merger transaction that resulted in Piedmont becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of Duke Energy. In connection with this transaction, and pursuant to terms of the ACP partnership agreement, Piedmont transferred 3 percent of its membership interest in ACP to Dominion in exchange for approximately $14 million. As a result of this transfer, Dominion maintainsholds a leading ownership percentage in ACP of 48 percent andpercent. Duke Energy owns a 47 percent interest through its Gas Utilities and Infrastructure segment. Southern Company Gas maintains a 5 percent interest. See Note 2Notes 12 and 17 for additional information related to Duke Energy's acquisition of Piedmont.ownership interest.
Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Piedmont, among others, will be customers of the pipeline. Purchases will be made under several 20-year supply contracts, subject to state regulatory approval. In October 2014, the NCUC and PSCSC approved the Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress requests to enter into certain affiliate agreements, pay compensation to ACP and to grant a waiver of certain Code of Conduct provisions relating to contractual and jurisdictional matters. On September 18, 2015, ACP filed an application with the FERC requesting a CPCN authorizing ACP to construct the pipeline. ACP executed a construction agreement in September 2016. ACP also requested approval of an open access tariff and the precedent agreements it entered into with future pipeline customers. In December 2016, FERC issued a preliminarydraft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) indicating that the proposed pipeline would not cause significant harm to the environment or protected populations. The FERC issued the final EIS is expected by June 30,in July 2017. On October 13, 2017, FERC approvalissued an order approving the CPCN, subject to conditions. On October 16, 2017, ACP accepted the FERC order subject to reserving its right to file a request for rehearing or clarification on a timely basis. On November 9, 2017, ACP filed a request for rehearing on several limited issues. On December 12, 2017, ACP filed an answer to intervenors’ request for rehearing of the application is expected within 90 dayscertificate order and for stay of the issuancecertificate order.
In December 2017, West Virginia issued a waiver of the final EIS. Construction is projectedstate water quality permit in reliance on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers national water quality permit and Virginia issued a conditional water quality permit subject to completion of additional studies and stormwater plans. In early 2018, the FERC issued a series of Partial Notices to Proceed which authorized the project to begin once FERC approval is received withlimited construction-related activities along the pipeline route. North Carolina issued the state water quality permit in January 2018. The project remains subject to other pending federal and state approvals, which will allow full construction activities to begin. The ACP pipeline project has a targeted in-service date of late 2019.
Due to delays in obtaining the required permits to commence construction and the conditions imposed upon the project by the permits, ACP's project manager estimates the project's pipeline development costs have increased from a range of $5.0 billion to $5.5 billion to a range of $6.0 billion and $6.5 billion, excluding financing costs. Project construction activities, schedule and final costs are still subject to uncertainty due to potential additional permitting delays, construction productivity and other conditions and risks which could result in potential higher project costs and a potential delay in the second half of 2019. ACP executed a construction agreement in September 2016 and is working with various agencies to develop the final pipeline route. ACP also requested approval of an open access tariff and the precedent agreements it entered into with future pipeline customers, including Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress. See Notes 12 and 17 for additional information.targeted in-service date.
Sabal Trail Transmission Pipeline
On May 4, 2015, Duke Energy acquired a 7.5 percent ownership interest in Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC (Sabal Trail) from Spectra Energy Partners, LP, a master limited partnership, formed by Enbridge Inc. (formerly Spectra Energy Corp.). Spectra Energy Partners, LP holds a 50 percent ownership interest in Sabal Trail and NextEra Energy has a 42.5 percent ownership interest. Sabal Trail is a joint venture that is constructingto construct a 515-mile natural gas pipeline (Sabal Trail pipeline) to transport natural gas to Florida. Total estimated project costs are approximately $3.2 billion. The Sabal Trail pipeline will traversetraverses Alabama, Georgia and Florida. The primary customers of the Sabal Trail pipeline, Duke Energy Florida and Florida Power & Light Company (FP&L), have each contracted to buy pipeline capacity for 25-year initial terms. See Notes 12 and 17 for additional information.
On February 3, 2016, the FERC issued an order granting the request for a CPCN to construct and operate the pipeline. The Sabal Trail pipeline has received other required regulatory approvals and initiated constructionthe phase one mainline was placed in service in July 2017. On October 12, 2017, Sabal Trail filed a request with FERC to place in-service a lateral line to Duke Energy Florida's Citrus County Combined Cycle facility, which remains pending. This request is required to support commissioning and testing activities at the facility.

163

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

On September 21, 2016, intervenors filed an appeal of FERC's CPCN orders to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals). On August 22, 2017, the appeals court ruled against FERC in the case for failing to include enough information on the impact of greenhouse-gas emissions carried by the pipeline, vacated the CPCN order and remanded the case to FERC. In response to the August 2017 court decision, the FERC issued a draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) on September 27, 2017. On October 6, 2017, FERC and a group of industry intervenors, including Sabal Trail and Duke Energy Florida, filed separate petitions with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals requesting rehearing regarding the court's decision to vacate the CPCN order. On January 31, 2018, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the requests for rehearing. On February 2, 2018, Sabal Trail filed a request with FERC for expedited issuance of its order on remand and reissuance of the CPCN. In the alternative, the pipeline requested that FERC issue a temporary emergency CPCN to allow for continued operations. On February 5, 2018, FERC issued the final SEIS but did not issue the order on remand. On February 6, 2018, FERC and the intervenors in this case each filed motions for stay with an expected in-service date in mid-2017. See Notes 12the D.C. Circuit Court to stay the court's mandate. The February 6, 2018 motions automatically stay the issuance of the court’s mandate until the later of seven days after the court denies the motions or the expiration of any stay granted by the court. Both motions are pending. Sabal Trail will continue to monitor the progress and 17 for additional information.the impact to the project going forward.
Constitution Pipeline
Duke Energy owns a 24 percent ownership interest in Constitution Pipeline Company, LLC (Constitution) through a wholly owned subsidiary of Piedmont.. Constitution is a natural gas pipeline project slated to transport natural gas supplies from the Marcellus supply region in northern Pennsylvania to major northeastern markets. The pipeline will be constructed and operated by Williams Partners L.P., which has a 41 percent ownership share. The remaining interest is held by Cabot Oil and Gas Corporation and WGL Holdings, Inc. Before the permitting delays discussed below, Duke Energy's total anticipated contributions were approximately $229 million. As a result of the permitting delays and project uncertainty, total anticipated contributions by Duke Energy can no longer be reasonably estimated.
OnIn December 2014, Constitution received approval from the FERC to construct and operate the proposed pipeline. However, on April 22, 2016, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) denied Constitution’s application for a necessary water quality certification for the New York portion of the Constitution pipeline. Constitution filed legal actions in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York and in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (U.S. Court of Appeals) challenging the legality and appropriateness of the NYSDEC’s decision. Both courts granted Constitution's motionsdecision and on August 18, 2017, the petition was denied in part and dismissed in part. In September 2017, Constitution filed a petition for a rehearing of portions of the decision unrelated to expedite the schedules for the legal actions. On November 16, 2016, oral arguments were heard inwater quality certification, which was denied by the U.S. Court of Appeals.
In January 2018, Constitution remains steadfastlypetitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to review the U.S. Court of Appeals decision. In October 2017, Constitution filed a petition for declaratory order requesting FERC to find that the NYSDEC waived its rights to issue a Section 401 water quality certification by not acting on Constitution's application within a reasonable period of time as required by statute. This petition was based on precedent established by another pipeline’s successful petition with FERC following a District of Columbia Circuit Court ruling. On January 11, 2018, FERC denied Constitution's petition. In February 2018, Constitution filed a rehearing request with FERC of its finding that the NYSDEC did not waive the Section 401 certification requirement. Constitution is currently unable to approximate an in-service date for the project due to the NYDSEC's denial of the water quality certification. The Constitution partners remain committed to pursuing the project and intendsare evaluating next steps to pursue all available options to challenge the NYSDEC's decision. In light of the denial of the certification, Constitution revised its target in-service date ofmove the project to be as early asforward. Duke Energy cannot predict the second half of 2018, assuming that the challenge process is satisfactorily and promptly concluded.
In July 2016, Constitution requested and the FERC approved an extension of the construction period and in-service deadline of the project to December 2018. Also in July, the FERC denied the New York Attorney General's (NYAG) complaint and request for a stay of the certificate order authorizing the project on the grounds that Constitution had improperly cut trees along the proposed route. The FERC found the complaint procedurally deficient and that there was no justification for a stay; it did find the filing constituted a valid request for investigation and thus referred the matter to FERC staff for further examination as may be appropriate. On November 22, 2016, the FERC denied the NYAG's request for reconsiderationoutcome of this order.

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

matter.
Since April 2016, with the actions of the NYSDEC, Constitution stopped construction and discontinued capitalization of future development costs until the project's uncertainty is resolved. As a result, Duke Energy evaluated the investment in the Constitution project for OTTIs. At this time, no OTTI has been determined and therefore no impairment charge to reduce the carrying value of the investment has been recorded. However, to the extent that the legal and regulatory proceedings have unfavorable outcomes, or if Constitution concludes that the project is not viable or does not go forward as legal and regulatory actions progress, the conclusions with respect to OTTIs could change and may require that an impairment charge of up to the recorded investment in the project, net of any cash and working capital returned, be recorded. Duke Energy will continue to monitor and update the OTTI analysis as required. Different assumptions could affect the timing and amount of any charge recorded in a period.
Pending the outcome of the matters described above, and when construction proceeds, Duke Energy remains committed to fund an amount in proportion to its ownership interest for the development and construction of the new pipeline. Duke Energy's total anticipated contributions are approximately $229 million. See Notes 12 and 17 for additional information.information related to ownership interest and carrying value of the investment.
Progress Energy Merger FERC Mitigation
In June 2012, the FERC approved the merger with Progress Energy, including Duke Energy and Progress Energy’s revised market power mitigation plan, the Joint Dispatch Agreement (JDA) and the joint Open Access Transmission Tariff. The revised market power mitigation plan provided for the acceleration of one transmission project and the completion of seven other transmission projects (Long-Term FERC Mitigation) and interim firm power sale agreements during the completion of the transmission projects (Interim FERC Mitigation). The Long-Term FERC Mitigation was expected to increase power imported into the Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress service areas and enhance competitive power supply options in the service areas. All of these projects were completed in or before 2014. On May 30, 2014, the Independent Monitor filed with FERC a final report stating that the Long-Term FERC Mitigation is complete. In 2014, Duke Energy Progress recorded an $18 million partial reversal of an impairment recorded in 2012. This reversal adjusts the initial disallowance from the Long-Term FERC mitigation and reflects updated information on the construction costs and in-service dates of the transmission projects.
Following the closing of the Progress Energy merger, outside counsel reviewed Duke Energy’s long-term FERC mitigation plan and discovered a technical error in the calculations. On December 6, 2013, Duke Energy submitted a filing to the FERC disclosing the error and arguing that no additional mitigation is necessary. The city of New Bern filed a protest and requested that FERC order additional mitigation. On October 29, 2014, the FERC ordered that the amount of the stub mitigation be increased from 25 MW to 129 MW. The stub mitigation is Duke Energy’s commitment to set aside for third parties a certain quantity of firm transmission capacity from Duke Energy Carolinas to Duke Energy Progress during summer off-peak hours. The FERC also ordered that Duke Energy operate certain phase shifters to create additional import capability and that such operation be monitored by an independent monitor. The costs to comply with this order are not material. The FERC also referred Duke Energy’s failure to expressly designate the phase shifter reactivation as a mitigation project in the original mitigation plan filing in March 2012 to the FERC Office of Enforcement for further inquiry. In response, and since December 2014, the FERC Office of Enforcement has been conducting a nonpublic investigation of Duke Energy's market power analyses included in the Progress merger filings submitted to FERC. Duke Energy cannot predict the outcome of this investigation.
Potential Coal Plant Retirements
The Subsidiary Registrants periodically file Integrated Resource Plans (IRP) with their state regulatory commissions. The IRPs provide a view of forecasted energy needs over a long term (10 to 20 years) and options being considered to meet those needs. Recent IRPs filed by the Subsidiary Registrants included planning assumptions to potentially retire certain coal-fired generating facilities in Florida and Indiana earlier than their current estimated useful lives primarily because facilities do not have the requisite emission control equipment to meet EPA regulations recently approved or proposed.

164

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

The table below contains the net carrying value of generating facilities planned for retirement or included in recent IRPs as evaluated for potential retirement due to a lack of requisite environmental control equipment. Dollar amounts in the table below are included in Net property, plant and equipment on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 20162017, and exclude capitalized asset retirement costs.
  Remaining Net
  Remaining Net
Capacity
 Book Value
Capacity
 Book Value
(in MW)
 (in millions)
(in MW)
 (in millions)
Duke Energy Carolinas      
Allen Steam Station Units 1-3(a)
585
 $168
585
 $163
Progress Energy and Duke Energy Florida      
Crystal River Units 1 and 2(b)873
 120
873
 107
Duke Energy Indiana(b)
      
Gallagher Units 2 and 4(c)
280
 136
280
 127
Total Duke Energy1,738
 $424
1,738
 $397
(a)Duke Energy Carolinas will retire Allen Steam Station Units 1 through 3 by December 31, 2024, as part of the resolution of a lawsuit involving alleged New Source Review violations.
(b)Duke Energy Indiana retired Wabash River Units 2 through 6 in 2016.Florida expects to retire these coal units by the end of 2018 to comply with environmental regulations.
(c)Duke Energy Indiana committed to either retire or stop burning coal at Gallagher Units 2 and 4 by December 31, 2022, as part of the settlement of Edwardsport IGCC matters.

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

On October 23, 2015, the EPA published in the Federal Register the final Clean Power Plan (CPP) rule regulating carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired electric generating units (EGUs). The CPP establishes CO2 emission rates and mass cap goals that apply to existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs. Petitions challenging the final CPP have been filed by several groups and on February 9, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay of the final CPP rule, halting implementation until legal challenges are resolved. States in which the Duke Energy Registrants operate have suspended work on CPP compliance plans as a result of the stay. The court is expected to decide the case in early 2017. Compliance with CPP could cause the industry to replace coal-fired generation with natural gas and renewables, especially in states that have significant CO2 reduction targets under the rule. Costs to operate coal-fired generation plants continue to grow due to increasing environmental compliance requirements, including ash management costs unrelated to CPP, which may result in the retirement of coal-fired generation plants earlier than the current end of useful lives. Duke Energy continues to evaluate the need to retire generating facilities and plans to seek regulatory recovery, where appropriate, for amounts that have not been recovered upon asset retirements. However, recovery is subject to future regulatory approval, including the recovery of carrying costs on remaining book values, and therefore cannot be assured.
Refer to the "Western Carolinas Modernization Plan" discussion above for details of Duke Energy Progress' planned retirements.
5. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
INSURANCE
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. 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 from 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 Plant (Robinson), Brunswick and Harris. Robinson and Harris each have one reactor. Brunswick has two reactors.
Duke Energy Florida owns Crystal River Unit 3, which has been retired.permanently ceased operation in 2013 and reached a SAFSTOR condition in January 2018 after the successful transfer of all used nuclear fuel assemblies to an onsite dry cask storage facility.
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.

165

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

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 approximately $13.4 billion, is subject to change every five years for inflation and for 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 StatesU.S. 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 was $375 million per station. For incidents after January 1, 2017, this primary nuclear liability insurance limit increased tois $450 million per station.

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

Excess Liability Program
This program provides $13 billion of coverage per incident through the Price-Anderson Act’s mandatory industrywide 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 102 licensed commercial nuclear reactors in the 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, nuclear accident 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 insuranceaccidental outage coverage 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.
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 $50 million and is on an actual cash value basis. 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. All coverages are subject to sublimits and significant deductibles.
NEIL’s Accidental Outage policy provides some replacement power cost insurancecoverage, such as business interruption, 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 these available weekly periods are met where the accidental outage policy limit will not exceed $490 million for McGuire and Catawba, $462 million for Brunswick, and$448 million for Harris, $464$434 million for Oconee and $404$378 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. All coverages are subject to sublimits and significant deductibles.
Potential Retroactive Premium Assessments
In the event of NEIL losses, NEIL’s board of directors may assess member companiescompanies' retroactive premiums of amounts up to 10 times their annual premiums for up to six years after a loss. NEIL has never exercised this assessment. The maximum aggregate annual retrospective premium obligations for Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida are $164$146 million, $104$96 million and $1 million, respectively. Duke Energy Carolinas' maximum assessment amount includes 100 percent of potential obligations to NEIL for jointly owned reactors. Duke Energy Carolinas would seek reimbursement from the joint owners for their portion of these assessment amounts.
ENVIRONMENTAL
The Duke Energy 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.

166

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

Remediation Activities
In addition to the ARO recorded as a result of various environmental regulations, discussed in Note 9, the Duke Energy Registrants are responsible for environmental remediation at various sites. These include certain 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, remediation activities vary based upon site conditions and location, 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 environmental impacts 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 at all sites. 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.

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

The following tables contain information regarding reserves for probable and estimable costs related to the various environmental sites. These reserves are recorded in Accounts payable within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Noncurrent Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
(in millions)Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Balance at December 31, 2013$74
 $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, 201492
 10
 17
 5
 12
 54
 10
$92
 $10
 $17
 $5
 $12
 $54
 $10
Provisions/adjustments11
 1
 4
 
 4
 1
 5
11
 1
 4
 
 4
 1
 5
Cash reductions(9) (1) (4) (2) (2) (1) (3)(9) (1) (4) (2) (2) (1) (3)
Balance at December 31, 201594
 10
 17
 3
 14
 54
 12
94
 10
 17
 3
 14
 54
 12
Provisions/adjustments19
 4
 7
 2
 4
 7
 1
19
 4
 7
 2
 4
 7
 1
Cash reductions(15) (4) (6) (2) (4) (2) (3)(15) (4) (6) (2) (4) (2) (3)
Balance at December 31, 2016$98
 $10
 $18
 $3
 $14
 $59
 $10
98
 10
 18
 3
 14
 59
 10
Provisions/adjustments8
 3
 3
 2
 2
 3
 (4)
Cash reductions(25) (3) (6) (2) (4) (15) (1)
Balance at December 31, 2017$81
 $10
 $15
 $3
 $12
 $47
 $5
As of December 31, 2016, October 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, Piedmont's environmental reserve was $1 million. In 2017, a $1 million provision was recorded, resulting in a reserve balance of $2 million at December 31, 2017.
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 not material except as presented in the table below.
(in millions)  
Duke Energy$69
$56
Duke Energy Carolinas22
19
Duke Energy Ohio36
30
Duke Energy Indiana7
Piedmont2
North Carolina and South Carolina Ash Basins
In February 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. 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. In July 2014, Duke Energy completed remediation work identified by the EPA and continues to cooperate with the EPA's civil enforcement process. Future costs related to the Dan River release, including future state or federal civil enforcement proceedings, future regulatory directives, natural resources damages, future claims or litigation and long-term environmental impact costs, cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.
The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) has historically assessed Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress with Notice of Violations (NOV) for violations that were most often resolved through satisfactory corrective actions and minor, if any, fines or penalties. Subsequent to the Dan River ash release, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress have been served with a higher level of NOVs, including assessed penalties for violations at L.V. Sutton Combined Cycle Plant (Sutton) and Dan River Steam Station. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress cannot predict whether the NCDEQ will assess future penalties related to existing unresolved NOVs and if such penalties would be material. See "NCDEQ Notices of Violation" section below for additional discussion.

167

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

LITIGATION
Duke Energy
Duke Energy no longer has exposure to litigation matters related to the International Energy Disposal Group as a result of the divestiture of the business in December 2016. See Note 2 for additional information related to the sale of International Energy.
Ash Basin Shareholder Derivative Litigation
Five shareholder derivative lawsuits were 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.

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

The Consolidated Complaint alleges the Duke Energy Defendants breached their fiduciary duties 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 August 31, 2015,which the court issued an order staying the case whichgranted. The stay was lifted on March 24, 2016. On April 22, 2016, after which plaintiffs filed an Amended Verified Consolidated Shareholder Derivative Complaint (Amended Complaint) making the same allegations as in the Consolidated Complaint. The Duke Energy Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on June 21, 2016. On2016, which was granted by the Court on December 14, 2016, the Delaware Chancery Court entered an order dismissing the Amended Complaint.2016. Plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court on January 9, 2017. Opening briefs were due by February 24,Oral argument was held on September 27, 2017. On December 15, 2017, and a date for oral argument has not been set.
On March 5, 2015, shareholder Judy Mesirov filed a shareholder derivative complaint (Mesirov Complaint) in North Carolina state court. The lawsuit, styled Mesirov v. Good, was similar to the consolidated derivative action pending in Delaware Chancery Court and was filed against the same current directors and former directors and officers as the Delaware litigation. Duke Energy Corporation, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Carolinas were named as nominal defendants. The Mesirov Complaint alleged thatSupreme Court affirmed the Duke Energy BoardChancery Court's order of Directors was aware of Clean Water Act (CWA) compliance issues and failures to maintain structures in ash basins, but that the Board of Directors did not require Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress to take action to remedy deficiencies. The Mesirov Complaint further alleged that the Board of Directors sanctioned activities to avoid compliance with the law by allowing improper influence of the NCDEQ to minimize regulation and by opposing previously anticipated citizen suit litigation. The Mesirov Complaint sought corporate governance reforms and damages relating to costs associated with the Dan River release, remediation of ash basins that are out of compliance with the CWA and defending and payment of fines, penalties and settlements relating to criminal and civil investigations and lawsuits. On July 5, 2016, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice, closing this matter.dismissal.
In addition to the above derivative complaints, in 2014, Duke Energy received two shareholder litigation demand letters. The letters alleged 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. One of the letters also alleged a breach of fiduciary duty in the decision-making relating to the leadership changes following the close of the Progress Energy merger in July 2012.
By letter dated September 4, 2015, attorneys for the shareholders were informed that, on the recommendation of the Demand Review Committee formed to consider such matters, the Board of Directors concluded not to pursue potential claims against individuals. One of the shareholders, Mitchell Pinsly, sent a formal demand for records and Duke Energy has responded to this request. There was no follow-up after the records were provided; therefore, this matter has been resolved.
On October 30, 2015, shareholder Saul Bresalier filed a shareholder derivative complaint (Bresalier Complaint) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The lawsuit alleges that several current and former Duke Energy officers and directors (Bresalier Defendants) breached their fiduciary duties in connection with coal ash environmental issues, the post-merger change in Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and oversight of political contributions. Duke Energy is named as a nominal defendant. The Bresalier Complaint contends that the Demand Review Committee failed to appropriately consider the shareholder’s earlier demand for litigation and improperly decided not to pursue claims against the Bresalier Defendants. The Bresalier Defendants filed aOn March 30, 2017, the court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Bresalier litigation on January 15, 2016. In lieu of a response to the Motion to Dismiss, the plaintiff filed a Motion to Convert the Bresalier Defendants' Motion to Dismiss into a Motion for Summary Judgment and also for limited discovery. Following a hearing on June 15, 2016, the court denied the plaintiff's Motion to Convert and is requiring the parties to complete briefing on the Bresalier Defendants' Motionclaims relating to Dismiss. On July 29, 2016, the Bresalier Defendants filed an Amended Motion to Dismiss. Oral argument on the Amended Motion to Dismiss was heard on December 20, 2016.coal ash environmental issues and political contributions. As discussed below, an agreement-in-principle has been reached to settlea settlement agreement was approved for the merger relatedmerger-related claims in the Bresalier Complaint.
It is not possibleComplaint, and those claims were dismissed. On September 8, 2017, Bresalier filed a notice of appeal to predict whether Duke Energy will incur any liability or to estimate the damages, if any, it might incur in connection with these matters.U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Third Circuit Court) challenging the dismissal of his coal ash and political contribution claims. On January 19 2018, Bresalier filed a stipulation of dismissal, closing this case.
Progress Energy Merger Shareholder Litigation
Duke Energy, the 11 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 were defendants in a purported securities class actionclass-action lawsuit (Nieman v. Duke Energy Corporation, et al). This lawsuit consolidated three lawsuits originally filed in July 2012. The plaintiffs alleged federal Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) claims based on allegations of 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 post-merger change in CEO. On August 15, 2014, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation. On March 10, 2015, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement and a Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement. Under the terms of the agreement, Duke Energy agreed to pay $146 million to settle the claim. On April 22, 2015, Duke Energy made a payment of $25 million into the settlement escrow account. The remainder of $121 million was paid by insurers into the settlement escrow account. The final order approving the settlement was issued on November 2, 2015, thus closing the matter.
On May 31, 2013, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated four shareholder derivative lawsuits filed in 2012. The Court also appointed a lead plaintiff and counsel for plaintiffs and designated the case as In Re Duke Energy Corporation Derivative Litigation (Merger Chancery 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.
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 against the Legacy Duke Energy Directors 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. On December 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint asserting the same claims contained in the original complaints.

168

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

The Legacy Duke Energy Directors have reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the Merger Chancery Litigation, conditioned on dismissal as well, of the Tansey v. Rogers, et al case and the merger related claims in the Bresalier Complaint discussed above, for a total of $27 million.which was approved by the Delaware Chancery Court on July 13, 2017. The entire settlement amount is to bewas funded by insurance. The settlement amount, less court-approved attorney fees, will be payabletotaled $20 million and was paid to Duke Energy. The settlement is subject to the execution of definitive settlement documents and court approval.
Price Reporting Cases
Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC (DETM), a non-operating Duke Energy affiliate, was a defendant, along with numerous other energy companies, in four class-action lawsuits and a fifth single-plaintiff lawsuit in a consolidated federal court proceeding in Nevada. Each of these lawsuits contained 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 sought damages in unspecified amounts. In February 2016, DETM reached agreements in principle to settle all of the pending lawsuits. Settlement of the single-plaintiff settlement was finalized and paid in March 2016. The proposed settlement of the class-action lawsuits was submitted to the Court and preliminarily approved on January 26, 2017. The Court will consider final approval of the class settlement following notice to the class members. The settlement amounts are not material to Duke Energy.
Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress
Coal Ash Insurance Coverage Litigation
In March 2017, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a civil action in North Carolina Superior Court against various insurance providers. The lawsuit seeks payment for coal ash-related liabilities covered by third-party liability insurance policies. The insurance policies were issued between 1971 and 1986 and provide third-party liability insurance for property damage. The civil action seeks damages for breach of contract and indemnification for costs arising from the Coal Ash Act and the EPA CCR rule at 15 coal-fired plants in North Carolina and South Carolina. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
NCDEQ Notice of Violation
In August 2014, NCDEQ issued an NOV for alleged groundwater violations at Duke Energy Progress' Sutton Plant. On March 10, 2015, NCDEQ issued a civil penalty of approximately $25 million to Duke Energy Progress for environmental damages related to alleged groundwater contamination at the Sutton Plant. On April 9, 2015, Duke Energy Progress filed a Petition for Contested Case hearing in the Office of Administrative Hearings. In February 2015, NCDEQ issued an NOV for alleged groundwater violations at Duke Energy Progress' Asheville Plant. Duke Energy Progress responded to NCDEQ regarding this NOV.
On September 29, 2015, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Carolinas entered into a settlement agreement with NCDEQ resolving all former, current and future groundwater penalties at all Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress coal facilities in North Carolina. Under the agreement, Duke Energy Progress paid approximately $6 million and Duke Energy Carolinas paid approximately $1 million. In addition to these payments, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Carolinas will accelerate remediation actions at the Sutton, Asheville, Belews Creek and H.F. Lee plants. The court entered a consent order resolving the contested case relating to the Sutton Plant and NCDEQ rescinded the NOVs relating to alleged groundwater violations at both the Sutton and Asheville plants.
On October 13, 2015, the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC), representing multiple conservation groups, filed a lawsuit in North Carolina Superior Court seeking judicial review of the order approving the settlement agreement with NCDEQ. The conservation groups contend that the ALJ exceeded his statutory authority in approving a settlement that provided for past, present and future resolution of groundwater issues at facilities which were not at issue in the penalty appeal. On December 18, 2015, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint. On February 12, 2016, the ALJ entered a new order clarifying that the dismissal of the contested case only applied to the specific issues before the ALJ in the Petition for Contested Case. On March 10, 2016, the court dismissed the SELC lawsuit based on the ALJ's entry of the new order.
On February 8, 2016, the NCDEQ assessed a penalty of approximately $6.8 million, including enforcement costs, against Duke Energy Carolinas related to stormwater pipes and associated discharges at the Dan River Steam Station. Duke Energy Carolinas recorded a charge in December 2015 for this penalty. In March 2016, Duke Energy Carolinas filed an appeal of this penalty. On September 23, 2016, Duke Energy Carolinas entered into a settlement agreement with the NCDEQ, without admission of liability, under which Duke Energy Carolinas agreed to a payment of $6 million to resolve allegations underlying the asserted civil penalty related to the Dan River coal ash release and a March 4, 2016, NOV alleging unpermitted discharges at the facility.
NCDEQ State Enforcement Actions
In the first quarter of 2013, SELCSouthern Environmental Law Center (SELC) sent notices of intent to sue Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress related to alleged CWAClean Water Act (CWA) violations from coal ash basins at two of their coal-fired power plants in North Carolina. The NCDEQ filed enforcement actions against Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress alleging violations of water discharge permits and North Carolina groundwater standards. The cases have been consolidated and are being heard before a single judge.judge in the North Carolina Superior Court.
On August 16, 2013, the NCDEQ 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. Both of these cases have been assigned to the judge handling the enforcement actions discussed above. SELC is representing several environmental groups who have been permitted to intervene in these cases.
On July 10, 2015, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed twoThe court issued orders in 2016 granting Motions for Partial Summary Judgment in the case on the basis that there is no longer either a genuine controversy or disputed material facts about the relief for seven of the 14 North Carolina plants with coal ash basins. On September 14, 2015,basins named in the court granted the Motions for Partial Summary Judgment pending court approval of the terms through an order. On April 4, 2016, the court issued an order granting Duke Energy Progress' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment for cases involving the H.F. Lee, Cape Fear and Weatherspoon plants. On June 1, 2016, the court issued an order granting Duke Energy Carolinas' and Duke Energy Progress' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment for cases involving the Asheville, Dan River, Riverbend and Sutton plants. The litigation is concluded for these seven plants. Litigation continues for the remaining seven plants. In response to a motion for partial summary judgment on the groundwater claims filed by the environmental groups, on October 17, 2016, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment on the groundwater claims.enforcement actions. On February 13, 2017, the court issued an order denying both the environmental groups' motionmotions for partial summary judgment brought by both the environmental groups and Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress' cross-motionProgress for partial summary judgment.

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

the remaining seven plants. On March 15, 2017, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a Notice of Appeal to challenge the trial court’s order. The parties were unable to reach an agreement at mediation in April 2017. The parties submitted briefs to the court on remaining issues to be tried and a ruling is pending. On August 22, 2017, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a Petition for Discretionary Review, requesting the North Carolina Supreme Court to accept the appeal. On August 24, 2017, SELC filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. Duke Energy Carolinas' and Duke Energy Progress’ opening appellate briefs were filed on October 12, 2017, and briefing is now complete. Argument was held on February 8, 2018.
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.
Federal Citizens Suits
On June 13, 2016, the Roanoke River Basin Association (RRBA) filed a federal citizen suit in the Middle District of North Carolina alleging unpermitted discharges to surface water and groundwater violations at the Mayo Plant. On August 19, 2016, Duke Energy Progress filed a Motion to DismissDismiss. On April 26, 2017, the complaintcourt entered an order dismissing four of the claims in the federal citizen suit. Two claims relating to alleged violations of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit provisions survived the motion to dismiss, and Duke Energy Progress filed its response on May 10, 2017. The parties are engaged in pre-trial discovery. Trial has been scheduled for July 9, 2018.
On March 16, 2017, RRBA served Duke Energy Progress with a decision is pending. Notice of Intent to Sue under the CWA for alleged violations of effluent standards and limitations at the Roxboro Plant. In anticipation of litigation, Duke Energy Progress filed a Complaint for Declaratory Relief in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia on May 11, 2017, which was subsequently dismissed. On May 16, 2017, RRBA filed a federal citizen suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina which asserts two claims relating to alleged violations of NPDES permit provisions and one claim relating to the use of nearby water bodies. The parties are engaged in pre-trial discovery. Trial has been scheduled for October 1, 2018.
On June 20, 2017, RRBA filed a federal citizen suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina challenging the closure plans at the Mayo Plant under the EPA CCR Rule. Duke Energy Progress filed a motion to dismiss, which was argued on January 30, 2018.
On August 2, 2017, RRBA filed a federal citizen suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina challenging the closure plans at the Roxboro Plant under the EPA CCR Rule. Duke Energy Progress filed a motion to dismiss on October 2, 2017.
On December 6, 2017, various parties filed a federal citizen suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina for alleged violations at Duke Energy Carolinas' Belews Creek Steam Station (Belews Creek) under the CWA. Duke Energy Carolinas filed a motion to dismiss on February 5, 2018.

169

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

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 this matter.these matters.
Five previously filed cases involving the Riverbend, Cape Fear, H.F. Lee, Sutton and Buck plants have been dismissed or settled during 2016.
North Carolina Ash Basin Grand Jury Investigation
As a result of the Dan River ash basin water release discussed above, NCDEQ issued a NOV 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 all 14 of the North Carolina facilities with ash basins and the nature of Duke Energy's contacts with NCDEQ with respect to those facilities. This was 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 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). On May 14, 2015, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina approved the Plea Agreements.
Under the Plea Agreements, DEBS and Duke Energy Progress pleaded guilty to 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. Duke Energy Carolinas and DEBS pleaded guilty to 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), (iii) to fund and establish environmental compliance plans subject to the oversight of a court-appointed monitor in addition to certain other conditions set out in the Plea Agreements. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress also agree to each maintain $250 million under their Master Credit Facility as security to meet their obligations under 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 DEBS, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress, 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 Operation, maintenance and other on the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income during 2014. Payment of the amounts relating to fines and restitution were made between May and July 2015. 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.
On May 14, 2015, Duke Energy reached an Interim Administrative Agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Suspension and Debarment that avoids debarment of DEBS, Duke Energy Carolinas or Duke Energy Progress with respect to all active generating facilities. The Interim Administrative Agreement imposes a number of requirements relating to environmental and ethical compliance, subject to the oversight of an independent monitor.
Potential Groundwater Contamination Claims
Beginning in May 2015, a number of residents living in the vicinity of the North Carolina facilities with ash basins received letters from the NCDEQ advising them not to drink water from the private wells on their land tested by the NCDEQ as the samples were found to have certain substances at levels higher than the criteria set by the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). The criteria, in some cases, are considerably more stringent than federal drinking water standards established to protect human health and welfare. The North Carolina Coal Ash Management ActResults of 2014, as amended, (Coal Ash Act) requires additional groundwater monitoring and assessments for each of the 14 coal-fired plants in North Carolina, including sampling of private water supply wells. The data gathered through these Comprehensive Site Assessments (CSAs) will be usedtesting performed by NCDEQ to determine whether the water quality of these private water supply wells has been adversely impacted by the ash basins. Duke Energy has submitted CSAs documentingunder the results of extensive groundwater monitoring around coal ash basins at all 14 of the plants with coal ash basins. Generally, the data gathered through the installation of new monitoring wells and soil and water samples across the stateCoal Ash Act have been consistent with historical data provided to state regulators over many years. The DHHS and NCDEQ sent follow-up letters on October 15, 2015, to residents near coal ash basins who have had their wells tested, stating that private well samplings at a considerable distance from coal ash basins, as well as some municipal water supplies, contain similar levels of vanadium and hexavalent chromium, which leadsled investigators to believe these constituents are naturally occurring. In March 2016, DHHS rescinded the advisories.

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

Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress have received formal demand letters from residents near Duke Energy Carolinas' and Duke Energy Progress' coal ash basins. The residents claim damages for nuisance and diminution in property value, among other things. The parties held three days of mediation discussions which ended at impasse. On January 6, 2017, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress received the plaintiffs' notice of their intent to file suits should the matter not settle. The NCDEQ preliminarily approved Duke Energy’s permanent water solution plans on January 13, 2017, and as a result shortly thereafter, Duke Energy issued a press release, providing additional details regarding the homeowner compensation package. This package consists of three components: (i) a $5,000 goodwill payment to each eligible well owner to support the transition to a new water supply, (ii) where a public water supply is available and selected by the eligible well owner, a stipend to cover 25 years of water bills and (iii) the Property Value Protection Plan. The Property Value Protection Plan is a program offered by Duke Energy designed to guarantee eligible plant neighbors the fair market value of their residential property should they decide to sell their property during the time whichthat the plan is offered. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress recognized chargesreserves of $18$19 million and $4 million, respectively,respectively.
On August 23, 2017, a class-action suit was filed in Operation,Wake County Superior Court, North Carolina, against Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress on behalf of certain property owners living near coal ash impoundments at Allen, Asheville, Belews Creek, Buck, Cliffside, Lee, Marshall, Mayo and Roxboro. The class is defined as those who are well-eligible under the Coal Ash Act or those to whom Duke Energy has promised a permanent replacement water supply and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, along with compensatory damages. Plaintiffs allege that Duke Energy’s improper maintenance of coal ash impoundments caused harm, particularly through groundwater contamination. Despite NCDEQ’s preliminary approval, Plaintiffs contend that Duke Energy’s proposed permanent water solutions plan fails to comply with the Coal Ash Act. On September 28, 2017, Duke Energy Carolinas and otherDuke Energy Progress filed a Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike the class designation. The parties entered into a Settlement Agreement on January 24, 2018, which resulted in the Consolidated Statementsdismissal of Operationsthe underlying class action on January 25, 2018.
On September 14, 2017, a complaint was filed against Duke Energy Progress in New Hanover County Superior Court by a group of homeowners residing approximately 1 mile from Duke Energy Progress' Sutton Steam Plant. The homeowners allege that coal ash constituents have been migrating from ash impoundments at Sutton into their groundwater for decades and Comprehensive Incomethat in December 2016.2015, Duke Energy Progress discovered these releases of coal ash, but failed to notify any officials or neighbors and failed to take remedial action. The homeowners claim unspecified physical and mental injuries as a result of consuming their well water and seek actual damages for personal injury, medical monitoring and punitive damages. Duke Energy filed its Motion to Dismiss on October 27, 2017, and the hearing is scheduled for March 7, 2018.
It is not possible to estimate the maximum exposure of loss, if any, that may occur in connection with claims which might be made by these residents.
Duke Energy Carolinas
Asbestos-related Injuries and Damages ClaimsBenton County Wind Farm Dispute
On December 16, 2013, Benton County Wind Farm LLC (BCWF) filed a lawsuit against Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced numerous claims for indemnification and medical cost reimbursement related to asbestos exposure. These claims relate toIndiana seeking 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 electricpast generation plants prior to 1985. As of December 31, 2016, there were 121 asserted claims for non-malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to $32 million and 58 asserted claims for malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to $16 million. Based onlosses alleging Duke Energy Carolinas’ experience,Indiana violated its obligations under a 2006 PPA by refusing to offer electricity to the market at negative prices. Damage claims continue to increase during times that BCWF is not dispatched. Under 2013 revised MISO market rules, Duke Energy Indiana is required to make a price offer to MISO for the power it proposes to sell into MISO markets and MISO determines whether BCWF is dispatched. Because market prices would have been negative due to increased market participation, Duke Energy Indiana determined it would not bid at negative prices in order to balance customer needs against BCWF's need to run. BCWF contends Duke Energy Indiana must bid at the lowest negative price to ensure dispatch, while Duke Energy Indiana contends it is expectednot obligated to bid at any particular price, that it cannot ensure dispatch with any bid and that it has reasonably balanced 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 $512 million and $536 million at December 31, 2016 andparties' interests. On July 6, 2015, respectively. 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 2036, 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 2036 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. 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 indemnification and medical cost claim payments is $814 million in excess of the self-insured retention. Receivables for insurance recoveries were $587 million and $599 million at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. 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.
Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida
Spent Nuclear Fuel Matters
On October 16, 2014, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida sued the U.S. 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 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, 2011 through December 31, 2013, of $48 million and $25 million, respectively. Claims for all periods prior to 2011 have been resolved. Additional claims are likely to be filed after the current litigation is resolved. Trial has been set for June 2017. Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Duke Energy Florida
Class Action Lawsuit
On February 22, 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of FloridaIndiana entered judgment against BCWF on behalfall claims. BCWF appealed the decision and on December 9, 2016, the appeals court ruled in favor of a putative class ofBCWF. Duke Energy FloridaIndiana recorded an obligation and FP&L’s customersa regulatory asset related to the settlement amount in Florida. The suit allegesfourth quarter 2016. On June 30, 2017, the Stateparties finalized a settlement agreement. Terms of Florida’s nuclear power plant cost recovery statutes (NCRS) are unconstitutional and pre-empted by federal law. Plaintiffs claim they are entitled to repayment of all money paid by customers ofthe settlement included Duke Energy Florida and FP&L as a resultIndiana paying $29 million for back damages. Additionally, the parties agreed on the method by which the contract will be bid into the market in the future. The settlement amount was paid in June 2017. The IURC issued an order on September 27, 2017, approving recovery of the NCRS, as well as an injunction against any future charges under those statutes.settlement amount through Duke Energy Indiana's fuel clause. The constitutionality of the NCRSIURC order has been challenged unsuccessfully in a numberappealed to the Indiana Court of prior cases on alternative grounds.Appeals. Duke Energy Florida and FP&L filed motions to dismiss the complaint on May 5, 2016. On September 21, 2016, the Court granted the motions to dismiss with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. On January 4, 2017, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. Duke Energy FloridaIndiana cannot predict the outcome of this appeal.matter.
Westinghouse Contract LitigationPiedmont
On March 28, 2014, Duke Energy FloridaRegulatory Assets and Liabilities
The following tables present the regulatory assets and liabilities recorded on Piedmont's Consolidated Balance Sheets.
 December 31, Earns/PaysRecovery/Refund
(in millions)2017
2016
 a ReturnPeriod Ends
Regulatory Assets(a)
     
AROs - other$15
$14
  (d)
Accrued pension and OPEB(c)
91
166
  (f)
Derivatives - gas supply contracts142
187
  (e)
Vacation accrual(c)
10
13
  2018
Deferred pipeline integrity costs(c)
42
36
  2018
Amount due from customers64
66
 X(b)
Other14
15
  (b)
Total regulatory assets378
497
   
Less: current portion95
124
   
Total noncurrent regulatory assets$283
$373
   
Regulatory Liabilities(a)
     
Costs of removal$544
$528
  (d)
Net regulatory liability related to income taxes597
80
  (b)
Other3

  (b)
Total regulatory liabilities1,144
608
   
Less: current portion3

   
Total noncurrent regulatory liabilities$1,141
$608
   
(a)Regulatory assets and liabilities are excluded from rate base unless otherwise noted.
(b)The expected recovery or refund period varies or has not been determined.
(c)Included in rate base.
(d)Recovery over the life of the associated assets.
(e)Balance will fluctuate with changes in the market. Current contracts extend into 2031.
(f)Recovered primarily over the average remaining service periods or life expectancies of employees covered by the benefit plans. See Note 21 for additional detail.
South Carolina Rate Stabilization Adjustment Filing
In June 2017, Piedmont filed a lawsuit against Westinghouse inwith the U.S. District CourtPSCSC under the South Carolina Rate Stabilization Act its quarterly monitoring report for the Western District12-month period ending March 31, 2017. The filing included a revenue deficiency calculation and tariff rates in order to permit Piedmont the opportunity to earn the rate of North Carolina. The lawsuit seeks recoveryreturn on equity of $54 million12.6 percent established in milestone payments in excessits last general rate case. On October 4, 2017, the PSCSC approved a settlement agreement between Piedmont and the SC Office of work performed under the terminated EPC for Levy as well as a determination by the courtRegulatory Staff. Terms of the amounts due to Westinghouse assettlement included implementation of rates for the 12-month period beginning November 2017 with a resultreturn on equity of the termination of the EPC. Duke Energy Florida recognized an exit obligation as a result of the termination of the EPC contract.10.2 percent.


162

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

North Carolina Integrity Management Rider Filings
In October 2017, Piedmont filed a petition with the NCUC under the Integrity Management Rider (IMR) mechanism to collect an additional $8.9 million in annual revenues, effective December 2017, based on the eligible capital investments closed to integrity and safety projects over the six-month period ending September 30, 2017. On November 28, 2017, the NCUC approved the requested rate adjustment.
In May 2017, Piedmont filed, and the NCUC approved, a petition under the IMR mechanism to collect an additional $11.6 million in annual revenues, effective June 2017, based on the eligible capital investments closed to integrity and safety projects over the six-month period ending March 31, 2017.
Tennessee Integrity Management Rider Filing
In November 2017, Piedmont filed a petition with the TPUC under the IMR mechanism to collect an additional $3.3 million in annual revenues, effective January 2018, based on the eligible capital investments closed to integrity and safety projects over the 12-month period ending October 31, 2017. In January 2018, Piedmont filed an amended computation under the IMR mechanism, revising the proposed increase in annual revenues to approximately $0.4 million based on the decrease in the corporate federal income tax rate effective January 1, 2018. A hearing on this matter is scheduled for March 2018.
OTHER REGULATORY MATTERS
Atlantic Coast Pipeline
On September 2, 2014, Duke Energy, Dominion Resources (Dominion), Piedmont and Southern Company Gas announced the formation of Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC (ACP) to build and own the proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP pipeline), an approximately 600-mile interstate natural gas pipeline running from West Virginia to North Carolina. The ACP pipeline is designed to meet, in part, the needs identified by Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Piedmont. Dominion will build and operate the ACP pipeline and holds a leading ownership percentage in ACP of 48 percent. Duke Energy owns a 47 percent interest through its Gas Utilities and Infrastructure segment. Southern Company Gas maintains a 5 percent interest. See Notes 12 and 17 for additional information related to Duke Energy's ownership interest.
Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Piedmont, among others, will be customers of the pipeline. Purchases will be made under several 20-year supply contracts, subject to state regulatory approval. On September 18, 2015, ACP filed an application with the FERC requesting a CPCN authorizing ACP to construct the pipeline. ACP executed a construction agreement in September 2016. ACP also requested approval of an open access tariff and the precedent agreements it entered into with future pipeline customers. In December 2016, FERC issued a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) indicating that the proposed pipeline would not cause significant harm to the environment or protected populations. The FERC issued the final EIS in July 2017. On October 13, 2017, FERC issued an order approving the CPCN, subject to conditions. On October 16, 2017, ACP accepted the FERC order subject to reserving its right to file a request for rehearing or clarification on a timely basis. On November 9, 2017, ACP filed a request for rehearing on several limited issues. On December 12, 2017, ACP filed an answer to intervenors’ request for rehearing of the certificate order and for stay of the certificate order.
In December 2017, West Virginia issued a waiver of the state water quality permit in reliance on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers national water quality permit and Virginia issued a conditional water quality permit subject to completion of additional studies and stormwater plans. In early 2018, the FERC issued a series of Partial Notices to Proceed which authorized the project to begin limited construction-related activities along the pipeline route. North Carolina issued the state water quality permit in January 2018. The project remains subject to other pending federal and state approvals, which will allow full construction activities to begin. The ACP pipeline project has a targeted in-service date of late 2019.
Due to delays in obtaining the required permits to commence construction and the conditions imposed upon the project by the permits, ACP's project manager estimates the project's pipeline development costs have increased from a range of $5.0 billion to $5.5 billion to a range of $6.0 billion and $6.5 billion, excluding financing costs. Project construction activities, schedule and final costs are still subject to uncertainty due to potential additional permitting delays, construction productivity and other conditions and risks which could result in potential higher project costs and a potential delay in the targeted in-service date.
Sabal Trail Transmission Pipeline
On May 4, 2015, Duke Energy acquired a 7.5 percent ownership interest in Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC (Sabal Trail) from Spectra Energy Partners, LP, a master limited partnership, formed by Enbridge Inc. (formerly Spectra Energy Corp.). Spectra Energy Partners, LP holds a 50 percent ownership interest in Sabal Trail and NextEra Energy has a 42.5 percent ownership interest. Sabal Trail is a joint venture to construct a 515-mile natural gas pipeline (Sabal Trail pipeline) to transport natural gas to Florida. Total estimated project costs are approximately $3.2 billion. The Sabal Trail pipeline traverses Alabama, Georgia and Florida. The primary customers of the Sabal Trail pipeline, Duke Energy Florida and Florida Power & Light Company (FP&L), have each contracted to buy pipeline capacity for 25-year initial terms. See Notes 12 and 17 for additional information.
On February 3, 2016, the FERC issued an order granting the request for a CPCN to construct and operate the pipeline. The Sabal Trail pipeline received other required regulatory approvals and the phase one mainline was placed in service in July 2017. On October 12, 2017, Sabal Trail filed a request with FERC to place in-service a lateral line to Duke Energy Florida's Citrus County Combined Cycle facility, which remains pending. This request is required to support commissioning and testing activities at the facility.

163

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

On September 21, 2016, intervenors filed an appeal of FERC's CPCN orders to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals). On August 22, 2017, the appeals court ruled against FERC in the case for failing to include enough information on the impact of greenhouse-gas emissions carried by the pipeline, vacated the CPCN order and remanded the case to FERC. In response to the August 2017 court decision, the FERC issued a draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) on September 27, 2017. On October 6, 2017, FERC and a group of industry intervenors, including Sabal Trail and Duke Energy Florida, filed separate petitions with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals requesting rehearing regarding the court's decision to vacate the CPCN order. On January 31, 2018, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the requests for rehearing. On February 2, 2018, Sabal Trail filed a request with FERC for expedited issuance of its order on remand and reissuance of the CPCN. In the alternative, the pipeline requested that FERC issue a temporary emergency CPCN to allow for continued operations. On February 5, 2018, FERC issued the final SEIS but did not issue the order on remand. On February 6, 2018, FERC and the intervenors in this case each filed motions for stay with the D.C. Circuit Court to stay the court's mandate. The February 6, 2018 motions automatically stay the issuance of the court’s mandate until the later of seven days after the court denies the motions or the expiration of any stay granted by the court. Both motions are pending. Sabal Trail will continue to monitor the progress and the impact to the project going forward.
Constitution Pipeline
Duke Energy owns a 24 percent ownership interest in Constitution Pipeline Company, LLC (Constitution). Constitution is a natural gas pipeline project slated to transport natural gas supplies from the Marcellus supply region in northern Pennsylvania to major northeastern markets. The pipeline will be constructed and operated by Williams Partners L.P., which has a 41 percent ownership share. The remaining interest is held by Cabot Oil and Gas Corporation and WGL Holdings, Inc. Before the permitting delays discussed below, Duke Energy's total anticipated contributions were approximately $229 million. As a result of the permitting delays and project uncertainty, total anticipated contributions by Duke Energy can no longer be reasonably estimated.
In December 2014, Constitution received approval from the FERC to construct and operate the proposed pipeline. However, on April 22, 2016, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) denied Constitution’s application for a necessary water quality certification for the New York portion of the Constitution pipeline. Constitution filed legal actions in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (U.S. Court of Appeals) challenging the legality and appropriateness of the NYSDEC’s decision and on August 18, 2017, the petition was denied in part and dismissed in part. In September 2017, Constitution filed a petition for a rehearing of portions of the decision unrelated to the water quality certification, which was denied by the U.S. Court of Appeals. In January 2018, Constitution petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to review the U.S. Court of Appeals decision. In October 2017, Constitution filed a petition for declaratory order requesting FERC to find that the NYSDEC waived its rights to issue a Section 401 water quality certification by not acting on Constitution's application within a reasonable period of time as required by statute. This petition was based on precedent established by another pipeline’s successful petition with FERC following a District of Columbia Circuit Court ruling. On January 11, 2018, FERC denied Constitution's petition. In February 2018, Constitution filed a rehearing request with FERC of its finding that the NYSDEC did not waive the Section 401 certification requirement. Constitution is currently unable to approximate an in-service date for the project due to the NYDSEC's denial of the water quality certification. The Constitution partners remain committed to the project and are evaluating next steps to move the project forward. Duke Energy cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Since April 2016, with the actions of the NYSDEC, Constitution stopped construction and discontinued capitalization of future development costs until the project's uncertainty is resolved.
See Notes 12 and 17 for additional information related to ownership interest and carrying value of the investment.
Progress Energy Merger FERC Mitigation
Following the closing of the Progress Energy merger, outside counsel reviewed Duke Energy’s long-term FERC mitigation plan and discovered a technical error in the calculations. On December 6, 2013, Duke Energy submitted a filing to the FERC disclosing the error and arguing that no additional mitigation is necessary. The city of New Bern filed a protest and requested that FERC order additional mitigation. On October 29, 2014, the FERC ordered that the amount of the stub mitigation be increased from 25 MW to 129 MW. The stub mitigation is Duke Energy’s commitment to set aside for third parties a certain quantity of firm transmission capacity from Duke Energy Carolinas to Duke Energy Progress during summer off-peak hours. The FERC also ordered that Duke Energy operate certain phase shifters to create additional import capability and that such operation be monitored by an independent monitor. The costs to comply with this order are not material. The FERC also referred Duke Energy’s failure to expressly designate the phase shifter reactivation as a mitigation project in the original mitigation plan filing in March 2012 to the FERC Office of Enforcement for further inquiry. In response, and since December 2014, the FERC Office of Enforcement has been conducting a nonpublic investigation of Duke Energy's market power analyses included in the Progress merger filings submitted to FERC. Duke Energy cannot predict the outcome of this investigation.
Potential Coal Plant Retirements
The Subsidiary Registrants periodically file Integrated Resource Plans (IRP) with their state regulatory commissions. The IRPs provide a view of forecasted energy needs over a long term (10 to 20 years) and options being considered to meet those needs. Recent IRPs filed by the Subsidiary Registrants included planning assumptions to potentially retire certain coal-fired generating facilities in Florida and Indiana earlier than their current estimated useful lives primarily because facilities do not have the requisite emission control equipment to meet EPA regulations recently approved or proposed.

164

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

The table below contains the net carrying value of generating facilities planned for retirement or included in recent IRPs as evaluated for potential retirement due to a lack of requisite environmental control equipment. Dollar amounts in the table below are included in Net property, plant and equipment on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2017, and exclude capitalized asset retirement costs.
   Remaining Net
 Capacity
 Book Value
 (in MW)
 (in millions)
Duke Energy Carolinas   
Allen Steam Station Units 1-3(a)
585
 $163
Progress Energy and Duke Energy Florida   
Crystal River Units 1 and 2(b)
873
 107
Duke Energy Indiana   
Gallagher Units 2 and 4(c)
280
 127
Total Duke Energy1,738
 $397
(a)Duke Energy Carolinas will retire Allen Steam Station Units 1 through 3 by December 31, 2024, as part of the resolution of a lawsuit involving alleged New Source Review violations.
(b)Duke Energy Florida expects to retire these coal units by the end of 2018 to comply with environmental regulations.
(c)Duke Energy Indiana committed to either retire or stop burning coal at Gallagher Units 2 and 4 by December 31, 2022, as part of the settlement of Edwardsport IGCC matters.
Refer to the "Western Carolinas Modernization Plan" discussion above for details of Duke Energy Progress' planned retirements.
5. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
INSURANCE
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. 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 from 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 Plant (Robinson), Brunswick and Harris. Robinson and Harris each have one reactor. Brunswick has two reactors.
Duke Energy Florida owns Crystal River Unit 3, which permanently ceased operation in 2013 and reached a SAFSTOR condition in January 2018 after the successful transfer of all used nuclear fuel assemblies to an onsite dry cask storage facility.
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.

165

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

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 approximately $13.4 billion, is subject to change every five years for inflation and for 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 U.S. 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 is $450 million per station.
Excess Liability Program
This program provides $13 billion of coverage per incident through the Price-Anderson Act’s mandatory industrywide 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 102 licensed commercial nuclear reactors in the 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 property damage, nuclear accident 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 accidental outage coverage for each station for losses in the event of a major accidental outage at an insured nuclear station.
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.
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 $50 million and is on an actual cash value basis. 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. All coverages are subject to sublimits and significant deductibles.
NEIL’s Accidental Outage policy provides some coverage, such as business interruption, 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 these available weekly periods are met where the accidental outage policy limit will not exceed $490 million for McGuire and Catawba, $462 million for Brunswick, $448 million for Harris, $434 million for Oconee and $378 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. All coverages are subject to sublimits and significant deductibles.
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 six years after a loss. NEIL has never exercised this assessment. The maximum aggregate annual retrospective premium obligations for Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida are $146 million, $96 million and $1 million, respectively. Duke Energy Carolinas' maximum assessment amount includes 100 percent of potential obligations to NEIL for jointly owned reactors. Duke Energy Carolinas would seek reimbursement from the joint owners for their portion of these assessment amounts.
ENVIRONMENTAL
The Duke Energy 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.

166

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

Remediation Activities
In addition to the ARO recorded as a result of various environmental regulations, discussed in Note 9, the Duke Energy Registrants are responsible for environmental remediation at various sites. These include certain 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, remediation activities vary based upon site conditions and location, 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 environmental impacts 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 at all sites. 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.
The following tables contain information regarding reserves for probable and estimable costs related to the various environmental sites. These reserves are recorded in Accounts payable within Current Liabilities and Other within Other Noncurrent Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
   Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
(in millions)Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Balance at December 31, 2014$92
 $10
 $17
 $5
 $12
 $54
 $10
Provisions/adjustments11
 1
 4
 
 4
 1
 5
Cash reductions(9) (1) (4) (2) (2) (1) (3)
Balance at December 31, 201594
 10
 17
 3
 14
 54
 12
Provisions/adjustments19
 4
 7
 2
 4
 7
 1
Cash reductions(15) (4) (6) (2) (4) (2) (3)
Balance at December 31, 201698
 10
 18
 3
 14
 59
 10
Provisions/adjustments8
 3
 3
 2
 2
 3
 (4)
Cash reductions(25) (3) (6) (2) (4) (15) (1)
Balance at December 31, 2017$81
 $10
 $15
 $3
 $12
 $47
 $5
As of December 31, 2016, October 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, Piedmont's environmental reserve was $1 million. In 2017, a $1 million provision was recorded, resulting in a reserve balance of $2 million at December 31, 2017.
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 not material except as presented in the table below.
(in millions) 
Duke Energy$56
Duke Energy Carolinas19
Duke Energy Ohio30
Piedmont2
North Carolina and South Carolina Ash Basins
In February 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. 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. In July 2014, Duke Energy completed remediation work identified by the EPA and continues to cooperate with the EPA's civil enforcement process. Future costs related to the Dan River release, including future state or federal civil enforcement proceedings, future regulatory directives, natural resources damages, future claims or litigation and long-term environmental impact costs, cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.
The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) has historically assessed Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress with Notice of Violations (NOV) for violations that were most often resolved through satisfactory corrective actions and minor, if any, fines or penalties. Subsequent to the Dan River ash release, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress have been served with a higher level of NOVs, including assessed penalties for violations at L.V. Sutton Combined Cycle Plant (Sutton) and Dan River Steam Station. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress cannot predict whether the NCDEQ will assess future penalties related to existing unresolved NOVs and if such penalties would be material. See "NCDEQ Notices of Violation" section below for additional discussion.

167

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

LITIGATION
Duke Energy
Duke Energy no longer has exposure to litigation matters related to the International Disposal Group as a result of the divestiture of the business in December 2016. See Note 2 for additional information related to the sale of International Energy.
Ash Basin Shareholder Derivative Litigation
Five shareholder derivative lawsuits were 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, Westinghousethe 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 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 Floridaand restitution from the Duke Energy Defendants. On January 21, 2015, the Duke Energy Defendants filed a Motion to Stay, which the court granted. The stay was lifted on March 24, 2016, after which plaintiffs filed an Amended Verified Consolidated Shareholder Derivative Complaint (Amended Complaint) making the same allegations as in the Consolidated Complaint. The Duke Energy Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on June 21, 2016, which was granted by the Court on December 14, 2016. Plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court on January 9, 2017. Oral argument was held on September 27, 2017. On December 15, 2017, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Chancery Court's order of dismissal.
In addition to the above derivative complaints, in 2014, Duke Energy received two shareholder litigation demand letters. The letters alleged 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. One of the letters also alleged a breach of fiduciary duty in the decision-making relating to the leadership changes following the close of the Progress Energy merger in July 2012. By letter dated September 4, 2015, attorneys for the shareholders were informed that, on the recommendation of the Demand Review Committee formed to consider such matters, the Board of Directors concluded not to pursue potential claims against individuals. One of the shareholders, Mitchell Pinsly, sent a formal demand for records and Duke Energy has responded to this request. There was no follow-up after the records were provided; therefore, this matter has been resolved.
On October 30, 2015, shareholder Saul Bresalier filed a shareholder derivative complaint (Bresalier Complaint) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The lawsuit alleges that several current and former Duke Energy officers and directors (Bresalier Defendants) breached their fiduciary duties in connection with coal ash environmental issues, the post-merger change in Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and oversight of political contributions. Duke Energy is named as a nominal defendant. The Bresalier Complaint contends that the Demand Review Committee failed to appropriately consider the shareholder’s earlier demand for litigation and improperly decided not to pursue claims against the Bresalier Defendants. On March 30, 2017, the court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss on the claims relating to coal ash environmental issues and political contributions. As discussed below, a settlement agreement was approved for the merger-related claims in the Bresalier Complaint, and those claims were dismissed. On September 8, 2017, Bresalier filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Third Circuit Court) challenging the dismissal of his coal ash and political contribution claims. On January 19 2018, Bresalier filed a stipulation of dismissal, closing this case.
Progress Energy Merger Shareholder Litigation
Duke Energy, the 11 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 were defendants in a purported securities class-action lawsuit (Nieman v. Duke Energy Corporation, et al). This lawsuit consolidated three lawsuits originally filed in July 2012. The plaintiffs alleged federal Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) claims based on allegations of 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 post-merger change in CEO. On August 15, 2014, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation. On March 10, 2015, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement and a Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement. Under the terms of the agreement, Duke Energy agreed to pay $146 million to settle the claim. On April 22, 2015, Duke Energy made a payment of $25 million into the settlement escrow account. The remainder of $121 million was paid by insurers into the settlement escrow account. The final order approving the settlement was issued on November 2, 2015, thus closing the matter.
On May 31, 2013, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated four shareholder derivative lawsuits filed in 2012. The Court also appointed a lead plaintiff and counsel for plaintiffs and designated the case as In Re Duke Energy Corporation Derivative Litigation (Merger Chancery 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.
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 against the Legacy Duke Energy Directors 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. On December 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint asserting the same claims contained in the original complaints.

168

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

The Legacy Duke Energy Directors have reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the Merger Chancery Litigation, conditioned on dismissal as well, of the Tansey v. Rogers, et al case and the merger related claims in the Bresalier Complaint discussed above, which was approved by the Delaware Chancery Court on July 13, 2017. The entire settlement amount was funded by insurance. The settlement amount, less court-approved attorney fees, totaled $20 million and was paid to Duke Energy in 2017.
Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress
Coal Ash Insurance Coverage Litigation
In March 2017, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a civil action in North Carolina Superior Court against various insurance providers. The lawsuit seeks payment for coal ash-related liabilities covered by third-party liability insurance policies. The insurance policies were issued between 1971 and 1986 and provide third-party liability insurance for property damage. The civil action seeks damages for breach of contract and indemnification for costs arising from the Coal Ash Act and the EPA CCR rule at 15 coal-fired plants in North Carolina and South Carolina. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
NCDEQ Notice of Violation
On February 8, 2016, the NCDEQ assessed a penalty of approximately $6.8 million, including enforcement costs, against Duke Energy Carolinas related to stormwater pipes and associated discharges at the Dan River Steam Station. Duke Energy Carolinas recorded a charge in December 2015 for this penalty. In March 2016, Duke Energy Carolinas filed an appeal of this penalty. On September 23, 2016, Duke Energy Carolinas entered into a settlement agreement with the NCDEQ, without admission of liability, under which Duke Energy Carolinas agreed to a payment of $6 million to resolve allegations underlying the asserted civil penalty related to the Dan River coal ash release and a March 4, 2016, NOV alleging unpermitted discharges at the facility.
NCDEQ State Enforcement Actions
In the first quarter of 2013, Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) sent notices of intent to sue Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress related to alleged Clean Water Act (CWA) violations from coal ash basins at two of their coal-fired power plants in North Carolina. The NCDEQ filed enforcement actions against Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress alleging violations of water discharge permits and North Carolina groundwater standards. The cases have been consolidated and are being heard before a single judge in the North Carolina Superior Court.
On August 16, 2013, the NCDEQ 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. Both of these cases have been assigned to the judge handling the enforcement actions discussed above. SELC is representing several environmental groups who have been permitted to intervene in these cases.
The court issued orders in 2016 granting Motions for Partial Summary Judgment for seven of the 14 North Carolina plants with coal ash basins named in the enforcement actions. On February 13, 2017, the court issued an order denying motions for partial summary judgment brought by both the environmental groups and Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress for the remaining seven plants. On March 15, 2017, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a Notice of Appeal to challenge the trial court’s order. The parties were unable to reach an agreement at mediation in April 2017. The parties submitted briefs to the court on remaining issues to be tried and a ruling is pending. On August 22, 2017, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a Petition for Discretionary Review, requesting the North Carolina Supreme Court to accept the appeal. On August 24, 2017, SELC filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. Duke Energy Carolinas' and Duke Energy Progress’ opening appellate briefs were filed on October 12, 2017, and briefing is now complete. Argument was held on February 8, 2018.
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.
Federal Citizens Suits
On June 13, 2016, the Roanoke River Basin Association (RRBA) filed a federal citizen suit in the Middle District of North Carolina alleging unpermitted discharges to surface water and groundwater violations at the Mayo Plant. On August 19, 2016, Duke Energy Progress filed a Motion to Dismiss. On April 26, 2017, the court entered an order dismissing four of the claims in the federal citizen suit. Two claims relating to alleged violations of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit provisions survived the motion to dismiss, and Duke Energy Progress filed its response on May 10, 2017. The parties are engaged in pre-trial discovery. Trial has been scheduled for July 9, 2018.
On March 16, 2017, RRBA served Duke Energy Progress with a Notice of Intent to Sue under the CWA for alleged violations of effluent standards and limitations at the Roxboro Plant. In anticipation of litigation, Duke Energy Progress filed a Complaint for Declaratory Relief in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.Virginia on May 11, 2017, which was subsequently dismissed. On May 16, 2017, RRBA filed a federal citizen suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina which asserts two claims relating to alleged violations of NPDES permit provisions and one claim relating to the use of nearby water bodies. The Pennsylvania lawsuit alleged damages under the EPCparties are engaged in excess of $510 millionpre-trial discovery. Trial has been scheduled for engineering and design work, costs to end supplier contracts and an alleged termination fee.October 1, 2018.
On June 9, 2014, the judge20, 2017, RRBA filed a federal citizen suit in the North Carolina case ruled thatU.S. District Court for the litigation will proceed in the WesternMiddle District of North Carolina. On July 11, 2016,Carolina challenging the closure plans at the Mayo Plant under the EPA CCR Rule. Duke Energy Florida and WestinghouseProgress filed separate Motionsa motion to dismiss, which was argued on January 30, 2018.
On August 2, 2017, RRBA filed a federal citizen suit in the U.S. District Court for Summary Judgment. On September 29, 2016, the court issued its ruling onMiddle District of North Carolina challenging the parties' respective Motions for Summary Judgment, ruling in favor of Westinghouse on a $30 million termination fee claim and dismissingclosure plans at the Roxboro Plant under the EPA CCR Rule. Duke Energy Florida's $54 million refund claim, but stating thatProgress filed a motion to dismiss on October 2, 2017.
On December 6, 2017, various parties filed a federal citizen suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina for alleged violations at Duke Energy Florida could useCarolinas' Belews Creek Steam Station (Belews Creek) under the refund claim to offset any damages for termination costs. Westinghouse's claim for termination costs was unaffected by this ruling and continued to trial. At trial, Westinghouse reduced its claim for termination costs from $482 million to $424 million.
Following a trial on the matter, the court issued its final order in December 2016 denying Westinghouse’s claim for termination costs and re-affirming its earlier ruling in favor of Westinghouse on the $30 million termination fee andCWA. Duke Energy Florida’s refund claim. Judgment was entered against Duke Energy Florida in the amount of approximately $34 million, which includes pre-judgment interest. Westinghouse has appealed the trial court's order and Duke Energy Florida has cross-appealed.Carolinas filed a motion to dismiss on February 5, 2018.

169

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

It is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of the appeal of the trial court's order. Ultimate resolution of these matters could have a material effect on the results of operations, financial position or cash flows ofwhether Duke Energy Florida. However, appropriate regulatory recoveryCarolinas or Duke Energy Progress will be pursued forincur any liability or to estimate the retail portion ofdamages, if any, costs incurredthey might incur in connection with such resolution.these matters.
MGP Cost Recovery ActionFive previously filed cases involving the Riverbend, Cape Fear, H.F. Lee, Sutton and Buck plants have been dismissed or settled during 2016.
On December 30, 2011, Duke Energy Florida filedGroundwater Contamination Claims
Beginning in May 2015, a lawsuit against FirstEnergy Corp. (FirstEnergy)number of residents living in the vicinity of the North Carolina facilities with ash basins received letters from the NCDEQ advising them not to recover investigationdrink water from the private wells on their land tested by the NCDEQ as the samples were found to have certain substances at levels higher than the criteria set by the North Carolina Department of Health and remediation costs incurredHuman Services (DHHS). Results of Comprehensive Site Assessments (CSAs) testing performed by Duke Energy Florida in connectionunder the Coal Ash Act have been consistent with historical data provided to state regulators over many years. The DHHS and NCDEQ sent follow-up letters on October 15, 2015, to residents near coal ash basins who have had their wells tested, stating that private well samplings at a considerable distance from coal ash basins, as well as some municipal water supplies, contain similar levels of vanadium and hexavalent chromium, which led investigators to believe these constituents are naturally occurring. In March 2016, DHHS rescinded the restoration of two former MGP sites in Florida. advisories.
Duke Energy Florida allegedCarolinas and Duke Energy Progress have received formal demand letters from residents near Duke Energy Carolinas' and Duke Energy Progress' coal ash basins. The residents claim damages for nuisance and diminution in property value, among other things. The parties held three days of mediation discussions which ended at impasse. On January 6, 2017, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress received the plaintiffs' notice of their intent to file suits should the matter not settle. The NCDEQ preliminarily approved Duke Energy’s permanent water solution plans on January 13, 2017, and as a result shortly thereafter, Duke Energy issued a press release, providing additional details regarding the homeowner compensation package. This package consists of three components: (i) a $5,000 goodwill payment to each eligible well owner to support the transition to a new water supply, (ii) where a public water supply is available and selected by the eligible well owner, a stipend to cover 25 years of water bills and (iii) the Property Value Protection Plan. The Property Value Protection Plan is a program offered by Duke Energy designed to guarantee eligible plant neighbors the fair market value of their residential property should they decide to sell their property during the time that FirstEnergy, as the successor to Associated Gas & Electric Co., owes pastplan is offered. Duke Energy Carolinas and future contributionDuke Energy Progress recognized reserves of $19 million and response costs of up to $43$4 million, for the investigation and remediation of MGP sites. respectively.
On December 6, 2016, the trial court entered judgmentAugust 23, 2017, a class-action suit was filed in Wake County Superior Court, North Carolina, against Duke Energy Florida inCarolinas and Duke Energy Progress on behalf of certain property owners living near coal ash impoundments at Allen, Asheville, Belews Creek, Buck, Cliffside, Lee, Marshall, Mayo and Roxboro. The class is defined as those who are well-eligible under the case. In JanuaryCoal Ash Act or those to whom Duke Energy has promised a permanent replacement water supply and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, along with compensatory damages. Plaintiffs allege that Duke Energy’s improper maintenance of coal ash impoundments caused harm, particularly through groundwater contamination. Despite NCDEQ’s preliminary approval, Plaintiffs contend that Duke Energy’s proposed permanent water solutions plan fails to comply with the Coal Ash Act. On September 28, 2017, Duke Energy Florida appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.Carolinas and Duke Energy Florida cannot predict the outcome of this appeal.
Duke Energy Ohio
Antitrust Lawsuit
In January 2008, four plaintiffs, including individual, industrial and nonprofit customers,Progress filed a lawsuitMotion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike the class designation. The parties entered into a Settlement Agreement on January 24, 2018, which resulted in the dismissal of the underlying class action on January 25, 2018.
On September 14, 2017, a complaint was filed against Duke Energy OhioProgress in federal court in the Southern DistrictNew Hanover County Superior Court by a group of Ohio. Plaintiffs allegedhomeowners residing approximately 1 mile from Duke Energy Ohio conspired to provide inequitableProgress' Sutton Steam Plant. The homeowners allege that coal ash constituents have been migrating from ash impoundments at Sutton into their groundwater for decades and unfair price advantages for certain large business consumers by entering into nonpublic option agreementsthat in exchange for their withdrawal of challenges to2015, Duke Energy Ohio’s Rate Stabilization Plan implemented in early 2005. In March 2014, a federal judge certified this matter as a classProgress discovered these releases of coal ash, but failed to notify any officials or neighbors and failed to take remedial action. Plaintiffs alleged claims of antitrust violations under the federal Robinson Patman Act as well as fraudThe homeowners claim unspecified physical and conspiracy allegations under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statute and the Ohio Corrupt Practices Act.
During 2015, the parties received preliminary court approval of a settlement agreement. Duke Energy Ohio recorded a litigation settlement reserve of $81 million classified in Other within Current Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 2015. Duke Energy Ohio also recognized a pretax charge of $81 million in (Loss) Income From Discontinued Operations, net of tax in the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income for the year ended December 31, 2015. The settlement agreement was approved at a federal court hearing on April 19, 2016. Distribution of the settlement checks was approved by the court in January 2017. See Note 2 for further discussion on the Midwest Generation Exit.
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 station. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency issued a NOV related to the discharge. On November 22, 2016, Duke Energy Ohio entered into a plea agreement with the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio. Terms of the agreement include a misdemeanor violation of the CWA, a fine of $1 million and a $100 thousand contribution to the Foundation for Ohio River Education, which were paid in fourth quarter 2016. Duke Energy Ohio has also reimbursed government and private entities for approximately $1 million of costs incurredmental injuries as a result of consuming their well water and seek actual damages for personal injury, medical monitoring and punitive damages. Duke Energy filed its Motion to Dismiss on October 27, 2017, and the fuel release.hearing is scheduled for March 7, 2018.
It is not possible to estimate the maximum exposure of loss, if any, that may occur in connection with claims which might be made by these residents.
Duke Energy IndianaCarolinas
Benton County Wind Farm Dispute
On December 16, 2013, Benton County Wind Farm LLC (BCWF) filed a lawsuit against Duke Energy Indiana seeking damages for past generation losses totaling approximately $16 million alleging Duke Energy Indiana violated its obligations under a 2006 PPA by refusing to offer electricity to the market at negative prices. Damage claims continue to increase during times that BCWF is not dispatched. Under 2013 revised MISO market rules, Duke Energy Indiana is required to make a price offer to MISO for the power it proposes to sell into MISO markets and MISO determines whether BCWF is dispatched. Because market prices would have been negative due to increased market participation, Duke Energy Indiana determined it would not bid at negative prices in order to balance customer needs against BCWF's need to run. BCWF contends Duke Energy Indiana must bid at the lowest negative price to ensure dispatch, while Duke Energy Indiana contends it is not obligated to bid at any particular price, that it cannot ensure dispatch with any bid and that isit has reasonably balanced the parties' interests. On July 6, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana entered judgment against BCWF on all claims. BCWF appealed the decision and on December 9, 2016, the appeals court ruled in favor of BCWF. Duke Energy Indiana recorded an obligation and a regulatory asset related to the settlement amount in fourth quarter 2016. On June 30, 2017, the parties finalized a settlement agreement. Terms of the settlement included Duke Energy Indiana paying $29 million for back damages. Additionally, the parties agreed on the method by which the contract will be bid into the market in the future. The mattersettlement amount was paid in June 2017. The IURC issued an order on September 27, 2017, approving recovery of the settlement amount through Duke Energy Indiana's fuel clause. The IURC order has been remandedappealed to a lower court to determine damages.the Indiana Court of Appeals. Duke Energy Indiana cannot predict the outcome of this matter. Ultimate resolution of this matter could have a material effect
Piedmont
Regulatory Assets and Liabilities
The following tables present the regulatory assets and liabilities recorded on Piedmont's Consolidated Balance Sheets.
 December 31, Earns/PaysRecovery/Refund
(in millions)2017
2016
 a ReturnPeriod Ends
Regulatory Assets(a)
     
AROs - other$15
$14
  (d)
Accrued pension and OPEB(c)
91
166
  (f)
Derivatives - gas supply contracts142
187
  (e)
Vacation accrual(c)
10
13
  2018
Deferred pipeline integrity costs(c)
42
36
  2018
Amount due from customers64
66
 X(b)
Other14
15
  (b)
Total regulatory assets378
497
   
Less: current portion95
124
   
Total noncurrent regulatory assets$283
$373
   
Regulatory Liabilities(a)
     
Costs of removal$544
$528
  (d)
Net regulatory liability related to income taxes597
80
  (b)
Other3

  (b)
Total regulatory liabilities1,144
608
   
Less: current portion3

   
Total noncurrent regulatory liabilities$1,141
$608
   
(a)Regulatory assets and liabilities are excluded from rate base unless otherwise noted.
(b)The expected recovery or refund period varies or has not been determined.
(c)Included in rate base.
(d)Recovery over the life of the associated assets.
(e)Balance will fluctuate with changes in the market. Current contracts extend into 2031.
(f)Recovered primarily over the average remaining service periods or life expectancies of employees covered by the benefit plans. See Note 21 for additional detail.
South Carolina Rate Stabilization Adjustment Filing
In June 2017, Piedmont filed with the results of operations, financial position or cash flows of Duke Energy Indiana. However, appropriate regulatory recovery will be pursuedPSCSC under the South Carolina Rate Stabilization Act its quarterly monitoring report for the retail portion12-month period ending March 31, 2017. The filing included a revenue deficiency calculation and tariff rates in order to permit Piedmont the opportunity to earn the rate of any costs incurredreturn on equity of 12.6 percent established in connectionits last general rate case. On October 4, 2017, the PSCSC approved a settlement agreement between Piedmont and the SC Office of Regulatory Staff. Terms of the settlement included implementation of rates for the 12-month period beginning November 2017 with such resolution.a return on equity of 10.2 percent.


162

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

North Carolina Integrity Management Rider Filings
In October 2017, Piedmont filed a petition with the NCUC under the Integrity Management Rider (IMR) mechanism to collect an additional $8.9 million in annual revenues, effective December 2017, based on the eligible capital investments closed to integrity and safety projects over the six-month period ending September 30, 2017. On November 28, 2017, the NCUC approved the requested rate adjustment.
In May 2017, Piedmont filed, and the NCUC approved, a petition under the IMR mechanism to collect an additional $11.6 million in annual revenues, effective June 2017, based on the eligible capital investments closed to integrity and safety projects over the six-month period ending March 31, 2017.
Tennessee Integrity Management Rider Filing
In November 2017, Piedmont filed a petition with the TPUC under the IMR mechanism to collect an additional $3.3 million in annual revenues, effective January 2018, based on the eligible capital investments closed to integrity and safety projects over the 12-month period ending October 31, 2017. In January 2018, Piedmont filed an amended computation under the IMR mechanism, revising the proposed increase in annual revenues to approximately $0.4 million based on the decrease in the corporate federal income tax rate effective January 1, 2018. A hearing on this matter is scheduled for March 2018.
OTHER REGULATORY MATTERS
Atlantic Coast Pipeline
On September 2, 2014, Duke Energy, Dominion Resources (Dominion), Piedmont and Southern Company Gas announced the formation of Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC (ACP) to build and own the proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP pipeline), an approximately 600-mile interstate natural gas pipeline running from West Virginia to North Carolina. The ACP pipeline is designed to meet, in part, the needs identified by Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Piedmont. Dominion will build and operate the ACP pipeline and holds a leading ownership percentage in ACP of 48 percent. Duke Energy owns a 47 percent interest through its Gas Utilities and Infrastructure segment. Southern Company Gas maintains a 5 percent interest. See Notes 12 and 17 for additional information related to Duke Energy's ownership interest.
Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Piedmont, among others, will be customers of the pipeline. Purchases will be made under several 20-year supply contracts, subject to state regulatory approval. On September 18, 2015, ACP filed an application with the FERC requesting a CPCN authorizing ACP to construct the pipeline. ACP executed a construction agreement in September 2016. ACP also requested approval of an open access tariff and the precedent agreements it entered into with future pipeline customers. In December 2016, FERC issued a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) indicating that the proposed pipeline would not cause significant harm to the environment or protected populations. The FERC issued the final EIS in July 2017. On October 13, 2017, FERC issued an order approving the CPCN, subject to conditions. On October 16, 2017, ACP accepted the FERC order subject to reserving its right to file a request for rehearing or clarification on a timely basis. On November 9, 2017, ACP filed a request for rehearing on several limited issues. On December 12, 2017, ACP filed an answer to intervenors’ request for rehearing of the certificate order and for stay of the certificate order.
In December 2017, West Virginia issued a waiver of the state water quality permit in reliance on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers national water quality permit and Virginia issued a conditional water quality permit subject to completion of additional studies and stormwater plans. In early 2018, the FERC issued a series of Partial Notices to Proceed which authorized the project to begin limited construction-related activities along the pipeline route. North Carolina issued the state water quality permit in January 2018. The project remains subject to other pending federal and state approvals, which will allow full construction activities to begin. The ACP pipeline project has a targeted in-service date of late 2019.
Due to delays in obtaining the required permits to commence construction and the conditions imposed upon the project by the permits, ACP's project manager estimates the project's pipeline development costs have increased from a range of $5.0 billion to $5.5 billion to a range of $6.0 billion and $6.5 billion, excluding financing costs. Project construction activities, schedule and final costs are still subject to uncertainty due to potential additional permitting delays, construction productivity and other conditions and risks which could result in potential higher project costs and a potential delay in the targeted in-service date.
Sabal Trail Transmission Pipeline
On May 4, 2015, Duke Energy acquired a 7.5 percent ownership interest in Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC (Sabal Trail) from Spectra Energy Partners, LP, a master limited partnership, formed by Enbridge Inc. (formerly Spectra Energy Corp.). Spectra Energy Partners, LP holds a 50 percent ownership interest in Sabal Trail and NextEra Energy has a 42.5 percent ownership interest. Sabal Trail is a joint venture to construct a 515-mile natural gas pipeline (Sabal Trail pipeline) to transport natural gas to Florida. Total estimated project costs are approximately $3.2 billion. The Sabal Trail pipeline traverses Alabama, Georgia and Florida. The primary customers of the Sabal Trail pipeline, Duke Energy Florida and Florida Power & Light Company (FP&L), have each contracted to buy pipeline capacity for 25-year initial terms. See Notes 12 and 17 for additional information.
On February 3, 2016, the FERC issued an order granting the request for a CPCN to construct and operate the pipeline. The Sabal Trail pipeline received other required regulatory approvals and the phase one mainline was placed in service in July 2017. On October 12, 2017, Sabal Trail filed a request with FERC to place in-service a lateral line to Duke Energy Florida's Citrus County Combined Cycle facility, which remains pending. This request is required to support commissioning and testing activities at the facility.

163

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

On September 21, 2016, intervenors filed an appeal of FERC's CPCN orders to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals). On August 22, 2017, the appeals court ruled against FERC in the case for failing to include enough information on the impact of greenhouse-gas emissions carried by the pipeline, vacated the CPCN order and remanded the case to FERC. In response to the August 2017 court decision, the FERC issued a draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) on September 27, 2017. On October 6, 2017, FERC and a group of industry intervenors, including Sabal Trail and Duke Energy Florida, filed separate petitions with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals requesting rehearing regarding the court's decision to vacate the CPCN order. On January 31, 2018, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the requests for rehearing. On February 2, 2018, Sabal Trail filed a request with FERC for expedited issuance of its order on remand and reissuance of the CPCN. In the alternative, the pipeline requested that FERC issue a temporary emergency CPCN to allow for continued operations. On February 5, 2018, FERC issued the final SEIS but did not issue the order on remand. On February 6, 2018, FERC and the intervenors in this case each filed motions for stay with the D.C. Circuit Court to stay the court's mandate. The February 6, 2018 motions automatically stay the issuance of the court’s mandate until the later of seven days after the court denies the motions or the expiration of any stay granted by the court. Both motions are pending. Sabal Trail will continue to monitor the progress and the impact to the project going forward.
Constitution Pipeline
Duke Energy owns a 24 percent ownership interest in Constitution Pipeline Company, LLC (Constitution). Constitution is a natural gas pipeline project slated to transport natural gas supplies from the Marcellus supply region in northern Pennsylvania to major northeastern markets. The pipeline will be constructed and operated by Williams Partners L.P., which has a 41 percent ownership share. The remaining interest is held by Cabot Oil and Gas Corporation and WGL Holdings, Inc. Before the permitting delays discussed below, Duke Energy's total anticipated contributions were approximately $229 million. As a result of the permitting delays and project uncertainty, total anticipated contributions by Duke Energy can no longer be reasonably estimated.
In December 2014, Constitution received approval from the FERC to construct and operate the proposed pipeline. However, on April 22, 2016, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) denied Constitution’s application for a necessary water quality certification for the New York portion of the Constitution pipeline. Constitution filed legal actions in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (U.S. Court of Appeals) challenging the legality and appropriateness of the NYSDEC’s decision and on August 18, 2017, the petition was denied in part and dismissed in part. In September 2017, Constitution filed a petition for a rehearing of portions of the decision unrelated to the water quality certification, which was denied by the U.S. Court of Appeals. In January 2018, Constitution petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to review the U.S. Court of Appeals decision. In October 2017, Constitution filed a petition for declaratory order requesting FERC to find that the NYSDEC waived its rights to issue a Section 401 water quality certification by not acting on Constitution's application within a reasonable period of time as required by statute. This petition was based on precedent established by another pipeline’s successful petition with FERC following a District of Columbia Circuit Court ruling. On January 11, 2018, FERC denied Constitution's petition. In February 2018, Constitution filed a rehearing request with FERC of its finding that the NYSDEC did not waive the Section 401 certification requirement. Constitution is currently unable to approximate an in-service date for the project due to the NYDSEC's denial of the water quality certification. The Constitution partners remain committed to the project and are evaluating next steps to move the project forward. Duke Energy cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Since April 2016, with the actions of the NYSDEC, Constitution stopped construction and discontinued capitalization of future development costs until the project's uncertainty is resolved.
See Notes 12 and 17 for additional information related to ownership interest and carrying value of the investment.
Progress Energy Merger FERC Mitigation
Following the closing of the Progress Energy merger, outside counsel reviewed Duke Energy’s long-term FERC mitigation plan and discovered a technical error in the calculations. On December 6, 2013, Duke Energy submitted a filing to the FERC disclosing the error and arguing that no additional mitigation is necessary. The city of New Bern filed a protest and requested that FERC order additional mitigation. On October 29, 2014, the FERC ordered that the amount of the stub mitigation be increased from 25 MW to 129 MW. The stub mitigation is Duke Energy’s commitment to set aside for third parties a certain quantity of firm transmission capacity from Duke Energy Carolinas to Duke Energy Progress during summer off-peak hours. The FERC also ordered that Duke Energy operate certain phase shifters to create additional import capability and that such operation be monitored by an independent monitor. The costs to comply with this order are not material. The FERC also referred Duke Energy’s failure to expressly designate the phase shifter reactivation as a mitigation project in the original mitigation plan filing in March 2012 to the FERC Office of Enforcement for further inquiry. In response, and since December 2014, the FERC Office of Enforcement has been conducting a nonpublic investigation of Duke Energy's market power analyses included in the Progress merger filings submitted to FERC. Duke Energy cannot predict the outcome of this investigation.
Potential Coal Plant Retirements
The Subsidiary Registrants periodically file Integrated Resource Plans (IRP) with their state regulatory commissions. The IRPs provide a view of forecasted energy needs over a long term (10 to 20 years) and options being considered to meet those needs. Recent IRPs filed by the Subsidiary Registrants included planning assumptions to potentially retire certain coal-fired generating facilities in Florida and Indiana earlier than their current estimated useful lives primarily because facilities do not have the requisite emission control equipment to meet EPA regulations recently approved or proposed.

164

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

The table below contains the net carrying value of generating facilities planned for retirement or included in recent IRPs as evaluated for potential retirement due to a lack of requisite environmental control equipment. Dollar amounts in the table below are included in Net property, plant and equipment on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2017, and exclude capitalized asset retirement costs.
   Remaining Net
 Capacity
 Book Value
 (in MW)
 (in millions)
Duke Energy Carolinas   
Allen Steam Station Units 1-3(a)
585
 $163
Progress Energy and Duke Energy Florida   
Crystal River Units 1 and 2(b)
873
 107
Duke Energy Indiana   
Gallagher Units 2 and 4(c)
280
 127
Total Duke Energy1,738
 $397
(a)Duke Energy Carolinas will retire Allen Steam Station Units 1 through 3 by December 31, 2024, as part of the resolution of a lawsuit involving alleged New Source Review violations.
(b)Duke Energy Florida expects to retire these coal units by the end of 2018 to comply with environmental regulations.
(c)Duke Energy Indiana committed to either retire or stop burning coal at Gallagher Units 2 and 4 by December 31, 2022, as part of the settlement of Edwardsport IGCC matters.
Refer to the "Western Carolinas Modernization Plan" discussion above for details of Duke Energy Progress' planned retirements.
5. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
INSURANCE
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. 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 from 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 Plant (Robinson), Brunswick and Harris. Robinson and Harris each have one reactor. Brunswick has two reactors.
Duke Energy Florida owns Crystal River Unit 3, which permanently ceased operation in 2013 and reached a SAFSTOR condition in January 2018 after the successful transfer of all used nuclear fuel assemblies to an onsite dry cask storage facility.
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.

165

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

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 approximately $13.4 billion, is subject to change every five years for inflation and for 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 U.S. 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 is $450 million per station.
Excess Liability Program
This program provides $13 billion of coverage per incident through the Price-Anderson Act’s mandatory industrywide 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 102 licensed commercial nuclear reactors in the 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 property damage, nuclear accident 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 accidental outage coverage for each station for losses in the event of a major accidental outage at an insured nuclear station.
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.
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 $50 million and is on an actual cash value basis. 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. All coverages are subject to sublimits and significant deductibles.
NEIL’s Accidental Outage policy provides some coverage, such as business interruption, 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 these available weekly periods are met where the accidental outage policy limit will not exceed $490 million for McGuire and Catawba, $462 million for Brunswick, $448 million for Harris, $434 million for Oconee and $378 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. All coverages are subject to sublimits and significant deductibles.
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 six years after a loss. NEIL has never exercised this assessment. The maximum aggregate annual retrospective premium obligations for Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida are $146 million, $96 million and $1 million, respectively. Duke Energy Carolinas' maximum assessment amount includes 100 percent of potential obligations to NEIL for jointly owned reactors. Duke Energy Carolinas would seek reimbursement from the joint owners for their portion of these assessment amounts.
ENVIRONMENTAL
The Duke Energy 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.

166

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

Remediation Activities
In addition to the ARO recorded as a result of various environmental regulations, discussed in Note 9, the Duke Energy Registrants are responsible for environmental remediation at various sites. These include certain 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, remediation activities vary based upon site conditions and location, 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 environmental impacts 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 at all sites. 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.
The following tables contain information regarding reserves for probable and estimable costs related to the various environmental sites. These reserves are recorded in Accounts payable within Current Liabilities and Other within Other Noncurrent Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
   Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
(in millions)Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Balance at December 31, 2014$92
 $10
 $17
 $5
 $12
 $54
 $10
Provisions/adjustments11
 1
 4
 
 4
 1
 5
Cash reductions(9) (1) (4) (2) (2) (1) (3)
Balance at December 31, 201594
 10
 17
 3
 14
 54
 12
Provisions/adjustments19
 4
 7
 2
 4
 7
 1
Cash reductions(15) (4) (6) (2) (4) (2) (3)
Balance at December 31, 201698
 10
 18
 3
 14
 59
 10
Provisions/adjustments8
 3
 3
 2
 2
 3
 (4)
Cash reductions(25) (3) (6) (2) (4) (15) (1)
Balance at December 31, 2017$81
 $10
 $15
 $3
 $12
 $47
 $5
As of December 31, 2016, October 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, Piedmont's environmental reserve was $1 million. In 2017, a $1 million provision was recorded, resulting in a reserve balance of $2 million at December 31, 2017.
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 not material except as presented in the table below.
(in millions) 
Duke Energy$56
Duke Energy Carolinas19
Duke Energy Ohio30
Piedmont2
North Carolina and South Carolina Ash Basins
In February 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. 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. In July 2014, Duke Energy completed remediation work identified by the EPA and continues to cooperate with the EPA's civil enforcement process. Future costs related to the Dan River release, including future state or federal civil enforcement proceedings, future regulatory directives, natural resources damages, future claims or litigation and long-term environmental impact costs, cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.
The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) has historically assessed Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress with Notice of Violations (NOV) for violations that were most often resolved through satisfactory corrective actions and minor, if any, fines or penalties. Subsequent to the Dan River ash release, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress have been served with a higher level of NOVs, including assessed penalties for violations at L.V. Sutton Combined Cycle Plant (Sutton) and Dan River Steam Station. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress cannot predict whether the NCDEQ will assess future penalties related to existing unresolved NOVs and if such penalties would be material. See "NCDEQ Notices of Violation" section below for additional discussion.

167

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

LITIGATION
Duke Energy
Duke Energy no longer has exposure to litigation matters related to the International Disposal Group as a result of the divestiture of the business in December 2016. See Note 2 for additional information related to the sale of International Energy.
Ash Basin Shareholder Derivative Litigation
Five shareholder derivative lawsuits were 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 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, which the court granted. The stay was lifted on March 24, 2016, after which plaintiffs filed an Amended Verified Consolidated Shareholder Derivative Complaint (Amended Complaint) making the same allegations as in the Consolidated Complaint. The Duke Energy Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on June 21, 2016, which was granted by the Court on December 14, 2016. Plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court on January 9, 2017. Oral argument was held on September 27, 2017. On December 15, 2017, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Chancery Court's order of dismissal.
In addition to the above derivative complaints, in 2014, Duke Energy received two shareholder litigation demand letters. The letters alleged 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. One of the letters also alleged a breach of fiduciary duty in the decision-making relating to the leadership changes following the close of the Progress Energy merger in July 2012. By letter dated September 4, 2015, attorneys for the shareholders were informed that, on the recommendation of the Demand Review Committee formed to consider such matters, the Board of Directors concluded not to pursue potential claims against individuals. One of the shareholders, Mitchell Pinsly, sent a formal demand for records and Duke Energy has responded to this request. There was no follow-up after the records were provided; therefore, this matter has been resolved.
On October 30, 2015, shareholder Saul Bresalier filed a shareholder derivative complaint (Bresalier Complaint) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The lawsuit alleges that several current and former Duke Energy officers and directors (Bresalier Defendants) breached their fiduciary duties in connection with coal ash environmental issues, the post-merger change in Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and oversight of political contributions. Duke Energy is named as a nominal defendant. The Bresalier Complaint contends that the Demand Review Committee failed to appropriately consider the shareholder’s earlier demand for litigation and improperly decided not to pursue claims against the Bresalier Defendants. On March 30, 2017, the court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss on the claims relating to coal ash environmental issues and political contributions. As discussed below, a settlement agreement was approved for the merger-related claims in the Bresalier Complaint, and those claims were dismissed. On September 8, 2017, Bresalier filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Third Circuit Court) challenging the dismissal of his coal ash and political contribution claims. On January 19 2018, Bresalier filed a stipulation of dismissal, closing this case.
Progress Energy Merger Shareholder Litigation
Duke Energy, the 11 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 were defendants in a purported securities class-action lawsuit (Nieman v. Duke Energy Corporation, et al). This lawsuit consolidated three lawsuits originally filed in July 2012. The plaintiffs alleged federal Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) claims based on allegations of 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 post-merger change in CEO. On August 15, 2014, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation. On March 10, 2015, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement and a Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement. Under the terms of the agreement, Duke Energy agreed to pay $146 million to settle the claim. On April 22, 2015, Duke Energy made a payment of $25 million into the settlement escrow account. The remainder of $121 million was paid by insurers into the settlement escrow account. The final order approving the settlement was issued on November 2, 2015, thus closing the matter.
On May 31, 2013, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated four shareholder derivative lawsuits filed in 2012. The Court also appointed a lead plaintiff and counsel for plaintiffs and designated the case as In Re Duke Energy Corporation Derivative Litigation (Merger Chancery 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.
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 against the Legacy Duke Energy Directors 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. On December 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint asserting the same claims contained in the original complaints.

168

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

The Legacy Duke Energy Directors have reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the Merger Chancery Litigation, conditioned on dismissal as well, of the Tansey v. Rogers, et al case and the merger related claims in the Bresalier Complaint discussed above, which was approved by the Delaware Chancery Court on July 13, 2017. The entire settlement amount was funded by insurance. The settlement amount, less court-approved attorney fees, totaled $20 million and was paid to Duke Energy in 2017.
Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress
Coal Ash Insurance Coverage Litigation
In March 2017, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a civil action in North Carolina Superior Court against various insurance providers. The lawsuit seeks payment for coal ash-related liabilities covered by third-party liability insurance policies. The insurance policies were issued between 1971 and 1986 and provide third-party liability insurance for property damage. The civil action seeks damages for breach of contract and indemnification for costs arising from the Coal Ash Act and the EPA CCR rule at 15 coal-fired plants in North Carolina and South Carolina. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
NCDEQ Notice of Violation
On February 8, 2016, the NCDEQ assessed a penalty of approximately $6.8 million, including enforcement costs, against Duke Energy Carolinas related to stormwater pipes and associated discharges at the Dan River Steam Station. Duke Energy Carolinas recorded a charge in December 2015 for this penalty. In March 2016, Duke Energy Carolinas filed an appeal of this penalty. On September 23, 2016, Duke Energy Carolinas entered into a settlement agreement with the NCDEQ, without admission of liability, under which Duke Energy Carolinas agreed to a payment of $6 million to resolve allegations underlying the asserted civil penalty related to the Dan River coal ash release and a March 4, 2016, NOV alleging unpermitted discharges at the facility.
NCDEQ State Enforcement Actions
In the first quarter of 2013, Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) sent notices of intent to sue Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress related to alleged Clean Water Act (CWA) violations from coal ash basins at two of their coal-fired power plants in North Carolina. The NCDEQ filed enforcement actions against Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress alleging violations of water discharge permits and North Carolina groundwater standards. The cases have been consolidated and are being heard before a single judge in the North Carolina Superior Court.
On August 16, 2013, the NCDEQ 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. Both of these cases have been assigned to the judge handling the enforcement actions discussed above. SELC is representing several environmental groups who have been permitted to intervene in these cases.
The court issued orders in 2016 granting Motions for Partial Summary Judgment for seven of the 14 North Carolina plants with coal ash basins named in the enforcement actions. On February 13, 2017, the court issued an order denying motions for partial summary judgment brought by both the environmental groups and Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress for the remaining seven plants. On March 15, 2017, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a Notice of Appeal to challenge the trial court’s order. The parties were unable to reach an agreement at mediation in April 2017. The parties submitted briefs to the court on remaining issues to be tried and a ruling is pending. On August 22, 2017, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a Petition for Discretionary Review, requesting the North Carolina Supreme Court to accept the appeal. On August 24, 2017, SELC filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. Duke Energy Carolinas' and Duke Energy Progress’ opening appellate briefs were filed on October 12, 2017, and briefing is now complete. Argument was held on February 8, 2018.
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.
Federal Citizens Suits
On June 13, 2016, the Roanoke River Basin Association (RRBA) filed a federal citizen suit in the Middle District of North Carolina alleging unpermitted discharges to surface water and groundwater violations at the Mayo Plant. On August 19, 2016, Duke Energy Progress filed a Motion to Dismiss. On April 26, 2017, the court entered an order dismissing four of the claims in the federal citizen suit. Two claims relating to alleged violations of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit provisions survived the motion to dismiss, and Duke Energy Progress filed its response on May 10, 2017. The parties are engaged in pre-trial discovery. Trial has been scheduled for July 9, 2018.
On March 16, 2017, RRBA served Duke Energy Progress with a Notice of Intent to Sue under the CWA for alleged violations of effluent standards and limitations at the Roxboro Plant. In anticipation of litigation, Duke Energy Progress filed a Complaint for Declaratory Relief in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia on May 11, 2017, which was subsequently dismissed. On May 16, 2017, RRBA filed a federal citizen suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina which asserts two claims relating to alleged violations of NPDES permit provisions and one claim relating to the use of nearby water bodies. The parties are engaged in pre-trial discovery. Trial has been scheduled for October 1, 2018.
On June 20, 2017, RRBA filed a federal citizen suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina challenging the closure plans at the Mayo Plant under the EPA CCR Rule. Duke Energy Progress filed a motion to dismiss, which was argued on January 30, 2018.
On August 2, 2017, RRBA filed a federal citizen suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina challenging the closure plans at the Roxboro Plant under the EPA CCR Rule. Duke Energy Progress filed a motion to dismiss on October 2, 2017.
On December 6, 2017, various parties filed a federal citizen suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina for alleged violations at Duke Energy Carolinas' Belews Creek Steam Station (Belews Creek) under the CWA. Duke Energy Carolinas filed a motion to dismiss on February 5, 2018.

169

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

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.
Five previously filed cases involving the Riverbend, Cape Fear, H.F. Lee, Sutton and Buck plants have been dismissed or settled during 2016.
Groundwater Contamination Claims
Beginning in May 2015, a number of residents living in the vicinity of the North Carolina facilities with ash basins received letters from the NCDEQ advising them not to drink water from the private wells on their land tested by the NCDEQ as the samples were found to have certain substances at levels higher than the criteria set by the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Results of Comprehensive Site Assessments (CSAs) testing performed by Duke Energy under the Coal Ash Act have been consistent with historical data provided to state regulators over many years. The DHHS and NCDEQ sent follow-up letters on October 15, 2015, to residents near coal ash basins who have had their wells tested, stating that private well samplings at a considerable distance from coal ash basins, as well as some municipal water supplies, contain similar levels of vanadium and hexavalent chromium, which led investigators to believe these constituents are naturally occurring. In March 2016, DHHS rescinded the advisories.
Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress have received formal demand letters from residents near Duke Energy Carolinas' and Duke Energy Progress' coal ash basins. The residents claim damages for nuisance and diminution in property value, among other things. The parties held three days of mediation discussions which ended at impasse. On January 6, 2017, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress received the plaintiffs' notice of their intent to file suits should the matter not settle. The NCDEQ preliminarily approved Duke Energy’s permanent water solution plans on January 13, 2017, and as a result shortly thereafter, Duke Energy issued a press release, providing additional details regarding the homeowner compensation package. This package consists of three components: (i) a $5,000 goodwill payment to each eligible well owner to support the transition to a new water supply, (ii) where a public water supply is available and selected by the eligible well owner, a stipend to cover 25 years of water bills and (iii) the Property Value Protection Plan. The Property Value Protection Plan is a program offered by Duke Energy designed to guarantee eligible plant neighbors the fair market value of their residential property should they decide to sell their property during the time that the plan is offered. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress recognized reserves of $19 million and $4 million, respectively.
On August 23, 2017, a class-action suit was filed in Wake County Superior Court, North Carolina, against Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress on behalf of certain property owners living near coal ash impoundments at Allen, Asheville, Belews Creek, Buck, Cliffside, Lee, Marshall, Mayo and Roxboro. The class is defined as those who are well-eligible under the Coal Ash Act or those to whom Duke Energy has promised a permanent replacement water supply and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, along with compensatory damages. Plaintiffs allege that Duke Energy’s improper maintenance of coal ash impoundments caused harm, particularly through groundwater contamination. Despite NCDEQ’s preliminary approval, Plaintiffs contend that Duke Energy’s proposed permanent water solutions plan fails to comply with the Coal Ash Act. On September 28, 2017, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike the class designation. The parties entered into a Settlement Agreement on January 24, 2018, which resulted in the dismissal of the underlying class action on January 25, 2018.
On September 14, 2017, a complaint was filed against Duke Energy Progress in New Hanover County Superior Court by a group of homeowners residing approximately 1 mile from Duke Energy Progress' Sutton Steam Plant. The homeowners allege that coal ash constituents have been migrating from ash impoundments at Sutton into their groundwater for decades and that in 2015, Duke Energy Progress discovered these releases of coal ash, but failed to notify any officials or neighbors and failed to take remedial action. The homeowners claim unspecified physical and mental injuries as a result of consuming their well water and seek actual damages for personal injury, medical monitoring and punitive damages. Duke Energy filed its Motion to Dismiss on October 27, 2017, and the hearing is scheduled for March 7, 2018.
It is not possible to estimate the maximum exposure of loss, if any, that may occur in connection with claims which might be made by these residents.
Duke Energy Carolinas
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, 2017, there were 161 asserted claims for non-malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to $42 million and 54 asserted claims for malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to $16 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 $489 million and $512 million at December 31, 2017, and 2016, respectively. These reserves are classified in Other within Other Noncurrent 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 2037, 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 2037 related to such potential claims. It is possible Duke Energy Carolinas may incur asbestos liabilities in excess of the recorded reserves.

170

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

Duke Energy Carolinas has third-party insurance to cover certain losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages above an aggregate self-insured retention. 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 indemnification and medical cost claim payments is $797 million in excess of the self-insured retention. Receivables for insurance recoveries were $585 million and $587 million at December 31, 2017, and 2016, respectively. These amounts are classified in Other within Other Noncurrent Assets and Receivables within Current Assets 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.
Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida
Spent Nuclear Fuel Matters
On October 16, 2014, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida sued the U.S. 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 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, 2011, through December 31, 2013, of $48 million and $25 million, respectively. On November 17, 2017, the Court awarded Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida $48 million and $21 million, respectively, subject to appeal. No appeals were filed and Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida will recognize the recoveries in the first quarter of 2018. Claims for all periods through 2013 have been resolved. Additional claims will be filed in 2018.
Duke Energy Progress
Gypsum Supply Agreements Matter
On June 30, 2017, CertainTeed Gypsum NC, Inc. (CertainTeed) filed a declaratory judgment action against Duke Energy Progress in the North Carolina Business Court relating to a gypsum supply agreement. In its complaint, CertainTeed seeks an order from the court declaring that the minimum amount of gypsum Duke Energy Progress must provide to CertainTeed under the supply agreement is 50,000 tons per month through 2029. On September 28, 2017, the Court denied CertainTeed's motion for summary judgment. Discovery in the case is underway and a trial date has not been set. In light of the volatility in future production of gypsum, Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Duke Energy Florida
Class-Action Lawsuit
On February 22, 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of a putative class of Duke Energy Florida and FP&L’s customers in Florida. The suit alleges the State of Florida’s nuclear power plant cost recovery statutes (NCRS) are unconstitutional and pre-empted by federal law. Plaintiffs claim they are entitled to repayment of all money paid by customers of Duke Energy Florida and FP&L as a result of the NCRS, as well as an injunction against any future charges under those statutes. The constitutionality of the NCRS has been challenged unsuccessfully in a number of prior cases on alternative grounds. Duke Energy Florida and FP&L filed motions to dismiss the complaint on May 5, 2016. On September 21, 2016, the Court granted the motions to dismiss with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. On January 4, 2017, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals. The appeal, which has been fully briefed, was heard on August 22, 2017, and a decision is pending. Duke Energy Florida cannot predict the outcome of this appeal.
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. Duke Energy Florida recognized an exit obligation as a result of the termination of the EPC contract.
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. On July 11, 2016, Duke Energy Florida and Westinghouse filed separate Motions for Summary Judgment. On September 29, 2016, the court issued its ruling on the parties' respective Motions for Summary Judgment, ruling in favor of Westinghouse on a $30 million termination fee claim and dismissing Duke Energy Florida's $54 million refund claim, but stating that Duke Energy Florida could use the refund claim to offset any damages for termination costs. Westinghouse's claim for termination costs was unaffected by this ruling and continued to trial. At trial, Westinghouse reduced its claim for termination costs from $482 million to $424 million. Following a trial on the matter, the court issued its final order in December 2016 denying Westinghouse’s claim for termination costs and re-affirming its earlier ruling in favor of Westinghouse on the $30 million termination fee and Duke Energy Florida’s refund claim. Judgment was entered against Duke Energy Florida in the amount of approximately $34 million, which includes pre-judgment interest. Westinghouse has appealed the trial court's order and Duke Energy Florida has cross-appealed. Duke Energy Florida cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the appeal of the trial court's order.
On March 29, 2017, Westinghouse filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the Southern District of New York, which automatically stayed the appeal. On May 23, 2017, the bankruptcy court entered an order lifting the stay with respect to the appeal. Briefing of the appeal concluded on October 20, 2017. Oral argument in the appeal was originally set for March 2018 but has tentatively been rescheduled to May 2018, due to scheduling conflicts.

171

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

Ultimate resolution of these matters could have a material effect on the results of operations, financial position or cash flows of Duke Energy Florida. See discussion of the 2017 Settlement and the Levy Nuclear Project in Note 4 for additional information regarding recovery of costs related to Westinghouse. The 2017 Settlement does not permit recovery of any amounts paid to resolve this contract litigation.
MGP Cost Recovery Action
On December 30, 2011, Duke Energy Florida filed a lawsuit against FirstEnergy Corp. (FirstEnergy) to recover investigation and remediation costs incurred by Duke Energy Florida in connection with the restoration of two former MGP sites in Florida. Duke Energy Florida alleged that FirstEnergy, as the successor to Associated Gas & Electric Co., owes past and future contribution and response costs of up to $43 million for the investigation and remediation of MGP sites. On December 6, 2016, the trial court entered judgment against Duke Energy Florida in the case. In January 2017, Duke Energy Florida appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which has been fully briefed and argued. Duke Energy Florida cannot predict the outcome of this appeal.
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 nonpublic 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. Plaintiffs alleged claims of antitrust violations under the federal Robinson Patman Act as well as fraud and conspiracy allegations under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statute and the Ohio Corrupt Practices Act.
During 2015, the parties received preliminary court approval of a settlement agreement. Duke Energy Ohio recorded a litigation settlement reserve of $81 million classified in Other within Current Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 2015. Duke Energy Ohio also recognized a pretax charge of $81 million in (Loss) Income From Discontinued Operations, net of tax in the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income for the year ended December 31, 2015. The settlement agreement was approved at a federal court hearing on April 19, 2016. Distribution of the settlement checks was approved by the court in January 2017 and all settlement amounts have been paid. See Note 2 for further discussion on the Midwest Generation Exit.
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, excluding asbestos-related reserves and the exit obligation discussed above related to the termination of an EPC contract. Reserves are classified on the Consolidated Balance Sheets in Other within Deferred Credits and Other Noncurrent Liabilities and Accounts payable and Other within Current Liabilities. The reasonably possible range of loss in excess of recorded reserves is not material, other than as described above.
December 31,December 31,
(in millions)
2016
 2015
2017
 2016
Reserves for Legal Matters      
Duke Energy$98
 $156
$88
 $98
Duke Energy Carolinas23
 11
30
 23
Progress Energy59
 54
55
 59
Duke Energy Progress14
 6
13
 14
Duke Energy Florida28
 31
24
 28
Duke Energy Ohio4
 80

 4
Piedmont2
 2
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.

172

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

Purchase Obligations
Purchased Power
Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Florida and Duke Energy Ohio 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 with terms exceeding one year, excluding contracts classified as leases. Amounts at Duke Energy Ohio were immaterial.
  Minimum Purchase Amount at December 31, 2016  Minimum Purchase Amount at December 31, 2017
Contract              Contract              
(in millions)Expiration 2017
 2018
 2019
 2020
 2021
 Thereafter
 Total
Expiration 2018
 2019
 2020
 2021
 2022
 Thereafter
 Total
Duke Energy Progress(a)
2019-2031 $66
 $67
 $67
 $50
 $51
 $267
 $568
2019-2031 $68
 $68
 $51
 $52
 $30
 $239
 $508
Duke Energy Florida(b)
2021-2043 341
 357
 377
 394
 376
 1,211
 3,056
2021-2043 357
 374
 394
 378
 376
 770
 2,649
Duke Energy Ohio(c)(d)
2018 203
 89
 
 
 
 
 292
(a)    Contracts represent between 15 percent and 100 percent of net plant output.
(b)     Contracts represent between 81 percent and 100 percent of net plant output.
(c)    Contracts represent between 1 percent and 11 percent of net plant output.
(d)    Excludes PPA with OVEC. See Note 17 for additional information.
Gas Supply and Capacity Contracts
Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy OhioPiedmont routinely enter into long-term natural gas supply commodity and capacity commitments and other agreements that commit future cash flows to acquire services needed in their businesses. These commitments include pipeline and storage capacity contracts and natural gas supply contracts to provide service to customers. Costs arising from the natural gas supply commodity and capacity commitments, while significant, are pass-through costs to customers and are generally fully recoverable through the fuel adjustment or PGA procedures and prudence reviews in North Carolina and South Carolina and under the Tennessee Incentive Plan in Tennessee. In the Midwest, these costs are recovered via the Gas Cost Recovery Rate in Ohio or the Gas Cost Adjustment Clause in Kentucky. The time periods for fixed payments under pipeline and storage capacity contracts are up to 19 years. The time periods for fixed payments under natural gas supply contracts are up to three years. The time period for the natural gas supply purchase commitments is up to 15 years.

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

Certain storage and pipeline capacity contracts require the payment of demand charges that are based on rates approved by the FERC in order to maintain rights to access the natural gas storage or pipeline capacity on a firm basis during the contract term. The demand charges that are incurred in each period are recognized in the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income as part of natural gas purchases and are included in Cost of natural gas.
The following table presents future unconditional purchase obligations under natural gas supply and capacity contracts as of December 31, 2016.2017.
(in millions)Duke EnergyDuke Energy OhioDuke EnergyDuke Energy OhioPiedmont
2017$371
$52
2018308
35
$314
$37
$277
2019286
26
280
28
252
2020269
22
252
25
227
2021267
22
249
26
223
2022226
11
215
Thereafter1,595
7
1,121
3
1,118
Total$3,096
$164
$2,442
$130
$2,312
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 natural 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 on the Consolidated Statements of Operations.
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)2016
 2015
 2014
Duke Energy$242
 $313
 $350
Duke Energy Carolinas45
 41
 41
Progress Energy140
 230
 257
Duke Energy Progress68
 149
 161
Duke Energy Florida72
 81
 96
Duke Energy Ohio16
 13
 17
Duke Energy Indiana23
 20
 21
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, 2016
   Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
(in millions)Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
2017$218
 $41
 $129
 $75
 $54
 $12
 $20
2018205
 35
 126
 73
 53
 11
 17
2019181
 27
 120
 68
 52
 7
 11
2020164
 23
 109
 58
 51
 6
 10
2021134
 17
 91
 43
 48
 4
 6
Thereafter948
 52
 602
 379
 223
 7
 9
Total$1,850
 $195
 $1,177
 $696
 $481
 $47
 $73


173

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

The following tables present 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)2017
 2016
 2015
Duke Energy$241
 $242
 $313
Duke Energy Carolinas44
 45
 41
Progress Energy130
 140
 230
Duke Energy Progress75
 68
 149
Duke Energy Florida55
 72
 81
Duke Energy Ohio15
 16
 13
Duke Energy Indiana23
 23
 20
 Year Ended Two Months Ended Years Ended October 31,
(in millions)December 31, 2017 December 31, 2016 2016
 2015
Piedmont$7
 $1
 $5
 $5
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, 2017
   Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 
 Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 
(in millions)Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Piedmont
2018$233
 $36
 $133
 $77
 $56
 $20
 $22
$6
2019203
 29
 126
 72
 54
 12
 14
5
2020183
 25
 117
 62
 55
 10
 10
5
2021150
 19
 97
 48
 49
 7
 8
6
2022135
 16
 90
 42
 48
 4
 5
6
Thereafter882
 52
 525
 344
 181
 5
 7
16
Total$1,786
 $177
 $1,088
 $645
 $443
 $58
 $66
$44
The following table presents future minimum lease payments under capital leases.
December 31, 2016December 31, 2017
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
(in millions)Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
2017$148
 $6
 $46
 $21
 $25
 $4
 $1
2018154
 6
 46
 21
 25
 3
 2
$168
 $13
 $46
 $21
 $25
 $3
 $2
2019154
 6
 45
 20
 25
 1
 1
169
 13
 45
 20
 25
 1
 1
2020159
 5
 46
 22
 25
 
 1
174
 13
 47
 21
 26
 
 1
2021163
 1
 45
 20
 25
 
 1
176
 8
 45
 22
 25
 
 1
2022169
 8
 45
 21
 24
 
 1
Thereafter784
 30
 322
 250
 71
 
 41
745
 109
 323
 227
 95
 
 38
Minimum annual payments1,562
 54
 550
 354
 196
 8
 47
1,601
 164
 551
 332
 220
 4
 44
Less: amount representing interest(462) (32) (265) (212) (53) (1) (36)(601) (103) (283) (192) (91) 
 (33)
Total$1,100
 $22
 $285
 $142
 $143
 $7
 $11
$1,000
 $61
 $268
 $140
 $129
 $4
 $11

174

PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION – DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC – PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, LLC – DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. – DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, LLC– PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS COMPANY, 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, 2016December 31, 2017
Weighted
  Weighted
  
Average
  Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
Average
  Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 
Interest
 Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
Interest
 Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
 
(in millions)Rate
 Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Rate
 Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Piedmont
Unsecured debt, maturing 2017 - 20734.30% $17,812
$1,150
$3,551
$
$150
$810
$415
Secured debt, maturing 2017 - 20372.60% 3,909
425
1,819
300
1,519


First mortgage bonds, maturing 2017 - 2046(a)
4.61% 21,879
7,410
10,800
6,425
4,375
1,000
2,669
Capital leases, maturing 2018 - 2051(b)
4.48% 1,100
22
285
142
143
7
11
Tax-exempt bonds, maturing 2017 - 2041(c)
2.84% 1,053
355
48
48

77
572
Unsecured debt, maturing 2018-20734.17% $20,409
$1,150
$3,950
$
$550
$900
$411
$2,050
Secured debt, maturing 2018-20373.15% 4,458
450
1,757
300
1,457



First mortgage bonds, maturing 2018-2047(a)
4.51% 23,529
7,959
11,801
6,776
5,025
1,100
2,669

Capital leases, maturing 2018-2051(b)
4.55% 1,000
61
269
139
129
5
11

Tax-exempt bonds, maturing 2019-2041(c)
3.23% 941
243
48
48

77
572

Notes payable and commercial paper(d)
1.01% 3,112






1.57% 2,788







Money pool/intercompany borrowings(e)
  
300
1,902
150
297
41
150
  
404
955
390

54
311
364
Fair value hedge carrying value adjustment  6
6





  6
6






Unamortized debt discount and premium, net(f)(e)
  1,753
(20)(31)(16)(10)(28)(9)  1,582
(19)(30)(16)(10)(33)(9)(1)
Unamortized debt issuance costs(g)(f)
  (242)(45)(104)(38)(52)(7)(22)  (271)(47)(108)(40)(56)(7)(21)(12)
Total debt4.07% $50,382
$9,603
$18,270
$7,011
$6,422
$1,900
$3,786
4.09% $54,442
$10,207
$18,642
$7,597
$7,095
$2,096
$3,944
$2,401
Short-term notes payable and commercial paper  (2,487)





  (2,163)






Short-term money pool/intercompany borrowings  

(729)
(297)(16)
  
(104)(805)(240)
(29)(161)(364)
Current maturities of long-term debt(h)(g)
  (2,319)(116)(778)(452)(326)(1)(3)  (3,244)(1,205)(771)(3)(768)(3)(3)(250)
Total long-term debt(h)(g)

 $45,576
$9,487
$16,763
$6,559
$5,799
$1,883
$3,783

 $49,035
$8,898
$17,066
$7,354
$6,327
$2,064
$3,780
$1,787
(a)Substantially all electric utility property is mortgaged under mortgage bond indentures.
(b)Duke Energy includes $81 million and $603 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 $625 million that was classified as Long-Term Debt on the Consolidated Balance Sheets due to the existence of long-term credit facilities that backstop 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 for Duke Energy's commercial paper program was 14 days.
(e)Duke Energy includes $1,509 million and $176 million in purchase accounting adjustments related to Progress Energy and Piedmont, respectively.
(f)Duke Energy includes $47 million in purchase accounting adjustments primarily related to the merger with Progress Energy.
(g)Refer to Note 17 for additional information on amounts from consolidated VIEs.

175

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

 December 31, 2016
 Weighted
         
 Average
  Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 
 Interest
 Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
 
(in millions)Rate
 Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Piedmont
Unsecured debt, maturing 2017-20734.30% $17,812
$1,150
$3,551
$
$150
$810
$415
$1,835
Secured debt, maturing 2017-20372.60% 3,909
425
1,819
300
1,519



First mortgage bonds, maturing 2017-2046(a)
4.61% 21,879
7,410
10,800
6,425
4,375
1,000
2,669

Capital leases, maturing 2018-2051(b)
4.48% 1,100
22
285
142
143
7
11

Tax-exempt bonds, maturing 2017-2041(c)
2.84% 1,053
355
48
48

77
572

Notes payable and commercial paper(d)
1.01% 3,112







Money pool/intercompany borrowings(e)
  
300
1,902
150
297
41
150

Fair value hedge carrying value adjustment  6
6






Unamortized debt discount and premium, net(f)
  1,753
(20)(31)(16)(10)(28)(9)(1)
Unamortized debt issuance costs(g)
  (242)(45)(104)(38)(52)(7)(22)(13)
Total debt4.07% $50,382
$9,603
$18,270
$7,011
$6,422
$1,900
$3,786
$1,821
Short-term notes payable and commercial paper  (2,487)






Short-term money pool/intercompany borrowings  

(729)
(297)(16)

Current maturities of long-term debt(h)
  (2,319)(116)(778)(452)(326)(1)(3)(35)
Total long-term debt(h)

 $45,576
$9,487
$16,763
$6,559
$5,799
$1,883
$3,783
$1,786
(a)Substantially all electric utility property is mortgaged under mortgage bond indentures.
(b)Duke Energy includes $98 million and $670 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 $625 million that was classified as Long-Term Debt on the Consolidated Balance Sheets due to the existence of long-term credit facilities that backstop 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 for Duke Energy and Piedmont's commercial paper programs were 14 days and eight days, respectively.
(e)Progress Energy amount includes a $1 billion intercompany loan related to the sale of the International Disposal Group. See Note 2 for further discussion of the sale.
(f)Duke Energy includes $1,653 million and $197 million in purchase accounting adjustments related to the mergers with Progress Energy and Piedmont, respectively.
(g)Duke Energy includes $53 million in purchase accounting adjustments primarily related to the merger with Progress Energy.
(h)Refer to Note 17 for additional information on amounts from consolidated VIEs.

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

 December 31, 2015
 Weighted
        
 Average
  Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 Interest
 Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
(in millions)Rate
 Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Unsecured debt, maturing 2016 - 20734.68% $12,960
$1,152
$3,850
$
$150
$765
$740
Secured debt, maturing 2016 - 20372.37% 2,361
425
479
254
225


First mortgage bonds, maturing 2016 - 2045(a)
4.74% 18,980
6,161
9,750
5,975
3,775
750
2,319
Capital leases, maturing 2016 - 2051(b)
5.39% 1,335
24
300
144
156
13
14
Tax-exempt bonds, maturing 2017 - 2041(c)
2.59% 1,053
355
48
48

77
572
Notes payable and commercial paper(d)
0.88% 4,258






Money pool/intercompany borrowings  
300
1,458
359
813
128
150
Fair value hedge carrying value adjustment  6
6





Unamortized debt discount and premium, net(e)
  1,712
(17)(28)(16)(8)(28)(8)
Unamortized debt issuance costs(f)
  (164)(39)(85)(37)(32)(4)(19)
Total debt4.15% $42,501
$8,367
$15,772
$6,727
$5,079
$1,701
$3,768
Short-term notes payable and commercial paper  (3,633)





Short-term money pool/intercompany borrowings  

(1,308)(209)(813)(103)
Current maturities of long-term debt(g)
  (2,026)(356)(315)(2)(13)(106)(547)
Total long-term debt(g)

 $36,842
$8,011
$14,149
$6,516
$4,253
$1,492
$3,221
(a)Substantially all electric utility property is mortgaged under mortgage bond indentures.
(b)Duke Energy includes $114 million and $731 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 $625 million that was classified as Long-Term Debt on the Consolidated Balance Sheets due to the existence of long-term credit facilities that backstop 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 for commercial paper was 15 days.
(e)Duke Energy includes $1,798 million in purchase accounting adjustments related to the merger with Progress Energy.
(f)Duke Energy includes $59 million in purchase accounting adjustments primarily related to the merger with Progress Energy.
(g)Refer to Note 17 for additional information on amounts from consolidated VIEs.
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, 2016
Maturity Date Interest Rate
 December 31, 2017
Unsecured Debt        
Duke Energy (Parent)April 2017 1.226% $400
June 2018 6.250% $250
Duke Energy (Parent)August 2017 1.625% 700
June 2018 2.100% 500
Piedmont Natural GasSeptember 2017 8.510% 35
PiedmontDecember 2018 2.286%
(b) 
250
First Mortgage Bonds        
Duke Energy ProgressMarch 2017 1.146% 250
Duke Energy FloridaSeptember 2017 5.800% 250
Duke Energy ProgressNovember 2017 1.111% 200
Secured    
Duke EnergyJune 2017 2.365% 45
Duke EnergyJune 2017 2.260% 34
Tax-exempt Bonds    
Duke Energy CarolinasFebruary 2017 3.600% 77
January 2018 5.250% 400
Duke Energy CarolinasFebruary 2017 0.810% 10
April 2018 5.100% 300
Duke Energy FloridaJune 2018 5.650% 500
Duke Energy CarolinasFebruary 2017 0.790% 25
November 2018 7.000% 500
Other(a)
   293
   544
Current maturities of long-term debt   $2,319
   $3,244


176

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

(a)Includes capital lease obligations, amortizing debt and small bullet maturities.
(b)Debt has a floating interest rate.
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, 2016December 31, 2017
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
  
(in millions)
Energy(a)

 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Energy(a)

 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
 Piedmont
2017$2,319
 $116
 $778
 $452
 $326
 $1
 $3
20183,466
 1,629
 559
 
 561
 3
 3
$3,244
 $1,205
 $771
 $3
 $768
 $3
 $3
 $250
20193,316
 5
 1,992
 902
 292
 551
 63
3,563
 6
 2,191
 903
 490
 548
 61
 
20202,112
 755
 469
 152
 319
 25
 653
3,699
 906
 871
 304
 568
 
 502
 
20213,699
 501
 1,473
 602
 372
 49
 70
3,760
 502
 1,472
 602
 371
 48
 69
 159
20223,010
 302
 1,176
 653
 74
 23
 243
 
Thereafter31,090
 6,597
 12,270
 4,903
 4,255
 1,255
 2,994
33,271
 7,182
 11,356
 4,892
 4,824
 1,445
 2,905
 1,628
Total long-term debt, including current maturities$46,002

$9,603

$17,541

$7,011

$6,125

$1,884

$3,786
$50,547

$10,103

$17,837

$7,357

$7,095

$2,067

$3,783
 $2,037
(a)Excludes $1,893$1,732 million in purchase accounting adjustments related to the Progress Energy merger and the Piedmont acquisition.
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, 2016December 31, 2017
  Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
Duke
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
Duke
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
(in millions)Energy
 Carolinas
 Progress
 Ohio
 Indiana
Energy
 Carolinas
 Progress
 Ohio
 Indiana
Tax-exempt bonds$347
 $35
 $
 $27
 $285
$312
 $
 $
 $27
 $285
Commercial paper(a)
625
 300
 150
 25
 150
625
 300
 150
 25
 150
Total$972

$335
 $150

$52

$435
$937

$300
 $150

$52

$435
December 31, 2015December 31, 2016
  Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
Duke
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
Duke
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
(in millions)Energy
 Carolinas
 Progress
 Ohio
 Indiana
Energy
 Carolinas
 Progress
 Ohio
 Indiana
Tax-exempt bonds$347
 $35
 $
 $27
 $285
$347
 $35
 $
 $27
 $285
Commercial paper(a)
625
 300
 150
 25
 150
625
 300
 150
 25
 150
Total$972

$335

$150
 $52

$435
$972

$335

$150
 $52

$435
(a)Progress Energy amounts are equal to Duke Energy Progress amounts.
Summary of Significant Debt Issuances
Piedmont Acquisition Financing
In August 2016, Duke Energy issued $3.75 billion of senior unsecured notes in three separate series. The net proceeds were used to finance a portion of the Piedmont acquisition. The $4.9 billion Bridge Facility was terminated following the issuance of this debt. See Note 2 for additional information on the Piedmont acquisition.

177

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

Nuclear Asset-Recovery Bonds
In June 2016, DEFPF issued $1,294 millionSummary of nuclear asset-recovery bonds and used the proceeds to acquire nuclear asset-recovery property from its parent, Duke Energy Florida. The nuclear asset-recovery bonds are payable only from and secured by the nuclear asset-recovery property. DEFPF is consolidated for financial reporting purposes; however, the nuclear asset-recovery bonds do not constitute a debt, liability or other legal obligation of, or interest in, Duke Energy Florida or any of its affiliates other than DEFPF. The assets of DEFPF, including the nuclear asset-recovery property, are not available to pay creditors of Duke Energy Florida or any of its affiliates. Duke Energy Florida used the proceeds from the sale to repay short-term borrowings under the intercompany money pool borrowing arrangement and make an equity distribution of $649 million to the ultimate parent, Duke Energy (Parent), which repaid short-term borrowings. See Notes 4 and 17 for additional information.
Solar Facilities Financing
In August 2016, Emerald State Solar, LLC, an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Duke Energy, entered into a $333 million portfolio financing of approximately 22 North Carolina Solar facilities. Tranche A of $228 million is secured by substantially all the assets of the solar facilities and is nonrecourse to Duke Energy. Tranche B of $105 million is secured by an Equity Contribution Agreement with Duke Energy. Proceeds were used to reimburse Duke Energy for a portion of previously funded construction expenditures related to the Emerald State Solar, LLC portfolio. The initial interest rate on the loans was six months London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) plus an applicable margin of 1.75 percent plus a 0.125 percent increase every three years thereafter. In connection with this debt issuance, Emerald State Solar, LLC entered into two interest rate swaps to convert the substantial majority of the loan interest payments from variable rates to fixed rates of approximately 1.81 percent for Tranche A and 1.38 percent for Tranche B, plus the applicable margin. See Note 14 for further information on the notional amounts of the interest rate swaps.
Duke Energy Florida Bond Issuance
In January 2017, Duke Energy Florida issued $900 million of first mortgage bonds. The issuance was split between a $250 million, three-year series and a $650 million, 10-year series. The net proceeds from the issuance were used to repay at maturity $250 million aggregate principal amount of bonds due September 2017, as well as to fund capital expenditures for ongoing construction and capital maintenance and for general corporate purposes.Significant Debt Issuances
The following tables summarize significant debt issuances (in millions).
     Year Ended December 31, 2016  
       Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Maturity Interest
 Duke
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
Issuance DateDate Rate
 Energy
 (Parent)
 Carolinas
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Unsecured Debt                 
April 2016(a)
April 2023 2.875% $350
 $350
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
August 2016September 2021 1.800% 750
 750
 
 
 
 
 
August 2016September 2026 2.650% 1,500
 1,500
 
 
 
 
 
August 2016September 2046 3.750% 1,500
 1,500
 
 
 
 
 
Secured Debt    

            
June 2016(b)
March 2020 1.196% 183
 
 
 
 183
 
 
June 2016(b)
September 2022 1.731% 150
 
 
 
 150
 
 
June 2016(b)
September 2029 2.538% 436
 
 
 
 436
 
 
June 2016(b)
March 2033 2.858% 250
 
 
 
 250
 
 
June 2016(b)
September 2036 3.112% 275
 
 
 
 275
 
 
August 2016June 2034 2.747% 228
 
 
 
 
 
 
August 2016June 2020 2.747% 105
 
 
 
 
 
 
First Mortgage Bonds    

            
March 2016(c)
March 2023 2.500% 500
 
 500
 
 
 
 
March 2016(c)
March 2046 3.875% 500
 
 500
 
 
 
 
May 2016(d)
May 2046 3.750% 500
 
 
 
 
 
 500
June 2016(c)
June 2046 3.700% 250
 
 
 
 
 250
 
September 2016(e)
October 2046 3.400% 600
 
 
 
 600
 
 
September 2016(c)
October 2046 3.700% 450
 
 
 450
 
 
 
November 2016(f)
December 2026 2.950% 600
 
 600
 
 
 
 
Total issuances    $9,127
 $4,100

$1,600
 $450
 $1,894
 $250
 $500
     Year Ended December 31, 2017
       Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Maturity Interest
 Duke
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
Issuance DateDate Rate
 Energy
 (Parent)
 Carolinas
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
Unsecured Debt               
April 2017(a)
April 2025 3.364% $420
 $420
 $
 $
 $
 $
June 2017(b)
June 2020 2.100% 330
 330
 
 
 
 
August 2017(c)
August 2022 2.400% 500
 500
 
 
 
 
August 2017(c)
August 2027 3.150% 750
 750
 
 
 
 
August 2017(c)
August 2047 3.950% 500
 500
 
 
 
 
December 2017(d)
December 2019
(k) 
2.100% 400
 
 
 
 400
 
Secured Debt  

 

 

 

 

 

  
February 2017(e)
June 2034 4.120% 587
 
 
 
 
 
August 2017(f)
December 2036 4.110% 233
 
 
 
 
 
First Mortgage Bonds  
 

       
  
January 2017(g)
January 2020 1.850% 250
 
 
 
 250
 
January 2017(g)
January 2027 3.200% 650
 
 
 
 650
 
March 2017(h)
June 2046 3.700% 100
 
 
 
 
 100
September 2017(i)
September 2020 1.500%
(l) 
300
 
 
 300
 
 
September 2017(i)
September 2047 3.600% 500
 
 
 500
 
 
November 2017(j)
December 2047 3.700% 550
 
 550
 
 
 
Total issuances    $6,070
 $2,500

$550
 $800
 $1,300
 $100
(a)Proceeds were used to pay downrefinance $400 million of unsecured debt at maturity and to repay a portion of outstanding commercial paper.
(b)Debt issued to repay a portion of outstanding commercial paper.
(c)Debt issued to repay at maturity $700 million of unsecured debt, to repay outstanding commercial paper and for general corporate purposes.
(b)(d)The nuclear asset recovery bonds are sequential pay amortizing bonds. The maturity date above represents the scheduled final maturity dateDebt issued to fund storm restoration costs related to Hurricane Irma and for the bonds.general corporate purposes.
(c)(e)Portfolio financing of four Texas and Oklahoma wind facilities. Duke Energy pledged substantially all of the assets of these wind facilities and is nonrecourse to Duke Energy. Proceeds were used to reimburse Duke Energy for a portion of previously funded construction expenditures.
(f)Portfolio financing of eight solar facilities located in California, Colorado and New Mexico. Duke Energy pledged substantially all of the assets of these solar facilities and is nonrecourse to Duke Energy. Proceeds were used to reimburse Duke Energy for a portion of previously funded construction expenditures.
(g)Debt issued to fund capital expenditures for ongoing construction and capital maintenance, to repay a $250 million aggregate principal amount of bonds at maturity and for general corporate purposes.
(h)Proceeds were used to fund capital expenditures for ongoing construction, capital maintenance and for general corporate purposes.
(i)Debt issued to repay at maturity a $200 million aggregate principal amount of bonds at maturity, pay down intercompany short-term debt and for general corporate purposes, including capital expenditures.
(j)Debt issued to refinance $400 million aggregate principal amount of bonds due January 2018, pay down intercompany short-term debt and for general corporate purposes.
(k)Principal balance will be repaid in equal quarterly installments beginning in March 2018.
(l)Debt issuance has a floating interest rate.

178

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

     Year Ended December 31, 2016
       Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Maturity Interest
 Duke
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
Issuance DateDate Rate
 Energy
 (Parent)
 Carolinas
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Unsecured Debt                 
April 2016(a)
April 2023 2.875% $350
 $350
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
August 2016(b)
September 2021 1.800% 750
 750
 
 
 
 
 
August 2016(b)
September 2026 2.650% 1,500
 1,500
 
 
 
 
 
August 2016(b)
September 2046 3.750% 1,500
 1,500
 
 
 
 
 
Secured Debt              

  
June 2016(c)
March 2020 1.196% 183
 
 
 
 183
 
 
June 2016(c)
September 2022 1.731% 150
 
 
 
 150
 
 
June 2016(c)
September 2029 2.538% 436
 
 
 
 436
 
 
June 2016(c)
March 2033 2.858% 250
 
 
 
 250
 
 
June 2016(c)
September 2036 3.112% 275
 
 
 
 275
 
 
August 2016(d)
June 2034 2.747%
(i) 
228
 
 
 
 
 
 
August 2016(d)
June 2020 2.747%
(i) 
105
 
 
 
 
 
 
First Mortgage Bonds              

  
March 2016(e)
March 2023 2.500% 500
 
 500
 
 
 
 
March 2016(e)
March 2046 3.875% 500
 
 500
 
 
 
 
May 2016(f)
May 2046 3.750% 500
 
 
 
 
 
 500
June 2016(e)
June 2046 3.700% 250
 
 
 
 
 250
 
September 2016(g)
October 2046 3.400% 600
 
 
 
 600
 
 
September 2016(e)
October 2046 3.700% 450
 
 
 450
 
 
 
November 2016(h)
December 2046 2.950% 600
 
 600
 
 
 
 
Total issuances    $9,127
 $4,100

$1,600
 $450

$1,894

$250
 $500
(a)Proceeds were used to pay down outstanding commercial paper and for general corporate purposes.
(b)Proceeds were used to finance a portion of the Piedmont acquisition. The $4.9 billion Bridge Facility was terminated following the issuance of this debt. See Note 2 for additional information on the Piedmont acquisition.
(c)DEFPF issued nuclear-asset recovery bonds and used the proceeds to acquire nuclear-asset recovery property from its parent, Duke Energy Florida. The nuclear-asset recovery bonds are payable only from and secured by the nuclear asset-recovery property. DEFPF is consolidated for financial reporting purposes; however, the nuclear asset-recovery bonds do not constitute a debt, liability or other legal obligation of, or interest in, Duke Energy Florida or any of its affiliates other than DEFPF. The assets of DEFPF, including the nuclear-asset recovery property, are not available to pay creditors of Duke Energy Florida or any of its affiliates. Duke Energy Florida used the proceeds from the sale to repay short-term borrowings under the intercompany money pool borrowing arrangement and make an equity distribution of $649 million to the ultimate parent, Duke Energy (Parent), which repaid short-term borrowings. The nuclear-asset recovery bonds are sequential pay amortizing bonds. The maturity date above represents the scheduled final maturity date for the bonds. See Notes 4 and 17 for additional information.
(d)Emerald State Solar, LLC, an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Duke Energy entered into portfolio financing of approximately 22 North Carolina solar facilities. Tranche A of $228 million is secured by substantially all of the assets of the solar facilities and is nonrecourse to Duke Energy. Tranche B of $105 million is secured by an Equity Contribution Agreement with Duke Energy. Proceeds were used to reimburse Duke Energy for a portion of previously funded construction expenditures related to the Emerald State Solar, LLC portfolio. The initial interest rate on the loans was six months London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) plus an applicable margin of 1.75 percent plus a 0.125 percent increase every three years thereafter. In connection with this debt issuance, Emerald State Solar, LLC entered into two interest rate swaps to convert the substantial majority of the loan interest payments from variable rates to fixed rates of approximately 1.81 percent for Tranche A and 1.38 percent for Tranche B, plus the applicable margin. See Note 14 for further information on the notional amounts of the interest rate swaps.
(e)Proceeds were used to fund capital expenditures for ongoing construction, capital maintenance and for general corporate purposes.
(f)Proceeds were used to repay $325 million of unsecured debt due June 2016, $150 million of first mortgage bonds due July 2016 and for general corporate purposes.
(e)(g)Proceeds were used to fund capital expenditures for ongoing construction, capital maintenance, to repay short-term borrowings under the intercompany money pool borrowing arrangement and for general corporate purposes.
(f)(h)Proceeds were used to repay at maturity $350 million aggregate principal amount of certain bonds due December 2016, as well as to fund capital expenditures for ongoing construction and capital maintenance and for general corporate purposes.
     Year Ended December 31, 2015
       Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Maturity Interest
 Duke
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
Issuance DateDate Rate
 Energy
 (Parent)
 Carolinas
 Progress
Unsecured Debt           
November 2015(a)(b)
April 2024 3.750% $400
 $400
 $
 $
November 2015(a)(b)
December 2045 4.800% 600
 600
 
 
First Mortgage Bonds           
March 2015(c)
June 2045 3.750% 500
 
 500
 
August 2015(a)(d)
August 2025 3.250% 500
 
 
 500
August 2015(a)(d)
August 2045 4.200% 700
 
 
 700
Total issuances    $2,700
 $1,000

$500
 $1,200
(a)(i)Proceeds were used to repay short-term money pool and commercial paper borrowing issued to fundDebt issuance has a portion of the NCEMPA acquisition, see Note 2 for further information.floating interest rate.
(b)Proceeds were used to refinance at maturity $300 million of unsecured notes at Progress Energy due January 2016.
(c)Proceeds were used to redeem at maturity $500 million of first mortgage bonds due October 2015.
(d)Proceeds were used to refinance at maturity $400 million of first mortgage bonds due December 2015.


179

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

In July 2016, Piedmont issued $300 million unsecured notes maturing in November 2046 with an interest rate of 3.64%. Piedmont has the option to redeem all or part of the notes before May 1, 2046, at a redemption price equal to the greater of a) 100% of the principal amount of the notes to be redeemed, and b) the sum of the present values of the remaining scheduled payments of principal and interest on the notes to be redeemed, discounted to the date of redemption on a semi-annual basis at the Treasury Rate as defined in the indenture, as supplemented, plus 25 basis points and any accrued and unpaid interest to the date of redemption. Piedmont has the option to redeem all or part of the notes on or after May 1, 2046, at 100% of the principal amounts plus any accrued and unpaid interest to the date of redemption. Piedmont used the proceeds to fund capital expenditures, to repay short-term borrowings under Piedmont's commercial paper program and for general corporate purposes.
Available Credit Facilities
In March 2017, Duke Energy has aamended its Master Credit Facility with ato increase its capacity offrom $7.5 billion throughto $8 billion, and to extend the termination date of the facility from January 2020.30, 2020, to March 16, 2022. The amendment also added Piedmont as a borrower within the Master Credit Facility. Piedmont's separate $850 million credit facility was terminated in connection with the amendment. With the amendment, the Duke Energy Registrants, excluding Progress Energy (Parent) and Piedmont,, 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 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. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress are also required to each maintain $250 million of available capacity under the Master Credit Facility as security to meet obligations under plea agreements reached with the U.S. Department of Justice in 2015 related to violations at North Carolina facilities with ash basins.
Piedmont has a separate five-year revolving syndicated credit facility,In January 2018, Duke Energy further amended its Master Credit Facility with a capacityconsenting lenders to extend $7.65 billion of $850 million through December 2020 and an expansion option of upour existing $8 billion Master Credit Facility by one year to an additional $200 million. The facility provides a line of credit for letters of credit of $10 million.March 16, 2023.
The table below includes the current borrowing sublimits and available capacity under these credit facilities.
December 31, 2016December 31, 2017  
  Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  
Duke
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
Duke
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
  
(in millions)
Energy(a)

 (Parent)
 Carolinas
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Energy
 (Parent)
 Carolinas
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
 Piedmont
Facility size(b)(a)
$8,350
 $3,400
 $1,100
 $1,000
 $950
 $450
 $600
$8,000
 $2,850
 $1,350
 $1,250
 $800
 $450
 $600
 $700
Reduction to backstop issuances                            
Commercial paper(c)(b)
(2,022) (977) (300) (150) (84) (31) (150)(1,799) (561) (371) (314) 
 (45) (260) (248)
Outstanding letters of credit(78) (69) (4) (2) (1) 
 
(63) (54) (4) (2) (1) 
 
 (2)
Tax-exempt bonds(116) 
 (35) 
 
 
 (81)(81) 
 
 
 
 
 (81) 
Coal ash set-aside(500) 
 (250) (250) 
 
 
(500) 
 (250) (250) 
 
 
 
Available capacity$5,634

$2,354

$511

$598

$865

$419

$369
$5,557

$2,235

$725

$684

$799

$405

$259
 $450
(a)Includes amounts related to Piedmont's $850 million credit facility.
(b)Represents the sublimit of each borrower.
(c)(b)Duke Energy issued $625 million of commercial paper and loaned the proceeds through the money pool to Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana. The balances are classified as Long-Term Debt Payable to Affiliated Companies in the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

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

Term LoanThree-Year Revolving Credit Facility
In 2016,June 2017, Duke Energy (Parent) entered into a $1.5three-year $1.0 billion term loanrevolving credit facility as amended (Term Loan) maturing on July 31, 2017. During 2016, Duke Energy (Parent) drew the full amount available(the Three Year Revolver). Borrowings under the Term Loan andthis facility will be used $750 million of proceeds to fund a portion of the Piedmont acquisition and the remaining $750 million to manage short-term liquidity and for general corporate purposes.
As of December 31, 2017, $500 million has been drawn under the Three Year Revolver. This balance is classified as Long-Term Debt on Duke Energy's Consolidated Balance Sheets. Any undrawn commitments can be drawn, and borrowings can be prepaid, at any time throughout the term of the facility. The terms and conditions of the Three Year Revolver are generally consistent with those governing Duke Energy's Master Credit Facility.
Piedmont Term Loan Facility
In June 2017, Piedmont entered into an 18-month term loan facility with commitments totaling $250 million (the Piedmont Term Loan). Borrowings under the facility will be used for general corporate purposes.
As of December 31, 2017, the entire $250 million has been drawn under the Piedmont Term Loan. This balance is classified as Long-Term Debt on Piedmont's Consolidated Balance Sheets. The terms and conditions of the Piedmont Term Loan are generally consistent with those governing Duke Energy’sEnergy's Master Credit Facility. In December 2016, Duke Energy (Parent) repaid the $1.5 billion term loan which terminated this credit facility.
Other Debt Matters
In September 2016, Duke Energy filed a Registration statement (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 was filed to replace a similar prior filing upon expiration of its three-year term and also allows for the issuance of common stock by Duke Energy.

180

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

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, 2017, and 2016 and 2015 was $1,090$986 million and $1,121$1,090 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.
In January 2017, Duke Energy amended its Form S-3 to add Piedmont as a registrant and included in the amendment a prospectus for Piedmont under which it may issue debt securities in the same manner as other Duke Energy Registrants.
Duke Energy guaranteed debt issued by Duke Energy Carolinas of $762$650 million and $767$762 million, respectively, as of December 31, 20162017, and 2015.2016.
Money Pool
The Subsidiary Registrants, excluding Progress Energy, are eligible to 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. Duke Energy's Master Credit Facility contains a covenant requiring the debt-to-total capitalization ratio not to exceed 65 percent for each borrower. Piedmont's credit facility contains a debt-to-total capitalization ratio covenant not to exceedborrower, excluding Piedmont, and 70 percent.percent for Piedmont. 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, 2016,2017, each of the Duke Energy Registrants werewas in compliance with all covenants related to their 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 debt or credit agreements contain material adverse change clauses.
Other Loans
As of December 31, 20162017, and 2015,2016, Duke Energy had loans outstanding of $661$701 million, including $39$38 million at Duke Energy Progress and $629$661 million, including $41$39 million at Duke Energy Progress, respectively, against the cash surrender value of life insurance policies it owns on the lives of its executives. 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, 2016,2017, 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.

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

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 (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, 2016,2017, 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, 2016,2017, was $333$326 million. Of this amount, $11 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, $215$281 million of the guarantees expire between 20172019 and 2033,2030, with the remaining performance guarantees having no contractual expiration.

181

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

In October 2017, ACP executed a $3.4 billion revolving credit facility with a stated maturity date of October 2021. Duke Energy entered into a guarantee agreement to support its share of the ACP revolving credit facility. Duke Energy's maximum exposure to loss under the terms of the guarantee is limited to 47 percent of the outstanding borrowings under the credit facility, which was $312 million as of December 31, 2017.
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, 2016,2017, Duke Energy had guaranteed $44$81 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 whichthat 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, 2016,2017, Duke Energy had issued a total of $485$449 million in letters of credit, which expire between 20172018 and 2020.2022. The unused amount under these letters of credit was $77$66 million.
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, 2016,2017, the estimated maximum exposure for these indemnifications was $96$89 million, the majoritymost of which expires in 2017. Of this amount, $7 million hashave no contractualset 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 includesDuke Energy recognized $21 million and $13 million, as of December 31, 2017, and 2016, respectively, primarily in Other within Other Noncurrent Liabilities on the liabilities recognizedConsolidated Balance Sheets, 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,
(in millions)2016 2015
Duke Energy$13
 $21
Progress Energy
 7
Duke Energy Florida
 7

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

8. JOINT OWNERSHIP OF GENERATING AND TRANSMISSION FACILITIES
The Duke Energy Registrants maintain ownership interests in certain jointly owned generating and transmission facilities. The Duke Energy Registrants are entitled to a share of the generating capacity and output of each unit equal to their respective ownership interests. The Duke Energy Registrants pay their ownership share of additional construction costs, fuel inventory purchases and operating expenses. The Duke Energy Registrants share of revenues and operating costs of the jointly owned 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.
The following table presents the Duke Energy Registrants' interest of jointly owned plant or facilities and amounts included on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. All facilities are operated by the Duke Energy Registrants and are included in the Electric Utilities and Infrastructure segment.
December 31, 2016December 31, 2017
      Construction
      Construction
Ownership
 Property, Plant
 Accumulated
 Work in
Ownership
 Property, Plant
 Accumulated
 Work in
(in millions except for ownership interest)Interest
 and Equipment
 Depreciation
 Progress
Interest
 and Equipment
 Depreciation
 Progress
Duke Energy Carolinas 
       
      
Catawba Nuclear Station (units 1 and 2)(a)
19.25% $954
 $612
 $12
19.25% $927
 $651
 $19
Lee Combined Combustion Station(b)
86.67% 
 
 552
Duke Energy Ohio   
  
  
   
  
  
Transmission facilities(b)
Various
 90
 60
 1
Transmission facilities(c)
Various
 89
 63
 1
Duke Energy Indiana 
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
Gibson Station (unit 5)(c)
50.05% 333
 157
 11
Vermillion Generating Station(d)
62.5% 154
 111
 
Transmission and local facilities(c)
Various
 4,315
 1,715
 
Gibson Station (unit 5)(d)
50.05% 348
 162
 9
Vermillion Generating Station(e)
62.5% 155
 120
 
Transmission and local facilities(d)
Various
 4,672
 1,739
 
(a)Jointly owned with North Carolina Municipal Power Agency Number 1, NCEMC and Piedmont Municipal Power Agency.
(b)Jointly owned with NCEMC.
(c)Jointly owned with America Electric Power Generation Resources and The Dayton Power and Light Company.
(c)(d)Jointly owned with Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc. (WVPA) and Indiana Municipal Power Agency.
(d)(e)Jointly owned with WVPA.
On August 31, 2016, Duke Energy Florida completed the purchase of Georgia Power Company's (GPC) ownership interest in Intercession City Station Unit 11 for an amount equal to GPC's net book value of the facility as of the transaction close date. Following the purchase, Duke Energy Florida controls the entire output of the facility.
At December 31, 2016, Duke Energy Florida owns 100 percent of the retired Crystal River Unit 3. Duke Energy Florida completed the purchase of 1.7 percent ownership interest from Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. on November 30, 2016. On October 30, 2015, Duke Energy Florida completed the purchase of 6.52 percent ownership interest from the Florida Municipal Joint Owners and settled other disputes for $55 million. 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.
9. ASSET RETIREMENT OBLIGATIONS
Duke Energy records an ARO 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. Certain assets of the Duke Energy Registrants’ 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 AROs will be recorded when a fair value is determinable.

182

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

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.

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

The following table presents the AROs recorded on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
December 31, 2016December 31, 2017
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
  
(in millions)Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
 Piedmont
Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Facilities(a)
$5,204
 $1,834
 $3,172
 $2,454
 $717
 $
 $
Closure of Ash Impoundments5,150
 2,032
 2,228
 2,209
 19
 43
 847
Decommissioning of nuclear power facilities(a)
$5,371
 $1,944
 $3,246
 $2,564
 $681
 $
 $
 $
Closure of ash impoundments4,525
 1,629
 2,094
 2,075
 19
 39
 763
 
Other(b)
257
 29
 75
 34
 42
 34
 19
279
 37
 74
 34
 42
 45
 18
 15
Total asset retirement obligation$10,611
 $3,895
 $5,475
 $4,697
 $778
 $77
 $866
$10,175
 $3,610
 $5,414
 $4,673
 $742
 $84
 $781

$15
Less: current portion411
 222
 189
 189
 
 
 
689
 337
 295
 295
 
 3
 54
 
Total noncurrent asset retirement obligation$10,200
 $3,673
 $5,286
 $4,508
 $778
 $77
 $866
$9,486
 $3,273
 $5,119
 $4,378
 $742
 $81
 $727

$15
(a)The Duke Energy amount includes purchase accounting adjustments related to the merger with Progress Energy.
(b)Primarily includes obligations related to asbestos removal and the closure of certain landfills at fossil generation facilities.removal. Duke Energy Ohio and Piedmont also includesinclude AROs related to the retirement of natural gas mains and services. Duke Energy includes AROs related to the removal of renewable energy generation assets and Piedmont's underground natural gas mains and services.assets.
North Carolina Ash Basins
AROs recorded on the Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress Consolidated Balance Sheets include the legal obligation for closure of coal ash basins and the disposal of related ash as a result of the Coal Ash Act, the EPA CCR rule and other agreements.
In 2014 the Coal Ash Act became law and was amended on June 24, 2015, and July 14, 2016. The Coal Ash Act, as amended,
Prohibits construction of new and expansion of existing ash impoundments and use of existing impoundments at retired facilities;
Requires ash impoundments in North Carolina to be categorized as high risk, intermediate risk or low risk by the NCDEQ with the method of closure and timing to be based upon the assigned risk, with closure no later than December 31, 2029 (see below for category descriptions);
Classifies Duke Energy Progress' Asheville and Sutton plants and Duke Energy Carolinas' Riverbend and Dan River stations as high risk;
Requires dry disposal of fly ash at active plants, excluding the Asheville Plant, not retired by December 31, 2018;
Requires dry disposal of bottom ash at active plants, excluding the Asheville Plant, by December 31, 2019, or retirement of active plants;
Establishes requirements to deal with groundwater and surface water impacts from impoundments; and
Increases the level of regulation for structural fills utilizing coal ash.
High risk basins (Asheville, Sutton, Riverbend and Dan River) require closure through excavation, including a combination of transferring the ash to an appropriate engineered landfill or conversion of the ash for beneficial use. Closure of high risk basins is required to be completed no later than August 1, 2019, except for Asheville which is required to be completed no later than August 1, 2022.
Intermediate risk basins require closure through excavation including a combination of converting the basin to a lined industrial landfill, transferring of the ash to an appropriate engineered landfill or conversion of the ash for beneficial use. Closure of intermediate risk basins is required to be completed no later than December 31, 2024, except for H.F. Lee, Cape Fear and Weatherspoon to be completed no later than August 1, 2028.
Low risk basins require closure through either the combination of the installation and maintenance of a cap system and groundwater monitoring system designed to minimize infiltration and erosion or other closure options available to intermediate risk basins. Closure of low risk basins is required to be completed no later than December 31, 2029.
In January 2016, the NCDEQ published draft risk classifications for sites not specifically delineated by the Coal Ash Act as high risk. These risk rankings were generally determined based on three primary criteria: structural integrity of the impoundments and impacts to surface water and to groundwater. The NCDEQ's draft proposed classifications categorized 12 basins at four sites as intermediate risk and four basins at three sites as low risk. The NCDEQ's draft proposed classifications also categorized nine basins at six sites as “low-to-intermediate” risk, thereby not assigning a definitive risk ranking at that time. On May 18, 2016, the NCDEQ issued new proposed risk classifications, proposing to rank all originally proposed low risk and "low-to-intermediate" risk sites as intermediate.
On July 14, 2016, the former governor of North Carolina signed legislation which amended the Coal Ash Act and required Duke Energy to undertake dam improvement projects and to provide access to a permanent alternative drinking water source to certain residents within a half mile of coal ash basin compliance boundaries and to certain other potentially impacted residents. The new legislation also ranks basins at the H.F. Lee, Cape Fear and Weatherspoon stations as intermediate risk consistent with Duke Energy's previously announced plans to excavate those basins. These specific intermediate basins require closure through excavation including a combination of transferring ash to an appropriate engineered landfill or conversion of the ash for beneficial use. Closure of these specific intermediate basins is required to be completed no later than August 1, 2028. Upon satisfactory completion of the dam improvement projects and installation of alternative drinking water sources by October 15, 2018, the legislation requires the NCDEQ to reclassify sites proposed as intermediate risk, excluding H.F. Lee, Cape Fear and Weatherspoon, as low risk. In January 2017, NCDEQ issued preliminary approval of Duke Energy's plans for the alternative water sources.
Per the Coal Ash Act, final proposed classifications were to be subject to Coal Ash Management Commission (Coal Ash Commission) approval. In March 2016, the Coal Ash Commission created by the Coal Ash Act was disbanded by the former governor of North Carolina based on a North Carolina Supreme Court ruling regarding the constitutionality of the body. The July 2016 legislation eliminates the Coal Ash Commission and transfers responsibility for ash basin closure oversight to the NCDEQ.

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

Additionally, the July 2016 legislation requires the installation and operation of three large-scale coal ash beneficiation projects which are expected to produce reprocessed ash for use in the concrete industry. Closure of basins at sites with these beneficiation projects are required to be completed no later than December 31, 2029. On October 5, 2016, Duke Energy announced Buck Steam Station as a first location for one of the beneficiation projects. On December 13, 2016, Duke Energy announced H.F. Lee as the second location. Duke Energy intends to announce the third location by July 1, 2017.
The Coal Ash Act includes a variance procedure for compliance deadlines and other issues surrounding the management of CCR and CCR surface impoundments. Provisions of the Coal Ash Act prohibit cost recovery in customer rates for unlawful discharge of ash impoundment waters occurring after January 1, 2014. The Coal Ash Act leaves the decision on cost recovery determinations related to closure of ash impoundments to the normal ratemaking processes before utility regulatory commissions. Consistent with the requirements of the Coal Ash Act, Duke Energy has submitted CSAs and groundwater corrective action plans to NCDEQ and will submit to NCDEQ site-specific coal ash impoundment closure plans in advance of closure. These plans and all associated permits must be approved by NCDEQ before any closure work can begin.
Federal Coal Combustion Residuals Regulation
In April 2015, the EPA published a rule to regulate the disposal of CCR from electric utilities as solid waste. The federal regulation classifies CCR as nonhazardous waste and allows for beneficial use of CCR with some restrictions. The regulation applies to all new and existing landfills, new and existing surface impoundments receiving CCR and existing surface impoundments that are no longer receiving CCR but contain liquid located at stations currently generating electricity (regardless of fuel source). 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. As a result of the EPA rule, Duke Energy Carolinas, Progress Energy, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana recorded additional ARO amounts during 2015.
In addition to the requirements of the federal CCR regulation, CCR landfills and surface impoundments will continue to be independently regulated by most states.
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. In April 2015, the federal CCR rules were published and Duke Energy Carolinas subsequently executed an agreement with the conservation groups Upstate Forever and Save Our Saluda that requires Duke Energy Carolinas to remediate all active and inactive ash storage areas at the W.S. Lee Steam Station. Coal-fired generation at W.S. Lee ceased in 2014 and unit 3 was converted to natural gas in March 2015. In July 2015, Duke Energy Progress executed a consent agreement with the SCDHEC requiring the excavation of an inactive ash fill area at the Robinson Plant within eight years. Coal ash impoundments at the Robinson Plant and W.S. Lee Station sites are required to be closed pursuant to the CCR rule and the provisions of these consent agreements are consistent with the federal CCR closure requirements.
Coal Ash Liability
The ARO amount recorded on the Consolidated Balance Sheets is based upon estimated closure costs for impacted ash impoundments. The amount recorded represents the discounted cash flows for estimated closure costs based upon either specific closure plans or the 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 time frame of closure at the individual sites. Closure methods considered include removing the water from the basins, consolidating material as necessary 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 standards set by federal and state regulations. The ARO amount will be adjusted as additional information is gained through the closure and post-closure process, including acceptance and approval of compliance approaches which may change management assumptions, and may result in a material change to the balance. See ARO Liability Rollforward section below for information about revisions made to the coal ash liability during 2016.
Asset retirement costs associated with the AROs for operating plants and retired plants are included in Net property, plant and equipment and Regulatory assets, respectively, on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. See Note 4 for additional information on Regulatory assets related to AROs.
Cost recovery for future expenditures will be pursued through the normal ratemaking process with federal and state utility commissions, which permit recovery of necessary and prudently incurred costs associated with Duke Energy’s regulated operations.
Nuclear Decommissioning Liability
AROs related to nuclear decommissioning are based on site-specific cost studies. The NCUC, PSCSC and FPSC require updated cost estimates for decommissioning nuclear plants every five years.

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

The following table summarizes information about the most recent site-specific nuclear decommissioning cost studies. Decommissioning costs in the table below are presentedstated in 2013 or 2014 dollars, ofdepending on the year of the cost study, and include costs to decommission plant components not subject to radioactive contamination.
 Annual Funding
 Decommissioning
  
(in millions)
Requirement(a)

 
Costs(a)(b)

 Year of Cost Study
Duke Energy$14
 $8,150

2013 and 2014
Duke Energy Carolinas
 3,420

2013
Duke Energy Progress14
 3,550

2014
Duke Energy Florida
 1,180

2013
(a)Amounts for Progress Energy equal the sum of Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida.
(b)Amounts include the Subsidiary Registrant's ownership interest in jointly owned reactors. Other joint owners are responsible for decommissioning costs related to their interest in the reactors.
Nuclear Decommissioning Trust Funds
Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida each maintain NDTFs that are intended to pay for the decommissioning costs of thetheir respective nuclear power plants. 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).
Use of the NDTF investments is restricted to nuclear decommissioning activities including license termination, spent fuel and site restoration. The license termination and spent fuel obligations relate to contaminated decommissioning and are recorded as AROs. The site restoration obligation relates to non-contaminated decommissioning and is recorded to cost of removal within Regulatory liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

183

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

The following table presents the fair value of NDTF assets legally restricted for purposes of settling AROs associated with nuclear decommissioning. Duke Energy Florida is actively decommissioning Crystal River Unit 3 and was granted an exemption from the NRC which allows for use of the NDTF for all aspects of nuclear decommissioning. Therefore, theThe entire balance of Duke Energy Florida's NDTF may be applied toward license termination, spent fuel and site restoration costs incurred to decommission Crystal River Unit 3.
 December 31,
(in millions)2016 2015
Duke Energy$5,099
 $4,670
Duke Energy Carolinas2,882
 2,686
Duke Energy Progress2,217
 1,984
See Note 16 for additional information related to the fair value of the Duke Energy Registrants' NDTFs.
 December 31,
(in millions)2017 2016
Duke Energy$5,864
 $5,099
Duke Energy Carolinas3,321
 2,882
Duke Energy Progress2,543
 2,217
Nuclear Operating Licenses
Operating licenses for nuclear units are potentially subject to extension. The following table includes the current expiration of nuclear operating licenses.
UnitYear of Expiration
Duke Energy Carolinas 
Catawba Units 1 and 22043
McGuire Unit 12041
McGuire Unit 22043
Oconee Units 1 and 22033
Oconee Unit 32034
Duke Energy Progress 
Brunswick Unit 12036
Brunswick Unit 22034
Harris2046
Robinson2030
Duke Energy Florida has requested the NRC terminate the operating license for Crystal River Unit 3 as it permanently ceased operation in February 2013. Refer to Note 4 for further information on theIn January 2018, Crystal River Unit 3 decommissioning activityreached a SAFSTOR status.
Closure of Ash Impoundments
The Duke Energy Registrants are subject to state and transition to SAFSTOR.
ARO Liability Rollforward
During 2016,federal regulations covering the closure of coal ash impoundments, including the EPA CCR rule and the Coal Ash Act, and other agreements. AROs recorded on the Duke Energy Registrants updatedRegistrants' Consolidated Balance Sheets include the legal obligation for closure of coal ash ARO liability estimates based on additional site-specific information aboutbasins and the disposal of related costs, methodsash as a result of these regulations and timingagreements.
The Coal Ash Act, as amended, requires excavation of workthe Sutton, Riverbend and Dan River basins by August 1, 2019, and Asheville basins by August 1, 2022. Excavation at these sites may include a combination of transfer of coal ash to an engineered landfill or conversion for beneficial use. Basins at the H.F. Lee, Cape Fear and Weatherspoon sites are required to be performed. Actual closure costs incurred could be materially different from current estimates that form the basisclosed through excavation no later than August 1, 2028. Excavation at these sites can include conversion of the recorded AROs.basin to a lined industrial landfill, transfer of ash to an engineered landfill or conversion for beneficial use. The remaining basins are required to be closed no later than December 31, 2024, through conversion to a lined industrial landfill, transfer to an engineered landfill or conversion for beneficial use, unless certain dam improvement projects and alternative drinking water source projects are completed by October 15, 2018. Upon satisfactory completion of these projects, the closure deadline would be extended to December 31, 2029, and could include closure through the combination of a cap system and a groundwater monitoring system.
The Coal Ash Act also required the installation and operation of three large-scale coal ash beneficiation projects to produce reprocessed ash for use in the concrete industry. Duke Energy selected the Buck, H.F. Lee and Cape Fear plants for these projects. Closure at these sites is required to be completed no later than December 31, 2029.
The Coal Ash Act includes a variance procedure for compliance deadlines and other issues surrounding the management of CCR and CCR surface impoundments and prohibits cost recovery in customer rates for unlawful discharge of ash impoundment waters occurring after January 1, 2014. The Coal Ash Act leaves the decision on cost recovery determinations related to closure of ash impoundments to the normal ratemaking processes before utility regulatory commissions. Closure plans and all associated permits must be approved by NCDEQ before any closure work can begin.
The EPA CCR 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. The EPA CCR rule has certain requirements which if not met could initiate impoundment closure and require closure completion within five years. The EPA CCR rule includes extension requirements, which if met could allow the extension of closure completion by up to 10 years.


184

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

The ARO amount recorded on the Consolidated Balance Sheets is based upon estimated closure costs for impacted ash impoundments. The amount recorded represents the discounted cash flows for estimated closure costs based upon either specific closure plans or the 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 time frame of closure at the individual sites. Closure methods considered include removing the water from ash basins, consolidating material as necessary 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 standards set by federal and state regulations and other agreements. The ARO amount will be adjusted as additional information is gained through the closure and post-closure process, including acceptance and approval of compliance approaches which may change management assumptions, and may result in a material change to the balance. See ARO Liability Rollforward section below for information on revisions made to the coal ash liability during 2017 and 2016.
Asset retirement costs associated with the AROs for operating plants and retired plants are included in Net property, plant and equipment and Regulatory assets, respectively, on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. See Note 4 for additional information on Regulatory assets related to AROs.
Cost recovery for future expenditures will be pursued through the normal ratemaking process with federal and state utility commissions, which permit recovery of necessary and prudently incurred costs associated with Duke Energy’s regulated operations. See Note 4 for additional information on recovery of coal ash costs.
ARO Liability Rollforward
During 2017 and 2016, the Duke Energy Registrants updated coal ash ARO liability estimates based on additional site-specific information for the related costs, methods and timing of work to be performed. Actual closure costs incurred could be materially different from current estimates that form the basis of the recorded AROs.
The following table presentstables present changes in the liability associated with AROs.
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
(in millions)Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Balance at December 31, 2014$8,464
 $3,428
 $4,711
 $3,905
 $806
 $27
 $32
Balance at December 31, 2015$10,249
 $3,918
 $5,369
 $4,567
 $802
 $125
 $525
Acquisitions(a)
226
 
 226
 204
 23
 
 
22
 
 2
 
 2
 
 
Accretion expense(b)
380
 165
 203
 169
 34
 4
 15
400
 187
 230
 194
 35
 5
 24
Liabilities settled(c)
(422) (200) (195) (125) (70) (4) (23)(613) (287) (272) (212) (60) (5) (49)
Liabilities incurred in the current year(d)
1,016
 178
 282
 282
 
 116
 418
51
 
 3
 3
 
 
 29
Revisions in estimates of cash flows585
 347
 142
 132
 9
 (18) 83
502
 77
 143
 145
 (1) (48) 337
Balance at December 31, 201510,249
 3,918
 5,369
 4,567
 802
 125
 525
Acquisitions22
 
 2
 
 2
 
 
Balance at December 31, 201610,611

3,895

5,475

4,697

778

77

866
Accretion expense(b)
400
 187
 230
 194
 35
 5
 24
435
 184
 228
 195
 33
 3
 32
Liabilities settled(c)
(613) (287) (272) (212) (60) (5) (49)(619) (282) (270) (204) (65) (7) (49)
Liabilities incurred in the current year51
 
 3
 3
 
 
 29
Liabilities incurred in the current year(d)
51
 5
 
 
 
 7
 29
Revisions in estimates of cash flows502
 77
 143
 145
 (1) (48) 337
(303) (192) (19) (15) (4) 4
 (97)
Balance at December 31, 2016$10,611

$3,895

$5,475

$4,697

$778

$77

$866
Balance at December 31, 2017$10,175

$3,610

$5,414

$4,673

$742

$84

$781
(a)Duke Energy Progress amount relates to the NCEMPAPiedmont acquisition. See Note 2 for additional information.
(b)Substantially all accretion expense for the years ended December 31, 20162017, and 20152016 relates to Duke Energy’s regulated electric operations and has been deferred in accordance with regulatory accounting treatment.
(c)Amounts primarily relate to ash impoundment closures and nuclear decommissioning of Crystal River Unit 3.
(d)Amounts primarily relate to AROs recorded as a result of the EPA's rule for disposal of CCR.state agency closure requirements at Duke Energy Indiana.
10. PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT
The following tables summarize the property, plant and equipment for Duke Energy and its subsidiary registrants.
 December 31, 2016
 Estimated              
 Useful   Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Life Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
(in millions)(Years) Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Land  $1,501
 $432
 $735
 $393
 $342
 $150
 $106
Plant – Regulated               
Electric generation, distribution and transmission8 - 100 89,864
 34,515
 37,596
 23,683
 13,913
 4,593
 13,160
Natural gas transmission and distribution12 - 67 7,738
 
 
 
 
 2,456
 
Other buildings and improvements15 - 100 1,692
 502
 634
 293
 341
 211
 197
Plant – Nonregulated               
Electric generation, distribution and transmission5 - 30 4,298
 
 
 
 
 
 
Other buildings and improvements25 - 35 421
 
 
 
 
 
 
Nuclear fuel  3,572
 2,092
 1,480
 1,480
 
 
 
Equipment3 - 38 1,941
 358
 505
 378
 127
 338
 156
Construction in process  6,186
 2,324
 2,708
 1,329
 1,379
 206
 396
Other5 - 40 4,184
 904
 1,206
 863
 332
 172
 226
Total property, plant and equipment(a)(d)
  121,397
 41,127
 44,864
 28,419
 16,434
 8,126
 14,241
Total accumulated depreciation – regulated(b)(c)(d)
  (37,831) (14,365) (15,212) (10,561) (4,644) (2,579) (4,317)
Total accumulated depreciation – nonregulated(c)(d)
  (1,575) 
 
 
 
 
 
Generation facilities to be retired, net  529
 
 529
 529
 
 
 
Total net property, plant and equipment  $82,520

$26,762

$30,181

$18,387

$11,790

$5,547
 $9,924


185

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

(in millions) Piedmont
Balance at October 31, 2015 $20
Accretion expense 1
Liabilities settled (7)
Liabilities incurred in the current year 6
Revisions in estimates of cash flows (6)
Balance at October 31, 2016 14
Liabilities settled (1)
Liabilities incurred in the current year 1
Balance at December 31, 2016 14
Accretion expense 1
Liabilities settled (8)
Liabilities incurred in the current year 8
Balance at December 31, 2017 $15
10. PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT
The following tables summarize the property, plant and equipment for Duke Energy and its subsidiary registrants.
 December 31, 2017
 Estimated                
 Useful   Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  
 Life Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
  
(in millions)(Years) Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
 Piedmont
Land  $1,559
 $467
 $767
 $424
 $343
 $134
 $111
 $41
Plant – Regulated                 
Electric generation, distribution and transmission8-100 93,687
 35,657
 39,419
 24,502
 14,917
 4,870
 13,741
 
Natural gas transmission and distribution12-80 8,292
 
 
 
 
 2,559
 
 5,733
Other buildings and improvements15-100 1,936
 647
 652
 316
 336
 243
 240
 154
Plant – Nonregulated                 
Electric generation, distribution and transmission(a)
5-30 4,273
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Other buildings and improvements25-35 465
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Nuclear fuel  3,680
 2,120
 1,560
 1,560
 
 
 
 
Equipment3-55 2,122
 402
 555
 416
 139
 348
 169
 266
Construction in process  6,995
 2,614
 3,059
 1,434
 1,625
 350
 416
 231
Other3-40 4,498
 1,032
 1,311
 931
 370
 228
 271
 300
Total property, plant and equipment(b)(e)
  127,507
 42,939
 47,323
 29,583
 17,730
 8,732
 14,948
 6,725
Total accumulated depreciation – regulated(c)(d)(e)
  (39,742) (15,063) (15,857) (10,903) (4,947) (2,691) (4,662) (1,479)
Total accumulated depreciation – nonregulated(d)(e)
  (1,795) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Generation facilities to be retired, net  421
 
 421
 421
 
 
 
 
Total net property, plant and equipment  $86,391

$27,876

$31,887

$19,101

$12,783

$6,041
 $10,286
 $5,246

186

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

(a)Includes a pretax impairment charge of $58 million on a wholly owned non-contracted wind project. See discussion below.
(b)Includes capitalized leases of $1,294 million, $81 million, $272 million, $139 million, $133 million, $80 million and $35 million at Duke Energy, Duke Energy Carolinas, Progress Energy, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Florida, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana, respectively, primarily within Plant – Regulated. The Progress Energy, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida amounts are net of $114 million, $11 million and $103 million, respectively, of accumulated amortization of capitalized leases.
(c)Includes $2,113 million, $1,283 million, $831 million and $831 million of accumulated amortization of nuclear fuel at Duke Energy, Duke Energy Carolinas, Progress Energy and Duke Energy Progress, respectively.
(d)Includes accumulated amortization of capitalized leases of $57 million, $11 million, $21 million and $9 million at Duke Energy, Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana, respectively.
(e)Includes gross property, plant and equipment cost of consolidated VIEs of $3,941 million and accumulated depreciation of consolidated VIEs of $598 million at Duke Energy.
 December 31, 2016
 Estimated                
 Useful   Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  
 Life Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
  
(in millions)(Years) Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
 Piedmont
Land  $1,501
 $432
 $735
 $393
 $342
 $150
 $106
 $39
Plant – Regulated                 
Electric generation, distribution and transmission8-100 89,864
 34,515
 37,596
 23,683
 13,913
 4,593
 13,160
 
Natural gas transmission and distribution12-67 7,738
 
 
 
 
 2,456
 
 5,282
Other buildings and improvements15-100 1,692
 502
 634
 293
 341
 211
 197
 148
Plant – Nonregulated                 
Electric generation, distribution and transmission5-30 4,298
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Other buildings and improvements25-35 421
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Nuclear fuel  3,572
 2,092
 1,480
 1,480
 
 
 
 
Equipment3-38 1,941
 358
 505
 378
 127
 338
 156
 260
Construction in process  6,186
 2,324
 2,708
 1,329
 1,379
 206
 396
 210
Other5-40 4,184
 904
 1,206
 863
 332
 172
 226
 235
Total property, plant and equipment(a)(d)
  121,397
 41,127
 44,864
 28,419
 16,434
 8,126
 14,241
 6,174
Total accumulated depreciation – regulated(b)(c)(d)
  (37,831) (14,365) (15,212) (10,561) (4,644) (2,579) (4,317) (1,360)
Total accumulated depreciation – nonregulated(c)(d)
  (1,575) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Generation facilities to be retired, net  529
 
 529
 529
 
 
 
 
Total net property, plant and equipment  $82,520
 $26,762
 $30,181
 $18,387
 $11,790
 $5,547
 $9,924
 $4,814
(a)Includes capitalized leases of $1,355 million, $40 million, $288 million, $142 million, $146 million, $81 million and $35 million at Duke Energy, Duke Energy Carolinas, Progress Energy, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Florida, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana, respectively, primarily within Plant – Regulated. The Progress Energy, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida amounts are net of $99 million, $9 million and $90 million, respectively, of accumulated amortization of capitalized leases.
(b)Includes $1,922 million, $1,192 million, $730 million and $730 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 $50 million, $9 million, $19 million and $8 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 $2,591 million and accumulated depreciation of consolidated VIEs of $411 million at Duke Energy.

187

 December 31, 2015
 Estimated              
 Useful   Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Life Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
(in millions)(Years) Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Land  $1,391
 $407
 $719
 $392
 $327
 $118
 $108
Plant – Regulated               
Electric generation, distribution and transmission8 - 100 87,593
 33,623
 36,422
 22,888
 13,534
 4,429
 13,118
Natural gas transmission and distribution12 - 67 2,322
 
 
 
 
 2,322
 
Other buildings and improvements15 - 100 1,480
 477
 621
 294
 322
 204
 179
Plant – Nonregulated               
Electric generation, distribution and transmission1 - 30 3,348
 
 
 
 
 
 
Other buildings and improvements25 - 35 410
 
 
 
 
 
 
Nuclear fuel  3,194
 1,827
 1,367
 1,367
 
 
 
Equipment3 - 38 1,736
 368
 530
 398
 132
 344
 173
Construction in process  4,485
 1,860
 1,827
 1,118
 709
 180
 214
Other5 - 60 4,008
 836
 1,180
 856
 319
 153
 215
Total property, plant and equipment(a)(d)
  109,967
 39,398
 42,666
 27,313
 15,343
 7,750
 14,007
Total accumulated depreciation – regulated(b)(c)(d)
  (35,367) (13,521) (14,867) (10,141) (4,720) (2,507) (4,484)
Total accumulated depreciation – nonregulated(c)(d)
  (1,369) 
 
 
 
 
 
Generation facilities to be retired, net  548
 
 548
 548
 
 
 
Total net property, plant and equipment  $73,779
 $25,877
 $28,347
 $17,720
 $10,623
 $5,243
 $9,523
(a)Includes capitalized leases of $1,465 million, $40 million, $302 million, $144 million, $158 million, $96 million and $39 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 $85 million, $7 million and $78 million, respectively, of accumulated amortization of capitalized leases.
(b)Includes $1,621 million, $976 million, $645 million and $645 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 $57 million, $11 million, $27 million and $7 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 $2,033 million and accumulated depreciation of consolidated VIEs of $327 million at Duke Energy.

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

During the year ended December 31, 2017, Duke Energy recorded a pretax impairment charge of $69 million on a wholly owned non-contracted wind project. The impairment was recorded within Impairment charges on Duke Energy’s Consolidated Statements of Operations. $58 million of the impairment related to property, plant and equipment and $11 million of the impairment related to a net intangible asset; see Note 11 for additional information. The charge represents the excess carrying value over the estimated fair value of the project, which was based on a Level 3 Fair Value measurement that was determined from the income approach using discounted cash flows. The impairment was primarily due to the non-contracted wind project being located in a market that has experienced continued declining market pricing during 2017 and declining long-term forecasted energy and capacity prices, driven by low natural gas prices, additional renewable generation placed in service and lack of significant load growth.
The following table presentstables present capitalized interest, which includes the debt component of AFUDC.
Years Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2016
 2015
 2014
2017
 2016
 2015
Duke Energy$100
 $98
 $75
$128
 $100
 $98
Duke Energy Carolinas38
 38
 38
45
 38
 38
Progress Energy31
 24
 11
45
 31
 24
Duke Energy Progress17
 20
 10
21
 17
 20
Duke Energy Florida14
 4
 1
24
 14
 4
Duke Energy Ohio8
 10
 10
10
 8
 10
Duke Energy Indiana7
 6
 6
9
 7
 6
 Year Ended Two Months Ended Years Ended October 31,
(in millions)December 31, 2017 December 31, 2016 2016
 2015
Piedmont$12
 $2
 $12
 $11
Operating Leases
Duke Energy's Commercial Renewables segment operates various renewable energy projects and sells the generated output to utilities, electric cooperatives, municipalities and commercial and industrial customers through long-term contracts. In certain situations, these long-term contracts and the associated renewable energy projects qualify as operating leases. Rental income from these leases is accounted for as Operating Revenues in the Consolidated Statements of Operations. There are no minimum lease payments as all payments are contingent based on actual electricity generated by the renewable energy projects. Contingent lease payments were $262 million, $216 million, $172 million and $164$172 million for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 2015 and 2014.2015. As of December 31, 2016,2017, renewable energy projects owned by Duke Energy and accounted for as operating leases had a cost basis of $3,127$3,153 million and accumulated depreciation of $347$459 million. These assets are principally classified as nonregulated electric generation and transmission assets.
11. GOODWILL AND INTANGIBLE ASSETS
Goodwill
Duke Energy
The following table presents goodwill by reportable operating segment for Duke Energy.Energy included on Duke Energy's Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31, 2017, and 2016.
Duke Energy
 Electric Utilities
 Gas Utilities
 Commercial
  
(in millions)and Infrastructure
 and Infrastructure
 Renewables
 Total
Goodwill at December 31, 2015$15,656
 $294
 $122
 $16,072
Piedmont Acquisition(a)
1,723
 1,630
 
 3,353
Goodwill at December 31, 2016$17,379
 $1,924
 $122
 $19,425
 Electric Utilities
 Gas Utilities
 Commercial
  
(in millions)and Infrastructure
 and Infrastructure
 Renewables
 Total
Goodwill Balance at December 31, 2016$17,379
 $1,924
 $122
 $19,425
Accumulated impairment charges(a)

 
 (29) (29)
Goodwill at December 31, 2017$17,379
 $1,924
 $93
 $19,396
(a)    Refer to Note 2 for more information on the purchase accounting related to the acquisition of Piedmont.
(a)Duke Energy evaluated the recoverability of goodwill during 2017 and recorded impairment charges of $29 million related to the Energy Management Solutions reporting unit within the Commercial Renewables segment. The fair value of the reporting unit was determined based on the market approach.
Duke Energy Ohio
Duke Energy Ohio's Goodwill balance of $920 million, allocated $596 million to Electric Utilities and Infrastructure and $324 million to Gas Utilities and Infrastructure, is presented net of accumulated impairment charges of $216 million on the Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31, 20162017, and 2015.2016.

188

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

Progress Energy
Progress Energy's Goodwill is included in the Electric Utilities and Infrastructure operating segment and there are no accumulated impairment charges.
Piedmont
Piedmont's Goodwill is included in the Gas Utilities and Infrastructure operating segment and there are no accumulated impairment charges. Effective with Piedmont's fiscal year being changed to December 31, as discussed in Note 1, Piedmont changed the date of its annual impairment testing of goodwill from October 31 to August 31 to align with the other Duke Energy Registrants.
Impairment Testing
Duke Energy, Progress Energy, Duke Energy Ohio and Progress EnergyPiedmont are required to perform an annual goodwill impairment teststest as of the same date each year and, accordingly, perform their annual impairment testing of goodwill as of August 31. Duke Energy, Progress Energy, Duke Energy Ohio and Progress EnergyPiedmont 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. AsExcept for the Energy Management Solutions reporting unit, the fair value of all other reporting units for Duke Energy, Progress Energy, Duke Energy Ohio and Progress Energy’s reporting unitsPiedmont exceeded their respective carrying values at the date of the annual impairment analysis, no impairment charges were recorded.analysis.


189

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

Intangible Assets
The following tables show the carrying amount and accumulated amortization of intangible assets included in Other within Investments and Other Noncurrent Assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets of the Duke Energy Registrants at December 31, 20162017 and 2015.2016.
December 31, 2016December 31, 2017
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
  
(in millions)Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
 Piedmont
Emission allowances$19
 $1
 $6
 $2
 $4
 $
 $13
$19
 $1
 $5
 $2
 $3
 $
 $13
 $
Renewable energy certificates125
 36
 84
 84
 
 4
 
148
 38
 107
 107
 
 3
 
 
Gas, coal and power contracts24
 
 
 
 
 
 24
Natural gas, coal and power contracts24
 
 
 
 
 
 24
 
Renewable operating and development projects97
 
 
 
 
 
 
79
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Other 6
 
 
 
 
 
 
6
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3
Total gross carrying amounts271
 37
 90
 86
 4
 4
 37
276
 39
 112
 109
 3
 3
 37
 3
Accumulated amortization – gas, coal and power contracts(17) 
 
 
 
 
 (17)
Accumulated amortization – natural gas, coal and power contracts(19) 
 
 
 
 
 (19) 
Accumulated amortization – renewable operating and development projects(23) 
 
 
 
 
 
(22) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Accumulated amortization – other(5) 
 
 
 
 
 
(5) 
 
 
 
 
 
 (3)
Total accumulated amortization(45) 
 
 
 
 
 (17)(46) 
 
 
 
 
 (19) (3)
Total intangible assets, net$226

$37

$90

$86

$4

$4

$20
$230

$39

$112

$109

$3

$3

$18
 $
December 31, 2015December 31, 2016  
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
  
(in millions)Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
 Piedmont
Emission allowances$20
 $1
 $6
 $2
 $4
 $
 $14
$19
 $1
 $6
 $2
 $4
 $
 $13
 $
Renewable energy certificates116
 30
 80
 80
 
 5
 
125
 36
 84
 84
 
 4
 
 
Gas, coal and power contracts24
 
 
 
 
 
 24
Natural gas, coal and power contracts24
 
 
 
 
 
 24
 
Renewable operating and development projects115
 
 
 
 
 
 
97
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Other 2
 
 
 
 
 
 
6
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3
Total gross carrying amounts277
 31
 86
 82
 4
 5
 38
271
 37
 90
 86
 4
 4
 37
 3
Accumulated amortization – gas, coal and power contracts(16) 
 
 
 
 
 (16)
Accumulated amortization – natural gas, coal and power contracts(17) 
 
 
 
 
 (17) 
Accumulated amortization – renewable operating and development projects(18) 
 
 
 
 
 
(23) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Accumulated amortization – other(1) 
 
 
 
 
 
(5) 
 
 
 
 
 
 (3)
Total accumulated amortization(35) 
 
 
 
 
 (16)(45) 
 
 
 
 
 (17) (3)
Total intangible assets, net$242

$31

$86

$82

$4

$5

$22
$226

$37

$90

$86

$4

$4

$20
 $
During the year ended December 31, 2017, Duke Energy recorded a pretax impairment charge of $69 million on a wholly owned non-contracted wind project.  The impairment was recorded within Impairment charges on Duke Energy’s Consolidated Statements of Operations. $58 million of the impairment related to property, plant and equipment and $11 million of the impairment related to a net intangible asset that was recorded in 2007 when the project was acquired.  Prior to the impairment, the gross amount of the intangible asset was $18 million and the accumulated amortization was $7 million.  The intangible asset was fully impaired. See Note 10 for additional information.
Amortization Expense
The following table presents amortization expense for natural gas, coal and power contracts, renewable operating projects and other intangible assets.
December 31,December 31,
(in millions)2016
 2015
 2014
2017
 2016
 2015
Duke Energy$6
 $5
 $6
$7
 $6
 $5
Duke Energy Ohio
 
 2
Duke Energy Indiana1
 1
 1
1
 1
 1


190

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

The table below shows the expected amortization expense for the next five years for intangible assets as of December 31, 2016.2017. The expected amortization expense includes estimates of emission allowances consumption and estimates of consumption of commodities such as natural gas and coal under existing contracts, as well as estimated amortization related to renewable operating 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 renewable assets, additional intangible acquisitions and other events.
(in millions)2017
 2018
 2019
 2020
 2021
2018
 2019
 2020
 2021
 2022
Duke Energy$5
 $5
 $5
 $5
 $5
$3
 $2
 $2
 $2
 $2
Duke Energy Indiana2
 2
 2
 2
 2
1
 
 
 
 
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, 2016, the carrying amount of investments in affiliates with carrying amounts greater than zero exceeded the underlying investment by $24 million. These differences are attributable to intangibles associated with underlying contracts which are reflected in the investments balance and the equity in earnings reported in the table below.
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,Years Ended December 31,
2016 2015 20142017 2016 2015
  Equity in
   Equity in
 Equity in
  Equity in
   Equity in
 Equity in
(in millions)Investments
 earnings
 Investments
 earnings
 earnings
Investments
 earnings
 Investments
 earnings
 earnings
Electric Utilities and Infrastructure$93
 $5
 $57
 $(2) $(1)$89
 $5
 $93
 $5
 $(2)
Gas Utilities and Infrastructure566
 19
 113
 1
 
763
 62
 566
 19
 1
Commercial Renewables185
 (82) 265
 (6) 8
190
 (5) 185
 (82) (6)
Other81
 43
 64
 76
 123
133
 57
 81
 43
 76
Total$925

$(15)
$499

$69

$130
$1,175

$119

$925

$(15)
$69
During the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 2015 and 2014,2015, Duke Energy received distributions from equity investments of $13 million, $31 million $104 million and $154$104 million, respectively, which are included in Other assets within Cash Flows from Operating Activities on the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows. During the year ended December 31, 2017, Duke Energy received distributions from equity investments of $281 million, which are included within Cash Flows from Investing Activities on the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows.
During the year ended December 31, 2017, the two months ended December 31, 2016, and the years ended October 31, 2016, and 2015, Piedmont received distributions from equity investments of $4 million, $1 million, $26 million and $25 million, respectively, which are included in Other assets within Cash Flows from Operating Activities and $2 million, $1 million, $18 million and $2 million, respectively, which are included within Cash Flows from Investing Activities on the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows.
Significant investments in affiliates accounted for under the equity method are discussed below.
Electric Utilities and Infrastructure
Duke Energy owns a 50 percent interest in Duke-American Transmission Co. (DATC) and in Pioneer Transmission, LLC (Pioneer), which build, own and operate electric transmission facilities in North America.
Gas Utilities and Infrastructure
The table below outlines Duke Energy's ownership interests in natural gas pipeline companies and natural gas storage facilities. See Notes 4 and 17 for more information.
   Investment Amount (in millions)
 Ownership December 31, December 31,
Entity NameInterest 2016 2015
Pipeline Investments     
Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC47% $265
 $52
Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC7.5% 140
 61
Constitution Pipeline, LLC24% 82
 
Cardinal Pipeline Company, LLC21.49% 16
 
Storage Facilities     
Pine Needle LNG Company, LLC45% 16
 
Hardy Storage Company, LLC50% 47
 
Total Investments  $566
 $113
For regulatory matters and other information on the ACP, Sabal Trail and Constitution investments, see Notes 4 and 17.

191

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

Gas Utilities and Infrastructure
The table below outlines Duke Energy's ownership interests in natural gas pipeline companies and natural gas storage facilities.
   Investment Amount (in millions)
 Ownership December 31, December 31,
Entity NameInterest 2017 2016
Pipeline Investments     
Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC(a)
47% $397
 $265
Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC7.5% 219
 140
Constitution Pipeline, LLC(a)
24% 81
 82
Cardinal Pipeline Company, LLC(b)
21.49% 11
 16
Storage Facilities     
Pine Needle LNG Company, LLC(b)
45% 13
 16
Hardy Storage Company, LLC(b)
50% 42
 47
Total Investments(c)
  $763
 $566
(a)During the year ended December 31, 2017, Piedmont transferred its share of ownership interest in ACP and Constitution to a wholly owned subsidiary of Duke Energy at book value.
(b)Piedmont owns the Cardinal, Pine Needle and Hardy Storage investments.
(c)Duke Energy includes purchase accounting adjustments related to Piedmont.
In October 2017, Duke Energy entered into a guarantee agreement to support its share of the ACP revolving credit facility. See Note 7 for additional information. As a result of the financing, ACP returned capital of $265 million to Duke Energy.
Piedmont sold its 15 percent membership interest in SouthStar on October 3, 2016, for $160 million resulting in an after tax gain of $81 million during the year ended October 31, 2016. Piedmont's Equity in Earnings in SouthStar was $19 million for the years ended October 31, 2016, and 2015.
For regulatory matters and other information on the ACP, Sabal Trail and Constitution investments, see Notes 4 and 17.
Commercial Renewables
In 2016, Duke Energy sold its interest in three of the Catamount Sweetwater, LLC wind farm projects. Duke Energy has a 47 percent ownership interest in each of the two other Catamount Sweetwater, LLC wind farm projects and 50 percent interest in DS Cornerstone, LLC, which owns wind farm projects in the U.S.
Impairment of Equity Method Investments
Duke Energy evaluated its investment in Constitution for OTTI as of December 31, 2017. Our impairment assessment uses a discounted cash flow income approach, including consideration of the severity and duration of any decline in fair value of our investment in the project. Our key inputs involve significant management judgments and estimates, including projections of the project’s cash flows, selection of a discount rate and probability weighting of potential outcomes of legal and regulatory proceedings. Based upon these estimates using information known as of December 31, 2017, the fair value of Duke Energy's investment in Constitution approximated its carrying value. As a result, Duke Energy did not recognize any impairment charge in the year ended December 31, 2017. However, due to the FERC’s January 2018 ruling and the resulting increase in uncertainty, Duke Energy is evaluating the potential to recognize a pretax impairment charge on its investment in Constitution during the first quarter of 2018 of up to the current carrying amount of the investment, net of salvage value and any cash and working capital returned. For additional information on the Constitution investment, see Note 4.
During the year ended December 31, 2016, Duke Energy recorded an OTTI of certain wind project investments. The $71 million pretax impairment was recorded within Equity in earnings (losses) of unconsolidated affiliates on Duke Energy's Consolidated Statements of Operations. The other-than-temporary decline in value of these investments was primarily attributable to a sustained decline in market pricing where the wind investments are located, projected net losses for the projects and a reduction in the projected cash distribution to the class of investment owned by Duke Energy.
Other
Duke Energy owns a 2517.5 percent indirect interest in NMC, which owns and operates a methanol and MTBE business in Jubail, Saudi Arabia. Duke Energy's economic ownership interest will decreasedecreased from 25 percent to 17.5 percent uponwith the successful startup of NMC's polyacetal production facility which is expected to occur in the second quarter of 2017. Duke Energy will retainretains 25 percent of the board representation and voting rights of NMC. The investment in NMC is accounted for under the equity method of accounting.

192

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

13. RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
The Subsidiary Registrants engage in related party transactions 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)2016
 2015
 2014
Duke Energy Carolinas     
Corporate governance and shared service expenses(a)
$831
 $914
 $851
Indemnification coverages(b)
22
 24
 21
JDA revenue(c)
38
 51
 133
JDA expense(c)
156
 183
 198
Progress Energy     
Corporate governance and shared service expenses(a)
$710
 $712
 $732
Indemnification coverages(b)
35
 38
 33
JDA revenue(c)
156
 183
 198
JDA expense(c)
38
 51
 133
Intercompany natural gas purchases(d)
19
 
 
Duke Energy Progress     
Corporate governance and shared service expenses(a)
$397
 $403
 $386
Indemnification coverages(b)
14
 16
 17
JDA revenue(c)
156
 183
 198
JDA expense(c)
38
 51
 133
Intercompany natural gas purchases(d)
19
 
 
Duke Energy Florida     
Corporate governance and shared service expenses(a)
$313
 $309
 $346
Indemnification coverages(b)
21
 22
 16
Duke Energy Ohio     
Corporate governance and shared service expenses(a)
$356
 $342
 $316
Indemnification coverages(b)
5
 6
 13
Duke Energy Indiana     
Corporate governance and shared service expenses(a)
$366
 $349
 $384
Indemnification coverages(b)
8
 9
 11

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

 Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2017
 2016
 2015
Duke Energy Carolinas     
Corporate governance and shared service expenses(a)
$858
 $831
 $914
Indemnification coverages(b)
23
 22
 24
JDA revenue(c)
49
 38
 51
JDA expense(c)
145
 156
 183
Intercompany natural gas purchases(d)
9
 2
 
Progress Energy     
Corporate governance and shared service expenses(a)
$736
 $710
 $712
Indemnification coverages(b)
38
 35
 38
JDA revenue(c)
145
 156
 183
JDA expense(c)
49
 38
 51
Intercompany natural gas purchases(d)
77
 19
 
Duke Energy Progress     
Corporate governance and shared service expenses(a)
$438
 $397
 $403
Indemnification coverages(b)
15
 14
 16
JDA revenue(c)
145
 156
 183
JDA expense(c)
49
 38
 51
Intercompany natural gas purchases(d)
77
 19
 
Duke Energy Florida     
Corporate governance and shared service expenses(a)
$298
 $313
 $309
Indemnification coverages(b)
23
 21
 22
Duke Energy Ohio     
Corporate governance and shared service expenses(a)
$363
 $356
 $342
Indemnification coverages(b)
5
 5
 6
Duke Energy Indiana     
Corporate governance and shared service expenses(a)
$370
 $366
 $349
Indemnification coverages(b)
8
 8
 9
Piedmont     
Corporate governance and shared service expenses(a)
$50
    
Indemnification coverages(b)

2
    
Intercompany natural gas sales(d)

86
    
(a)The Subsidiary Registrants are charged their proportionate share of corporate governance and other shared services costs, primarily related to human resources, employee benefits, information technology, legal and accounting fees, as well as other third-party costs. These amounts are primarily 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 underand expenses from the purchase of power pursuant to 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, respectively, on the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income.
(d)Piedmont provides long-term natural gas delivery service to certain Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress purchasesnatural gas-fired generation facilities. Piedmont records the sales in Regulated natural gas from Piedmont to supply electric generation facilities. These expenses are recordedrevenues, and Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress record the related purchases in Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power on thetheir respective Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income. The amounts are not eliminated in accordance with rate-based accounting regulations. For the two months ended December 31, 2016, and for sales made subsequent to the acquisition for the year ended October 31, 2016, Piedmont recorded $14 million and $7 million, respectively, of natural gas sales with Duke Energy. For sales made prior to the acquisition for the year ended October 31, 2016, and for the year ended October 31, 2015, Piedmont recorded $74 million and $83 million, respectively of natural gas sales with Duke Energy.

193

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

In addition to the amounts presented above, the Subsidiary Registrants record the impact on net income ofhave 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 impactThese transactions of these transactions wasthe Subsidiary Registrants were not material for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 2015 and 2014 for the Subsidiary Registrants.2015.
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.
Duke Energy Ohio's nonregulated indirect subsidiary, Duke Energy Commercial Asset Management, LLC (DECAM), owned generating plants included in the Midwest Generation Disposal Group sold to Dynegy on April 2, 2015. On April 1, 2015, Duke Energy Ohio distributed its indirect ownership interest in DECAM to a Duke Energy subsidiary and non-cash settled DECAM's intercompany loan payable of $294 million.
Refer to Note 2 for further information on the sale of the Midwest Generation Disposal Group.
Equity Method Investments
Piedmont has related party transactions as a customer of its equity method investments in natural gas storage and transportation facilities. The following table presents expenses that are included in Cost of natural gas on Piedmont's Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income.
  Year Ended December 31,Two Months Ended December 31,Years Ended October 31,
(in millions)Type of expense2017201620162015
CardinalTransportation Costs$8
$2
$9
$9
Pine NeedleNatural Gas Storage Costs8
2
11
11
Hardy StorageNatural Gas Storage Costs9
2
9
9
Total $25
$6
$29
$29
Piedmont had accounts payable to its equity method investments of $2 million at December 31, 2017, and 2016 related to these transactions. These amounts are included in Accounts payable on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
Intercompany Income Taxes
Duke Energy and its subsidiariesthe Subsidiary Registrants file a consolidated federal income tax return and other state and jurisdictional returns. The Subsidiary Registrants have a tax sharing agreement with Duke Energy for the allocation of consolidated tax liabilities and benefits. Income taxes recorded represent amounts the Subsidiary Registrants would incur as separate C-Corporations. The following table includes the balance of intercompany income tax receivables and payables for the subsidiary registrants.Subsidiary Registrants.
Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
 
(in millions)Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Piedmont
December 31, 2017 
Intercompany income tax receivable$
$168
$
$44
$22
$
$7
Intercompany income tax payable44

21


35

 
December 31, 2016  
Intercompany income tax receivable$1
$
$
$37
$
$
$1
$
$
$37
$
$
$
Intercompany income tax payable
37
90

1
3

37
90

1
3
38
 
December 31, 2015 
Intercompany income tax receivable$122
$120
$104
$
$54
$
Intercompany income tax payable


96

47
14. DERIVATIVES AND HEDGING
The Duke Energy Registrants use commodity and interest rate contracts to manage commodity price risk and interest rate risk. The primary use of commodity derivatives is to hedge the generation portfolio against changes in the prices of electricity and natural gas. Piedmont enters into natural gas supply contracts to provide diversification, reliability and natural gas cost benefits to its customers. 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 arrangements is offset against the collateralized derivatives on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. The cash impacts of settled derivatives are recorded as operating activities on the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows.
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.

194

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

Cash Flow Hedges
For a derivative designated as hedging the exposure to variable cash flows of a future transaction, referred to as a cash flow hedge, the effective portion of the derivative's gain or loss is initially reported as a component of other comprehensive income and subsequently reclassified into earnings once the future transaction impacts earnings. Amounts for interest rate contracts are reclassified to earnings as interest expense over the term of the related debt. See the Consolidated Statements of Changes in Equity for gains and losses reclassified out of AOCI for the years ended December 31, 20162017, and 2015.2016. Duke Energy's interest rate derivatives designated as hedges include interest rate swaps used to hedge existing debt within the Commercial Renewables business.
Undesignated Contracts
Undesignated contracts include contracts not designated as a hedge because they are accounted for under regulatory accounting and contracts that do not qualify for hedge accounting.
Duke Energy’s interest rate swaps for its regulated operations employ regulatory accounting. With regulatory accounting, the mark-to-market gains or losses on the swaps are deferred as regulatory liabilities or regulatory assets, respectively. Regulatory assets and liabilities are amortized consistent with the treatment of the related costs in the ratemaking process. The accrual of interest on the swaps is recorded as Interest Expense.
In August 2016, Duke Energy unwound $1.4 billion of forward-starting interest rate swaps associated with the Piedmont acquisition financing described in Note 6. The swaps were considered undesignated as they did not qualify for hedge accounting. Losses on the swaps of $190 million are included within Interest Expense on the Consolidated Statements of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2016. See Note 2 for additional information related to the Piedmont acquisition.
The following tables show notional amounts of outstanding derivatives related to interest rate risk.
December 31, 2016December 31, 2017
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
(in millions)Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
Cash flow hedges(a)
$750
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
$660
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
Undesignated contracts927
 400
 500
 250
 250
 27
927
 400
 500
 250
 250
 27
Total notional amount$1,677
 $400
 $500
 $250
 $250
 $27
$1,587
 $400
 $500
 $250
 $250
 $27
December 31, 2015December 31, 2016
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
(in millions)Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
Cash flow hedges(a)
$497
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
$750
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
Undesignated contracts1,827
 400
 500
 250
 250
 27
927
 400
 500
 250
 250
 27
Total notional amount$2,324
 $400
 $500
 $250
 $250
 $27
$1,677
 $400
 $500
 $250
 $250
 $27
(a)Duke Energy includes amounts related to consolidated VIEs of $750$660 million and $497$750 million at December 31, 2017, and 2016, and 2015, respectively. The December 31,During 2016, amount includesDuke Energy entered into interest rate swaps related to solar facilities financing with an outstanding notional amount of $300 million, including $81 million of four-year swaps and $219 million of 18-year swaps.swaps, at December 31, 2016. See note 6 for additional information related to the solar facilities financing.
COMMODITY PRICE RISK
The Duke Energy Registrants are exposed to the impact of changes in the prices of electricity purchased and sold in bulk power markets and coal and natural gas purchases.purchases, including Piedmont's natural gas supply contracts. Exposure to commodity price risk is influenced by a number of factors including the term of contracts, the liquidity of markets and delivery locations. For the Subsidiary Registrants, bulk power electricity and coal and natural gas purchases flow through fuel adjustment clauses, formula based contracts or other cost sharing mechanisms. Differences between the costs included in rates and the incurred costs, including undesignated derivative contracts, are largely deferred as regulatory assets or regulatory liabilities. Piedmont policies allow for the use of financial instruments to hedge commodity price risks, but not for speculative trading.risks. The strategy and objective of these hedging programs are to use the financial instruments to reduce gas cost volatility for customers.

195

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

Volumes
The tables below include volumes of outstanding commodity derivatives. Amounts disclosed represent the absolute value of notional volumes of commodity contracts excluding NPNS. 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, 2017
   Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  
 Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
  
 Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Indiana
 Piedmont
Electricity (gigawatt-hours)34
 
 
 
 
 34
 
Natural gas (millions of dekatherms)770
 105
 183
 133
 50
 2
 480
 December 31, 2016
   Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  
 Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
  
 Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Indiana
 Piedmont
Electricity (gigawatt-hours)147
 
 
 
 
 147
 
Natural gas (millions of dekatherms)890
 91
 269
 118
 151
 1
 529
 December 31, 2016
   Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Electricity (gigawatt-hours)147
 
 
 
 
 
 147
Natural gas (millions of dekatherms)(a)
890
 91
 269
 118
 151
 
 1
(a)    Amounts at Duke Energy increased 529 million dekatherms due to the acquisition of Piedmont in 2016.
196

 December 31, 2015
   Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Electricity (gigawatt-hours)70
 
 
 
 
 34
 36
Natural gas (millions of dekatherms)398
 66
 332
 117
 215
 
 

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

LOCATION AND FAIR VALUE OF DERIVATIVE ASSETS AND LIABILITIES RECOGNIZED IN THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
The following tables show the fair value and balance sheet location of derivative instruments. 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.
Derivative Assets December 31, 2016 December 31, 2017
   Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
   Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  
 Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
  
(in millions) Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
 Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
 Piedmont
Commodity Contracts                              
Not Designated as Hedging Instruments                              
Current $108
 $23
 $61
 $35
 $26
 $4
 $16
 $34
 $2
 $2
 $1
 $1
 $1
 $27
 $2
Noncurrent 32
 10
 21
 10
 11
 1
 
 1
 
 1
 1
 
 
 
 
Total Derivative Assets – Commodity Contracts $140
 $33
 $82
 $45
 $37
 $5
 $16
 $35
 $2
 $3
 $2
 $1
 $1
 $27
 $2
Interest Rate Contracts                              
Designated as Hedging Instruments                              
Current $1
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
Noncurrent $19
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
 15
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Not Designated as Hedging Instruments              
Current 3
 
 3
 1
 2
 
 
Total Derivative Assets – Interest Rate Contracts $22

$

$3

$1

$2

$

$
 $16

$

$

$

$

$

$
 $
Total Derivative Assets $162
 $33
 $85
 $46
 $39
 $5
 $16
 $51
 $2
 $3
 $2
 $1
 $1
 $27
 $2
Derivative Liabilities December 31, 2016 December 31, 2017
   Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
   Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  
 Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
  
(in millions) Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
 Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
 Piedmont
Commodity Contracts                              
Not Designated as Hedging Instruments                              
Current $43
 $
 $12
 $
 $12
 $
 $2
 $36
 $6
 $18
 $8
 $10
 $
 $
 $11
Noncurrent 166
 1
 7
 1
 
 
 
 146
 4
 10
 4
 
 
 
 131
Total Derivative Liabilities – Commodity Contracts $209
 $1
 $19
 $1
 $12
 $
 $2
 $182
 $10
 $28
 $12
 $10
 $
 $
 $142
Interest Rate Contracts                              
Designated as Hedging Instruments                              
Current $8
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $29
 $25
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
Noncurrent 8
 
 
 
 
 
 
 6
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Not Designated as Hedging Instruments                              
Current 1
 
 
 
 
 1
 
 1
 
 1
 
 
 1
 
 
Noncurrent 26
 15
 6
 6
 
 5
 
 12
 
 7
 6
 2
 4
 
 
Total Derivative Liabilities – Interest Rate Contracts $43
 $15
 $6
 $6
 $
 $6
 $
 $48
 $25
 $8
 $6
 $2
 $5
 $
 $
Total Derivative Liabilities $252
 $16
 $25
 $7
 $12
 $6
 $2
 $230
 $35
 $36
 $18
 $12
 $5
 $
 $142

197

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

Derivative Assets December 31, 2015 December 31, 2016
   Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
   Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  
 Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
  
(in millions) Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
 Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
 Piedmont
Commodity Contracts                              
Not Designated as Hedging Instruments                              
Current $12
 $
 $1
 $
 $1
 $3
 $7
 $108
 $23
 $61
 $35
 $26
 $4
 $16
 $3
Noncurrent 4
 
 4
 
 4
 
 
 32
 10
 21
 10
 11
 1
 
 
Total Derivative Assets – Commodity Contracts $16
 $
 $5
 $
 $5
 $3
 $7
 $140
 $33
 $82
 $45
 $37
 $5
 $16

$3
Interest Rate Contracts                              
Designated as Hedging Instruments                              
Noncurrent $3
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $19
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
Not Designated as Hedging Instruments                              
Current 6
 
 6
 2
 2
 
 
 3
 
 3
 1
 2
 
 
 
Total Derivative Assets – Interest Rate Contracts $9
 $
 $6
 $2
 $2
 $
 $
 $22
 $
 $3
 $1
 $2
 $
 $
 $
Total Derivative Assets $25
 $
 $11
 $2
 $7
 $3
 $7
 $162
 $33
 $85
 $46
 $39
 $5
 $16
 $3
Derivative Liabilities December 31, 2015 December 31, 2016
   Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
   Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  
 Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
  
(in millions) Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
 Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
 Piedmont
Commodity Contracts                              
Not Designated as Hedging Instruments                              
Current $256
 $32
 $222
 $77
 $145
 $
 $
 $43
 $
 $12
 $
 $12
 $
 $2
 $35
Noncurrent 100
 8
 92
 16
 71
 
 
 166
 1
 7
 1
 
 
 
 152
Total Derivative Liabilities – Commodity Contracts $356
 $40
 $314
 $93
 $216
 $
 $
 $209
 $1
 $19
 $1
 $12
 $
 $2
 $187
Interest Rate Contracts                              
Designated as Hedging Instruments                              
Current $9
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $8
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
Noncurrent 13
 
 
 
 
 
 
 8
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Not Designated as Hedging Instruments                              
Current 4
 
 3
 
 
 1
 
 1
 
 
 
 
 1
 
 
Noncurrent 15
 5
 5
 5
 
 6
 
 26
 15
 6
 6
 
 5
 
 
Total Derivative Liabilities – Interest Rate Contracts $41
 $5
 $8
 $5
 $
 $7
 $
 $43
 $15
 $6
 $6
 $
 $6
 $
 $
Total Derivative Liabilities $397
 $45
 $322
 $98
 $216
 $7
 $
 $252
 $16
 $25
 $7
 $12
 $6
 $2
 $187

198

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

OFFSETTING ASSETS AND LIABILITIES
The following tables present the line items on the Consolidated Balance Sheets where derivatives are reported. Substantially all of Duke Energy's outstanding derivative contracts are subject to enforceable master netting arrangements. The Gross amounts offset in the tables below show the effect of these netting arrangements on financial position and include collateral posted to offset the net position. The amounts shown are 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, 2016 December 31, 2017  
   Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
   Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  
 Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
  
(in millions) Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
 Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
 Piedmont
Current                              
Gross amounts recognized $111
 $23
 $64
 $36
 $28
 $4
 $16
 $35
 $2
 $2
 $1
 $1
 $1
 $27
 $2
Gross amounts offset (11) 
 (11) 
 (11) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net amounts presented in Current Assets: Other $100

$23

$53

$36

$17

$4

$16
 $35

$2

$2

$1

$1

$1

$27
 $2
Noncurrent                              
Gross amounts recognized $51
 $10
 $21
 $10
 $11
 $1
 $
 $16
 $
 $1
 $1
 $
 $
 $
 $
Gross amounts offset (2) (1) (1) (1) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net amounts presented in Investments and Other Assets: Other $49
 $9
 $20
 $9
 $11
 $1
 $
Net amounts presented in Other Noncurrent Assets: Other $16
 $
 $1
 $1
 $
 $
 $
 $
Derivative Liabilities December 31, 2016 December 31, 2017  
   Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
   Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  
 Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
  
(in millions) Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
 Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
 Piedmont
Current                              
Gross amounts recognized $52
 $
 $12
 $
 $12
 $1
 $2
 $66
 $31
 $19
 $8
 $10
 $1
 $
 $11
Gross amounts offset (11) 
 (11) 
 (11) 
 
 (3) (2) (2) (2) 
 
 
 
Net amounts presented in Current Liabilities: Other $41
 $
 $1
 $
 $1
 $1
 $2
 $63
 $29
 $17
 $6
 $10
 $1
 $
 $11
Noncurrent                              
Gross amounts recognized $200
 $16
 $13
 $7
 $
 $5
 $
 $164
 $4
 $17
 $10
 $2
 $4
 $
 $131
Gross amounts offset (2) (1) (1) (1) 
 
 
 (1) 
 (1) (1) 
 
 
 
Net amounts presented in Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities: Other $198
 $15
 $12
 $6
 $
 $5
 $
Net amounts presented in Other Noncurrent Liabilities: Other $163
 $4
 $16
 $9
 $2
 $4
 $
 $131

199

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

Derivative Assets December 31, 2015 December 31, 2016
   Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
   Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  
 Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
  
(in millions) Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
 Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
 Piedmont
Current                              
Gross amounts recognized $18
 $
 $7
 $2
 $3
 $3
 $7
 $111
 $23
 $64
 $36
 $28
 $4
 $16
 $3
Gross amounts offset (3) 
 (2) 
 (2) 
 
 (11) 
 (11) 
 (11) 
 
 
Net amounts presented in Current Assets: Other $15
 $
 $5
 $2
 $1
 $3
 $7
 $100
 $23
 $53
 $36
 $17
 $4
 $16
 $3
Noncurrent                              
Gross amounts recognized $7
 $
 $4
 $
 $4
 $
 $
 $51
 $10
 $21
 $10
 $11
 $1
 $
 $
Gross amounts offset (4) 
 (4) 
 (4) 
 
 (2) (1) (1) (1) 
 
 
 
Net amounts presented in Investments and Other Assets: Other $3
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
Net amounts presented in Other Noncurrent Assets: Other $49
 $9
 $20
 $9
 $11
 $1
 $
 $
Derivative Liabilities December 31, 2015 December 31, 2016
   Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
   Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  
 Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
  
(in millions) Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
 Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
 Piedmont
Current                              
Gross amounts recognized $269
 $32
 $225
 $77
 $145
 $1
 $
 $52
 $
 $12
 $
 $12
 $1
 $2
 $35
Gross amounts offset (22) 
 (21) (1) (20) 
 
 (11) 
 (11) 
 (11) 
 
 
Net amounts presented in Current Liabilities: Other $247
 $32
 $204
 $76
 $125
 $1
 $
 $41
 $
 $1
 $
 $1
 $1
 $2
 $35
Noncurrent                              
Gross amounts recognized $128
 $13
 $97
 $21
 $71
 $6
 $
 $200
 $16
 $13
 $7
 $
 $5
 $
 $152
Gross amounts offset (16) 
 (15) 
 (15) 
 
 (2) (1) (1) (1) 
 
 
 
Net amounts presented in Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities: Other $112
 $13
 $82
 $21
 $56
 $6
 $
Net amounts presented in Other Noncurrent Liabilities: Other $198
 $15
 $12
 $6
 $
 $5
 $
 $152
OBJECTIVE CREDIT CONTINGENT FEATURES
Certain derivative contracts contain objective credit contingent features. These features include the requirement to post cash collateral or letters of credit if specific events occur, such as a credit rating downgrade below investment grade. 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. Amounts for Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana were not material.
December 31, 2016December 31, 2017
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
(in millions)Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
Aggregate fair value of derivatives in a net liability position$34
 $16
 $18
 $6
 $12
$59
 $35
 $25
 $15
 $10
Fair value of collateral already posted
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
Additional cash collateral or letters of credit in the event credit-risk-related contingent features were triggered34
 16
 18
 6
 12
59
 35
 25
 15
 10
December 31, 2015December 31, 2016
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
(in millions)Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
Aggregate fair value of derivatives in a net liability position$334
 $45
 $290
 $93
 $194
$34
 $16
 $18
 $6
 $12
Fair value of collateral already posted30
 
 30
 
 30

 
 
 
 
Additional cash collateral or letters of credit in the event credit-risk-related contingent features were triggered304
 45
 260
 93
 164
34
 16
 18
 6
 12
The Duke Energy Registrants have elected to offset cash collateral and fair values of derivatives. For amounts to be netted, the derivative and cash collateral must be executed with the same counterparty under the same master netting arrangement. At December 31, 2015, receivables of $30 million at
15. INVESTMENTS IN DEBT AND EQUITY SECURITIES
The Duke Energy Florida related to the right to reclaim cash collateral under master netting arrangements were offset against net derivative positions on the Consolidated Balance Sheets of Duke Energy, Progress EnergyRegistrants classify their investments in debt and Duke Energy Florida.equity securities as either trading or available-for-sale.

200

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

15. INVESTMENTS IN DEBT AND EQUITY SECURITIES
TRADING SECURITIES
InvestmentsPiedmont's investments in debt and equity securities held in rabbi trusts associated with certain deferred compensation plans are classified as trading securities. The fair value of these investments was $1 million and $5 million atas of December 31, 2016.2017, and 2016, respectively.
AVAILABLE-FOR-SALE (AFS) SECURITIES
The Duke Energy Registrants classify theirAll other investments in debt and equity securities are classified as available-for-sale.AFS.
Duke Energy’s available-for-saleAFS securities are primarily comprised of investments held in (i) the NDTFnuclear decommissioning trust funds (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 and (iii) Bison.
Duke Energy classifies all other investments in debt and equity securities as long-term,long term, unless otherwise noted.
Investment Trusts
The investments within the NDTF investments 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 OTTIs and are recognized immediately.
Investments within the Investment Trusts generally qualify for regulatory accounting and accordingly realized and unrealized gains and losses are generally deferred as a regulatory asset or liability.
Substantially all amounts of the Duke Energy Registrants' gross unrealized holding losses as of December 31, 2017, and 2016, are considered OTTIs on investments within Investment Trusts that have been recognized immediately as a regulatory asset.
Other Available-for-SaleAFS Securities
Unrealized gains and losses on all other available-for-saleAFS 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 OTTI 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 material credit losses as of December 31, 20162017, and 2015.2016.
Other Investments amounts are recorded in Other within Other Noncurrent Assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.


201

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

DUKE ENERGY
The following table presents the estimated fair value of investments in available-for-saleAFS securities.
 December 31, 2016 December 31, 2015
 Gross
 Gross
   Gross
 Gross
  
 Unrealized
 Unrealized
   Unrealized
 Unrealized
  
 Holding
 Holding
 Estimated
 Holding
 Holding
 Estimated
(in millions)Gains
 
Losses(a)

 Fair Value
 Gains
 
Losses(a)

 Fair Value
NDTF         
  
Cash and cash equivalents$
 $
 $111
 $
 $
 $179
Equity securities2,092
 54
 4,106
 1,823
 58
 3,590
Corporate debt securities10
 8
 528
 7
 8
 432
Municipal bonds3
 10
 331
 5
 1
 185
U.S. government bonds10
 8
 984
 11
 5
 1,254
Other debt securities
 3
 124
 
 4
 177
Total NDTF$2,115
 $83
 $6,184
 $1,846
 $76
 $5,817
Other Investments 
  
  
  
  
  
Cash and cash equivalents$
 $
 $25
 $
 $
 $29
Equity securities38
 
 104
 32
 1
 95
Corporate debt securities1
 1
 66
 1
 3
 92
Municipal bonds2
 1
 82
 3
 1
 74
U.S. government bonds
 1
 51
 
 
 45
Other debt securities
 2
 42
 
 2
 62
Total Other Investments(b)
$41
 $5
 $370
 $36
 $7
 $397
Total Investments$2,156
 $88
 $6,554
 $1,882
 $83
 $6,214
(a)Substantially all these amounts are considered OTTIs on investments within Investment Trusts that have been recognized immediately as a regulatory asset.
(b)     These amounts are recorded in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
 December 31, 2017 December 31, 2016
 Gross
 Gross
   Gross
 Gross
  
 Unrealized
 Unrealized
   Unrealized
 Unrealized
  
 Holding
 Holding
 Estimated
 Holding
 Holding
 Estimated
(in millions)Gains
 Losses
 Fair Value
 Gains
 
Losses(a)

 Fair Value
NDTF         
  
Cash and cash equivalents$
 $
 $115
 $
 $
 $111
Equity securities2,805
 27
 4,914
 2,092
 54
 4,106
Corporate debt securities17
 2
 570
 10
 8
 528
Municipal bonds4
 3
 344
 3
 10
 331
U.S. government bonds11
 7
 1,027
 10
 8
 984
Other debt securities
 1
 118
 
 3
 124
Total NDTF$2,837
 $40
 $7,088
 $2,115
 $83
 $6,184
Other Investments 
  
  
  
  
  
Cash and cash equivalents$
 $
 $15
 $
 $
 $25
Equity securities59
 
 123
 38
 
 104
Corporate debt securities1
 
 57
 1
 1
 66
Municipal bonds2
 1
 83
 2
 1
 82
U.S. government bonds
 
 41
 
 1
 51
Other debt securities
 1
 44
 
 2
 42
Total Other Investments$62
 $2
 $363
 $41
 $5
 $370
Total Investments$2,899
 $42
 $7,451
 $2,156
 $88
 $6,554
The table below summarizes the maturity date for debt securities.
(in millions)December 31, 2016
December 31, 2017
Due in one year or less$94
$117
Due after one through five years653
552
Due after five through 10 years515
554
Due after 10 years946
1,061
Total$2,208
$2,284
Realized gains and losses, which were determined on a specific identification basis, from sales of available-for-saleAFS securities were as follows.
Years Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2016
 2015
 2014
2017
 2016
 2015
Realized gains$246
 $193
 $271
$202
 $246
 $193
Realized losses187
 98
 105
160
 187
 98


202

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

DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS
The following table presents the estimated fair value of investments in available-for-saleAFS securities.
December 31, 2016 December 31, 2015December 31, 2017 December 31, 2016
Gross
 Gross
   Gross
 Gross
  Gross
 Gross
   Gross
 Gross
  
Unrealized
 Unrealized
   Unrealized
 Unrealized
  Unrealized
 Unrealized
   Unrealized
 Unrealized
  
Holding
 Holding
 Estimated
 Holding
 Holding
 Estimated
Holding
 Holding
 Estimated
 Holding
 Holding
 Estimated
(in millions)Gains
 
Losses(a)

 Fair Value
 Gains
 
Losses(a)

 Fair Value
Gains
 Losses
 Fair Value
 Gains
 
Losses(a)

 Fair Value
NDTF           
           
Cash and cash equivalents$
 $
 $18
 $
 $
 $34
$
 $
 $32
 $
 $
 $18
Equity securities1,157
 28
 2,245
 1,021
 27
 2,094
1,531
 12
 2,692
 1,157
 28
 2,245
Corporate debt securities5
 6
 354
 3
 5
 292
9
 2
 359
 5
 6
 354
Municipal bonds1
 2
 67
 1
 
 33

 1
 60
 1
 2
 67
U.S. government bonds2
 5
 458
 3
 3
 438
3
 4
 503
 2
 5
 458
Other debt securities
 3
 116
 
 4
 147

 1
 112
 
 3
 116
Total NDTF
$1,165
 $44
 $3,258
 $1,028
 $39
 $3,038
$1,543
 $20
 $3,758
 $1,165
 $44
 $3,258
Other Investments 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
Other debt securities$
 $1
 $3
 $
 $1
 $3
$
 $
 $
 $
 $1
 $3
Total Other Investments(b)
$
 $1
 $3
 $
 $1
 $3
$
 $
 $
 $
 $1
 $3
Total Investments$1,165
 $45
 $3,261
 $1,028
 $40
 $3,041
$1,543
 $20
 $3,758
 $1,165
 $45
 $3,261
(a)Substantially all these amounts represent OTTIs on investments within Investment Trusts that have been recognized immediately as a regulatory asset.
(b)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, 2016
December 31, 2017
Due in one year or less$3
$9
Due after one through five years230
204
Due after five through 10 years260
300
Due after 10 years505
521
Total$998
$1,034
Realized gains and losses, which were determined on a specific identification basis, from sales of available-for-saleAFS securities were as follows.
Years Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2016
 2015
 2014
2017
 2016
 2015
Realized gains$157
 $158
 $109
$135
 $157
 $158
Realized losses121
 83
 93
103
 121
 83


203

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

PROGRESS ENERGY
The following table presents the estimated fair value of investments in available-for-saleAFS securities.
December 31, 2016 December 31, 2015December 31, 2017 December 31, 2016
Gross
 Gross
   Gross
 Gross
  Gross
 Gross
   Gross
 Gross
  
Unrealized
 Unrealized
   Unrealized
 Unrealized
  Unrealized
 Unrealized
   Unrealized
 Unrealized
  
Holding
 Holding
 Estimated
 Holding
 Holding
 Estimated
Holding
 Holding
 Estimated
 Holding
 Holding
 Estimated
(in millions)Gains
 
Losses(a)

 Fair Value
 Gains
 
Losses(a)

 Fair Value
Gains
 Losses
 Fair Value
 Gains
 
Losses(a)

 Fair Value
NDTF                      
Cash and cash equivalents$
 $
 $93
 $
 $
 $145
$
 $
 $83
 $
 $
 $93
Equity securities935
 26
 1,861
 802
 31
 1,496
1,274
 15
 2,222
 935
 26
 1,861
Corporate debt securities5
 2
 174
 4
 3
 140
8
 
 211
 5
 2
 174
Municipal bonds2
 8
 264
 4
 1
 152
4
 2
 284
 2
 8
 264
U.S. government bonds8
 3
 526
 8
 2
 816
8
 3
 524
 8
 3
 526
Other debt securities
 
 8
 
 
 30

 
 6
 
 
 8
Total NDTF$950
 $39
 $2,926
 $818
 $37
 $2,779
$1,294
 $20
 $3,330
 $950
 $39
 $2,926
Other Investments 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
Cash and cash equivalents$
 $
 $21
 $
 $
 $18
$
 $
 $12
 $
 $
 $21
Municipal bonds2
 
 44
 3
 
 45
2
 
 47
 2
 
 44
Total Other Investments(b)
$2
 $
 $65
 $3
 $
 $63
$2
 $
 $59
 $2
 $
 $65
Total Investments$952
 $39
 $2,991
 $821
 $37
 $2,842
$1,296
 $20
 $3,389
 $952
 $39
 $2,991
(a)Substantially all these amounts represent OTTIs on investments within Investment Trusts that have been recognized immediately as a regulatory asset.
(b)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, 2016
December 31, 2017
Due in one year or less$84
$94
Due after one through five years347
301
Due after five through 10 years187
203
Due after 10 years398
474
Total$1,016
$1,072
Realized gains and losses, which were determined on a specific identification basis, from sales of available-for-saleAFS securities were as follows.
Years Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2016
 2015
 2014
2017
 2016
 2015
Realized gains$84
 $33
 $157
$65
 $84
 $33
Realized losses64
 13
 11
56
 64
 13


204

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

DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS
The following table presents the estimated fair value of investments in available-for-saleAFS securities.
 December 31, 2016 December 31, 2015
 Gross
 Gross
   Gross
 Gross
  
 Unrealized
 Unrealized
   Unrealized
 Unrealized
  
 Holding
 Holding
 Estimated
 Holding
 Holding
 Estimated
(in millions)Gains
 
Losses(a)

 Fair Value
 Gains
 
Losses(a)

 Fair Value
NDTF           
Cash and cash equivalents$
 $
 $45
 $
 $
 $110
Equity securities704
 21
 1,505
 596
 25
 1,178
Corporate debt securities4
 1
 120
 3
 2
 96
Municipal bonds2
 8
 263
 4
 1
 150
U.S. government bonds5
 2
 275
 6
 2
 486
Other debt securities
 
 5
 
 
 18
Total NDTF$715
 $32
 $2,213
 $609
 $30
 $2,038
Other Investments 
  
  
  
   
  
Cash and cash equivalents$
 $
 $1
 $
 $
 $1
Total Other Investments(b)
$
 $
 $1
 $
 $
 $1
Total Investments$715
 $32
 $2,214
 $609
 $30
 $2,039
(a)Substantially all these amounts are considered OTTIs on investments within Investment Trusts that have been recognized immediately as a regulatory asset.
(b)     These amounts are recorded in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
 December 31, 2017 December 31, 2016
 Gross
 Gross
   Gross
 Gross
  
 Unrealized
 Unrealized
   Unrealized
 Unrealized
  
 Holding
 Holding
 Estimated
 Holding
 Holding
 Estimated
(in millions)Gains
 Losses
 Fair Value
 Gains
 
Losses(a)

 Fair Value
NDTF           
Cash and cash equivalents$
 $
 $50
 $
 $
 $45
Equity securities980
 12
 1,795
 704
 21
 1,505
Corporate debt securities6
 

 149
 4
 1
 120
Municipal bonds4
 2
 283
 2
 8
 263
U.S. government bonds5
 2
 310
 5
 2
 275
Other debt securities
 
 4
 
 
 5
Total NDTF$995
 $16
 $2,591
 $715
 $32
 $2,213
Other Investments 
  
  
  
   
  
Cash and cash equivalents$
 $
 $1
 $
 $
 $1
Total Other Investments$
 $
 $1
 $
 $
 $1
Total Investments$995
 $16
 $2,592
 $715
 $32
 $2,214
The table below summarizes the maturity date for debt securities.
(in millions)December 31, 2016
December 31, 2017
Due in one year or less$28
$21
Due after one through five years190
219
Due after five through 10 years142
146
Due after 10 years303
360
Total$663
$746
Realized gains and losses, which were determined on a specific identification basis, from sales of available-for-saleAFS securities were as follows.
Years Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2016
 2015
 2014
2017
 2016
 2015
Realized gains$71
 $26
 $19
$54
 $71
 $26
Realized losses55
 11
 5
48
 55
 11


205

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

DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA
The following table presents the estimated fair value of investments in available-for-saleAFS securities.
December 31, 2016 December 31, 2015December 31, 2017 December 31, 2016
Gross
 Gross
   Gross
 Gross
  Gross
 Gross
   Gross
 Gross
  
Unrealized
 Unrealized
   Unrealized
 Unrealized
  Unrealized
 Unrealized
   Unrealized
 Unrealized
  
Holding
 Holding
 Estimated
 Holding
 Holding
 Estimated
Holding
 Holding
 Estimated
 Holding
 Holding
 Estimated
(in millions)Gains
 
Losses(a)

 Fair Value
 Gains
 
Losses(a)

 Fair Value
Gains
 Losses
 Fair Value
 Gains
 
Losses(a)

 Fair Value
NDTF                        
Cash and cash equivalents$
 $
 $48
 $
 $
 $35
$
 $
 $33
 $
 $
 $48
Equity securities231
 5
 356
 206
 6
 318
294
 3
 427
 231
 5
 356
Corporate debt securities1
 1
 54
 1
 1
 44
2
 
 62
 1
 1
 54
Municipal bonds
 
 1
 
 
 2

 
 1
 
 
 1
U.S. government bonds3
 1
 251
 2
 
 330
3
 1
 214
 3
 1
 251
Other debt securities
 
 3
 
 
 12

 
 2
 
 
 3
Total NDTF(b)(a)
$235
 $7
 $713
 $209
 $7
 $741
$299
 $4
 $739
 $235
 $7
 $713
Other Investments 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
Cash and cash equivalents$
 $
 $4
 $
 $
 $6
$
 $
 $1
 $
 $
 $4
Municipal bonds2
 
 44
 3
 
 45
2
 
 47
 2
 
 44
Total Other Investments(c)
$2
 $
 $48
 $3
 $
 $51
$2
 $
 $48
 $2
 $
 $48
Total Investments$237
 $7
 $761
 $212
 $7
 $792
$301
 $4
 $787
 $237
 $7
 $761
(a)Substantially all these amounts are considered OTTIs on investments within Investment Trusts that have been recognized immediately as a regulatory asset.
(b)The decrease in estimated fair value ofDuring the NDTF as ofyear ended December 31, 2016, is primarily due2017, Duke Energy Florida continued to receive reimbursements from the NDTF for costs related to ongoing decommissioning activity of the Crystal River Unit 3.3 nuclear plant.
(c)     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, 2016
December 31, 2017
Due in one year or less$56
$73
Due after one through five years157
82
Due after five through 10 years45
57
Due after 10 years95
114
Total$353
$326
Realized gains and losses, which were determined on a specific identification basis, from sales of available-for-saleAFS securities were as follows.
Years Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2016
 2015
 2014
2017
 2016
 2015
Realized gains$13
 $7
 $138
$11
 $13
 $7
Realized losses9
 2
 5
8
 9
 2
DUKE ENERGY INDIANA
The following table presents the estimated fair value of investments in AFS securities.
 December 31, 2017 December 31, 2016
 Gross
 Gross
   Gross
 Gross
  
 Unrealized
 Unrealized
   Unrealized
 Unrealized
  
 Holding
 Holding
 Estimated
 Holding
 Holding
 Estimated
(in millions)Gains
 Losses
 Fair Value
 Gains
 
Losses(a)

 Fair Value
Other Investments           
Equity securities$49
 $
 $97
 $33
 $
 $79
Corporate debt securities
 
 3
 
 
 2
Municipal bonds
 1
 28
 
 1
 28
U.S. government bonds
 
 
 
 
 1
Total Other Investments$49
 $1
 $128
 $33
 $1
 $110
Total Investments$49
 $1
 $128
 $33
 $1
 $110


206

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

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA
The following table presents the estimated fair value of investments in available-for-sale securities.
 December 31, 2016 December 31, 2015
 Gross
 Gross
   Gross
 Gross
  
 Unrealized
 Unrealized
   Unrealized
 Unrealized
  
 Holding
 Holding
 Estimated
 Holding
 Holding
 Estimated
(in millions)Gains
 
Losses(a)

 Fair Value
 Gains
 
Losses(a)

 Fair Value
Other Investments           
Cash and cash equivalents  
$
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $2
Equity securities33
 
 79
 27
 
 71
Corporate debt securities
 
 2
 
 
 2
Municipal bonds
 1
 28
 
 1
 26
U.S. government bonds  
 
 1
 
 
 
Total Other Investments(b)
$33
 $1
 $110
 $27
 $1
 $101
Total Investments$33
 $1
 $110
 $27
 $1
 $101
(a)Substantially all these amounts are considered OTTIs on investments within Investment Trusts that have been recognized immediately as a regulatory asset.
(b)     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, 2016
December 31, 2017
Due in one year or less$3
$5
Due after one through five years13
12
Due after five through 10 years9
7
Due after 10 years6
7
Total$31
$31
Realized gains and losses, which were determined on a specific identification basis, from sales of available-for-saleAFS securities were insignificant for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 2015 and 2014.2015.
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, and (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.
Not Categorized – Certain investments are not categorized within the Fair Value hierarchy. These investments are measured based on the fair value of the underlying investments but may not be readily redeemable at that fair value.

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

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 2levels during the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 2015 and 2014. Transfers out of Level 32015. In addition, for Piedmont, there were no transfers between levels during the yeartwo months ended December 31, 2014, were2016, and the result of forward commodity prices becoming observable due to the passage of time.years ended October 31, 2016, and 2015.
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 the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and the NASDAQ Stock Market. 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 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.

207

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

Commodity derivatives
Commodity derivatives with clearinghouses are classified as Level 1. Other commodity derivatives, including Piedmont's natural gas supply contracts, are primarily valued using internally developed discounted cash flow models whichthat 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 the fair value of natural 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 whichthat 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.
Other fair value considerations
See Note 11 for a discussion of the valuation of goodwill and intangible assets. See Note 2 related to the acquisition of Piedmont in 2016 and the purchase of NCEMPA's ownership interests in certain generating assets in 2015.
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 for all Duke Energy Registrants exclude cash collateral, which is disclosed in Note 14. See Note 15 for additional information related to investments by major security type.type for the Duke Energy Registrants.
December 31, 2016December 31, 2017
(in millions)Total Fair Value
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Not Categorized
Total Fair Value
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Not Categorized
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities$4,106
$4,029
$
$
$77
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund debt securities2,078
632
1,446


Other trading and available-for-sale equity securities104
104



Other trading and available-for-sale debt securities266
75
186
5

NDTF equity securities$4,914
$4,840
$
$
$74
NDTF debt securities2,174
635
1,539


Other AFS equity securities123
123



Other trading and AFS debt securities241
57
184


Derivative assets162
5
136
21

51
3
20
28

Total assets6,716
4,845
1,768
26
77
7,503
5,658
1,743
28
74
Derivative liabilities(252)(2)(63)(187)
(230)(2)(86)(142)
Net assets (liabilities)$6,464
$4,843
$1,705
$(161)$77
$7,273
$5,656
$1,657
$(114)$74
 December 31, 2016
(in millions)Total Fair Value
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Not Categorized
NDTF equity securities$4,106
$4,029
$
$
$77
NDTF debt securities2,078
632
1,446


Other trading and AFS equity securities104
104



Other trading and AFS debt securities266
75
186
5

Derivative assets162
5
136
21

Total assets6,716
4,845
1,768
26
77
Derivative liabilities(252)(2)(63)(187)
Net assets$6,464
$4,843
$1,705
$(161)$77

208

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

 December 31, 2015
(in millions)Total Fair Value
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Not Categorized
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities$3,590
$3,418
$
$
$172
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund debt securities2,227
672
1,555


Other available-for-sale equity securities95
95



Other available-for-sale debt securities302
75
222
5

Derivative assets25

15
10

Total assets6,239
4,260
1,792
15
172
Derivative liabilities(397)
(397)

Net assets$5,842
$4,260
$1,395
$15
$172
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.Cost of natural gas on the Duke Energy Registrants' Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income. Amounts included in changes of net assets on the Duke Energy Registrants' Consolidated Balance Sheets are included in regulatory assets or liabilities. All derivative assets and liabilities are presented on a net basis.
 December 31, 2016
   Derivatives
  
(in millions)Investments
 (net)
 Total
Balance at beginning of period$5
 $10
 $15
Derivative liability resulting from the acquisition of Piedmont
 (187) (187)
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:    

Purchases
 33
 33
Settlements
 (28) (28)
Total gains included on the Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory assets or liabilities
 6
 6
Balance at end of period$5

$(166) $(161)
December 31, 2015December 31, 2017 December 31, 2016
  Derivatives
             
(in millions)Investments
 (net)
 Total
Investments
 Derivatives (net)
 Total
 Investments
 Derivatives (net)
 Total
Balance at beginning of period$5
 $(1) $4
$5
 $(166) $(161) $5
 $10
 $15
Total pretax realized or unrealized gains (losses) included in earnings
 21
 21
Total pretax realized or unrealized gains included in comprehensive income1
 
 1
 
 
 
Derivative liability resulting from the acquisition of Piedmont
 
 
 
 (187) (187)
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:    

    

      
Purchases
 24
 24

 55
 55
 
 33
 33
Sales
 (1) (1)(6) 
 (6) 
 
 
Settlements
 (37) (37)
 (47) (47) 
 (28) (28)
Total gains included on the Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory assets or liabilities
 4
 4
Total gains included on the Consolidated Balance Sheet
 44
 44
 
 6
 6
Balance at end of period$5
 $10
 $15
$

$(114) $(114) $5
 $(166) $(161)
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, 2016December 31, 2017
(in millions)Total Fair Value
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Not Categorized
Total Fair Value
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Not Categorized
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities$2,245
$2,168
$
$
$77
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund debt securities1,013
178
835


Other available-for-sale debt securities3


3

NDTF equity securities$2,692
$2,618
$
$
$74
NDTF debt securities1,066
204
862


Derivative assets33

33


2

2


Total assets3,294
2,346
868
3
77
3,760
2,822
864

74
Derivative liabilities(16)
(16)

(35)(1)(34)

Net assets$3,278
$2,346
$852
$3
$77
$3,725
$2,821
$830
$
$74
 December 31, 2016
(in millions)Total Fair Value
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Not Categorized
NDTF equity securities$2,245
$2,168
$
$
$77
NDTF debt securities1,013
178
835


Other AFS debt securities3


3

Derivative assets33

33


Total assets3,294
2,346
868
3
77
Derivative liabilities(16)
(16)

Net assets$3,278
$2,346
$852
$3
$77

209

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

The following table provides reconciliations of beginning and ending balances of assets and liabilities measured at fair value using Level 3 measurements.
 December 31, 2015
(in millions)Total Fair Value
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Not Categorized
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities$2,094
$1,922
$
$
$172
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund debt securities944
246
698


Other available-for-sale debt securities3


3

Total assets3,041
2,168
698
3
172
Derivative liabilities(45)
(45)

Net assets$2,996
$2,168
$653
$3
$172
There was no change to the Level 3 balance during the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015.
 Investments
 Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2017
 2016
Balance at beginning of period$3
 $3
Total pretax realized or unrealized gains included in comprehensive income1
 
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:   
Sales(4) 
Balance at end of period$

$3
PROGRESS ENERGY
The following tables providetable provides recorded balances for assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Derivative amounts in
 December 31, 2017 December 31, 2016
(in millions)Total Fair Value
Level 1
Level 2
 Total Fair Value
Level 1
Level 2
NDTF equity securities$2,222
$2,222
$
 $1,861
$1,861
$
NDTF debt securities1,108
431
677
 1,065
454
611
Other AFS debt securities59
12
47
 65
21
44
Derivative assets3
1
2
 85

85
Total assets3,392
2,666
726
 3,076
2,336
740
Derivative liabilities(36)(1)(35) (25)
(25)
Net assets$3,356
$2,665
$691
 $3,051
$2,336
$715
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS
The following table provides recorded balances for assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis on 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.Consolidated Balance Sheets.
 December 31, 2016
(in millions)Total Fair Value
Level 1
Level 2
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities$1,861
$1,861
$
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund debt securities1,065
454
611
Other available-for-sale debt securities65
21
44
Derivative assets85

85
Total assets3,076
2,336
740
Derivative liabilities(25)
(25)
Net assets$3,051
$2,336
$715
 December 31, 2015
(in millions)Total Fair Value
Level 1
Level 2
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities$1,496
$1,496
$
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund debt securities1,283
426
857
Other available-for-sale debt securities63
18
45
Derivative assets11

11
Total assets2,853
1,940
913
Derivative liabilities(322)
(322)
Net assets$2,531
$1,940
$591
 December 31, 2017 December 31, 2016
(in millions)Total Fair Value
Level 1
Level 2
 Total Fair Value
Level 1
Level 2
NDTF equity securities$1,795
$1,795
$
 $1,505
$1,505
$
NDTF debt securities796
243
553
 708
207
501
Other AFS debt securities1
1

 1
1

Derivative assets2
1
1
 46

46
Total assets2,594
2,040
554
 2,260
1,713
547
Derivative liabilities(18)(1)(17) (7)
(7)
Net assets$2,576
$2,039
$537
 $2,253
$1,713
$540
DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA
The following table provides recorded balances for assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
 December 31, 2017 December 31, 2016
(in millions)Total Fair Value
Level 1
Level 2
 Total Fair Value
Level 1
Level 2
NDTF equity securities$427
$427
$
 $356
$356
$
NDTF debt securities312
188
124
 357
247
110
Other AFS debt securities48
1
47
 48
4
44
Derivative assets1

1
 39

39
Total assets788
616
172
 800
607
193
Derivative liabilities(12)
(12) (12)
(12)
Net assets$776
$616
$160
 $788
$607
$181

210

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

DUKE ENERGY PROGRESSOHIO
The following tables providetable provides 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, 2016
(in millions)Total Fair Value
Level 1
Level 2
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities$1,505
$1,505
$
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund debt securities and other708
207
501
Other available-for-sale debt securities and other1
1

Derivative assets46

46
Total assets2,260
1,713
547
Derivative liabilities(7)
(7)
Net assets$2,253
$1,713
$540
 December 31, 2015
(in millions)Total Fair Value
Level 1
Level 2
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities$1,178
$1,178
$
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund debt securities and other860
141
719
Other available-for-sale debt securities and other1
1

Derivative assets2

2
Total assets2,041
1,320
721
Derivative liabilities(98)
(98)
Net assets$1,943
$1,320
$623
DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA
 December 31, 2017 December 31, 2016
(in millions)Total Fair Value
Level 2
Level 3
 Total Fair Value
Level 2
Level 3
Derivative assets$1
$
$1
 $5
$
$5
Derivative liabilities(5)(5)
 (6)(6)
Net (liabilities) assets$(4)$(5)$1
 $(1)$(6)$5
The following tables providetable 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)2017
 2016
Balance at beginning of period$5
 $3
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:   
Purchases3
 5
Settlements(4) (5)
Total gains included on the Consolidated Balance Sheet(3) 2
Balance at end of period$1
 $5
DUKE ENERGY INDIANA
The following table provides recorded balances for assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Derivative amounts in the
��December 31, 2017 December 31, 2016
(in millions)Total Fair Value
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
 Total Fair Value
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Other AFS equity securities$97
$97
$
$
 $79
$79
$
$
Other AFS debt securities31

31

 31

31

Derivative assets27


27
 16


16
Total assets155
97
31
27
 126
79
31
16
Derivative liabilities



 (2)(2)

Net assets$155
$97
$31
$27
 $124
$77
$31
$16
The following table below exclude cash collateral which is disclosed in Note 14. See Note 15 for additional information related to investments by major security type.provides a reconciliation of beginning and ending balances of assets and liabilities measured at fair value using Level 3 measurements.
 December 31, 2016
(in millions)Total Fair Value
Level 1
Level 2
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities$356
$356
$
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund debt securities and other357
247
110
Other available-for-sale debt securities and other48
4
44
Derivative assets39

39
Total assets800
607
193
Derivative liabilities(12)
(12)
Net assets$788
$607
$181
 December 31, 2015
(in millions)Total Fair Value
Level 1
Level 2
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities$318
$318
$
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund debt securities and other423
285
138
Other available-for-sale debt securities and other51
6
45
Derivative assets7

7
Total assets799
609
190
Derivative liabilities(216)
(216)
Net assets (liabilities)$583
$609
$(26)
 Derivatives (net)
 Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2017
 2016
Balance at beginning of period$16
 $7
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:   
Purchases52
 29
Settlements(43) (24)
Total gains included on the Consolidated Balance Sheet2
 4
Balance at end of period$27
 $16

211

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

DUKE ENERGY OHIOPIEDMONT
The following tables providetable provides 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, 2016
(in millions)Total Fair Value
 Level 1
 Level 2
 Level 3
Derivative assets$5
 $
 $
 $5
Derivative liabilities(6) 
 (6) 
Net (liabilities) assets$(1)
$
 $(6) $5
December 31, 2015December 31, 2017 December 31, 2016
(in millions)Total Fair Value
 Level 1
 Level 2
 Level 3
Total Fair Value
Level 1
Level 3
 Total Fair Value
Level 1
Level 3
Other trading equity securities$
$
$
 $4
$4
$
Other trading debt securities1
1

 1
1

Derivative assets$3
 $
 $
 $3
2
2

 3
3

Total assets3
3

 8
8

Derivative liabilities(7) 
 (7) 
(142)
(142) (187)
(187)
Net (liabilities) assets$(4)
$

$(7)
$3
Net assets$(139)$3
$(142) $(179)$8
$(187)
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)2016
 2015
Balance at beginning of period$3
 $(18)
Total pretax realized or unrealized gains (losses) included in earnings
 21
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:   
Purchases5
 5
Settlements(5) (5)
Total gains included on the Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory assets or liabilities2
 
Balance at end of period$5
 $3
 Derivatives (net)
 Year Ended Two Months Ended Year Ended
(in millions)December 31, 2017
 December 31, 2016
 October 31, 2016
Balance at beginning of period$(187) $(188) $
Total gains (losses) and settlements45
 1
 (188)
Balance at end of period$(142) $(187) $(188)
DUKE ENERGY INDIANAQUANTITATIVE INFORMATION ABOUT UNOBSERVABLE INPUTS
The following tables provide recorded balances for assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis oninclude quantitative information about 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.Duke Energy Registrants' derivatives classified as Level 3.
 December 31, 2016
(in millions)Total Fair Value
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Other available-for-sale equity securities$79
$79
$
$
Other available-for-sale debt securities and other31

31

Derivative assets16


16
Total assets126
79
31
16
Derivative liabilities(2)(2)

Net assets$124
$77
$31
$16
 December 31, 2017
 Fair Value     
Investment Type(in millions)Valuation TechniqueUnobservable InputRange
Duke Energy Ohio      
FTRs$1
RTO auction pricingFTR price – per MWh$0.07
$1.41
Duke Energy Indiana      
FTRs27
RTO auction pricingFTR price – per MWh(0.77)7.44
Piedmont      
Natural gas contracts(142)Discounted cash flowForward natural gas curves - price per MMBtu2.10
2.88
Duke Energy      
Total Level 3 derivatives$(114)     
 December 31, 2015
(in millions)Total Fair Value
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Other available-for-sale equity securities$71
$71
$
$
Other available-for-sale debt securities and other30
2
28

Derivative assets7


7
Net assets$108
$73
$28
$7
 December 31, 2016
 Fair Value     
Investment Type(in millions)Valuation TechniqueUnobservable InputRange
Duke Energy Ohio      
FTRs$5
RTO auction pricingFTR price – per MWh0.77
3.52
Duke Energy Indiana      
FTRs16
RTO auction pricingFTR price – per MWh(0.83)9.32
Piedmont      
Natural gas contracts(187)Discounted cash flowForward natural gas curves - price per MMBtu2.31
4.18
Duke Energy      
Total Level 3 derivatives$(166)     

212

PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION – DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC – PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, LLC – DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. – DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, LLCLLC– PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS COMPANY, 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)2016
 2015
Balance at beginning of period$7
 $14
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:   
Purchases29
 19
Settlements(24) (30)
Total gains included on the Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory assets or liabilities4
 4
Balance at end of period$16
 $7
QUANTITATIVE INFORMATION ABOUT UNOBSERVABLE INPUTS
The following table includes quantitative information about the Duke Energy Registrants' derivatives classified as Level 3.
 December 31, 2016
 Fair Value     
Investment Type(in millions)Valuation TechniqueUnobservable InputRange
Duke Energy      
Natural gas contracts$(187)Discounted cash flowForward natural gas curves - price per million British thermal unit (MMBtu)$2.31
-$4.18
Financial Transmission Rights (FTRs)21
RTO auction pricingFTR price – per megawatt-hour (MWh)(0.83)-9.32
Total Level 3 derivatives$(166)     
Duke Energy Ohio$5
RTO auction pricingFTR price – per MWh$0.77
-$3.52
Duke Energy Indiana16
RTO auction pricingFTR price – per MWh(0.83)-9.32
 December 31, 2015
 Fair Value     
Investment Type(in millions)Valuation TechniqueUnobservable InputRange
Duke Energy$10
RTO auction pricingFTR price – per MWh$(0.74)-$7.29
Duke Energy Ohio3
RTO auction pricingFTR price – per MWh0.67
-2.53
Duke Energy Indiana7
RTO auction pricingFTR price – per MWh(0.74)-7.29
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, 2016 December 31, 2015December 31, 2017 December 31, 2016
(in millions)Book Value
 Fair Value
 Book Value
 Fair Value
Book Value
 Fair Value
 Book Value
 Fair Value
Duke Energy$47,895
 $49,161
 $38,868
 $41,767
$52,279
 $55,331
 $47,895
 $49,161
Duke Energy Carolinas9,603
 10,494
 8,367
 9,156
10,103
 11,372
 9,603
 10,494
Progress Energy17,541
 19,107
 14,464
 15,856
17,837
 20,000
 17,541
 19,107
Duke Energy Progress7,011
 7,357
 6,518
 6,757
7,357
 7,992
 7,011
 7,357
Duke Energy Florida6,125
 6,728
 4,266
 4,908
7,095
 7,953
 6,125
 6,728
Duke Energy Ohio1,884
 2,020
 1,598
 1,724
2,067
 2,249
 1,884
 2,020
Duke Energy Indiana3,786
 4,260
 3,768
 4,219
3,783
 4,464
 3,786
 4,260
Piedmont2,037
 2,209
 1,821
 1,933
At both December 31, 20162017, and December 31, 2015,2016, fair value of cash and cash equivalents, accounts and notes receivable, accounts payable, notes payable and commercial paper and non-recoursenonrecourse notes payable of VIEs 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.

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

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 activities of the VIE that most significantly impact its economic performance and (ii) what party has rights to receive benefits or is obligated to absorb losses that could potentially be significant to the VIE. The analysis of the party that consolidates a VIE is a continual reassessment.
CONSOLIDATED VIEs
The obligations of these VIEs discussed in the following paragraphs are nonrecourse to the Duke Energy Registrants. The registrants have no requirement to provide liquidity to, purchase assets of or guarantee performance of these VIEs unless noted in the following paragraphs.
No financial support was provided to any of the consolidated VIEs during the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 2015 and 2014,2015, or is expected to be provided in the future, that was not previously contractually required.
Receivables Financing – DERF/DEPR/DEFR
Duke Energy Receivables Finance Company, LLC (DERF), Duke Energy Progress Receivables, LLC (DEPR) and Duke Energy Florida Receivables, LLC (DEFR) are bankruptcy remote, special purpose subsidiaries of Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida, respectively. DERF, DEPR and DEFR are wholly owned limited liability companies with separate legal existence from their parent companies and their assets are not generally available to creditors of their parent companies. On a revolving basis, DERF, DEPR and DEFR buy certain accounts receivable arising from the sale of electricity and related services from their parent companies.
DERF, DEPR and DEFR borrow amounts under credit facilities to buy these receivables. Borrowing availability from the credit facilities is limited to the amount of qualified receivables purchased. The sole source of funds to satisfy the related debt obligations is cash collections from the receivables. Amounts borrowed under the credit facilities are reflected on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as Long-Term Debt.
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.
Receivables Financing – CRC
CRC is a bankruptcy remote, special purpose entity indirectly owned by Duke Energy. On a revolving basis, CRC buys certain accounts receivable arising from the sale of electricity, natural gas and related services from Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana. CRC borrows amounts under a credit facility to buy the receivables from Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana. Borrowing availability from the credit facility is limited to the amount of qualified receivables sold to CRC. The sole source of funds to satisfy the related debt obligation is cash collections from the receivables. Amounts borrowed under the credit facility are reflected on Duke Energy's Consolidated Balance Sheets as Long-Term Debt.
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. Depending on collection experience, additional equity infusions to CRC may be required by Duke Energy to maintain a minimum equity balance of $3 million.

213

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

CRC is considered a VIE because (i) equity capitalization is insufficient to support its operations, (ii) power to direct the activities that most significantly impact the economic performance of the entity are not performed by the equity holder and (iii) deficiencies in net worth of CRC are funded by Duke Energy. The most significant activities that impact the economic performance of CRC are decisions made to manage delinquent receivables. Duke Energy consolidates CRC as it makes these decisions. Neither Duke Energy Ohio nor Duke Energy Indiana consolidate CRC.
Receivables Financing – Credit Facilities
The following table outlines amounts and expiration dates of the credit facilities described above.
Duke EnergyDuke Energy
  Duke Energy
 Duke Energy
 Duke Energy
  Duke Energy
 Duke Energy
 Duke Energy
  Carolinas
 Progress
 Florida
  Carolinas
 Progress
 Florida
CRC
 DERF
 DEPR
 DEFR
CRC
 DERF
 DEPR
 DEFR
Expiration dateDecember 2018
 December 2018
 February 2019
 April 2019
December 2020
 December 2020
 February 2019
 April 2019
Credit facility amount (in millions)$325
 $425
 $300
 $225
$325
 $450
 $300
 $225
Amounts borrowed at December 31, 2017325
 450
 300
 225
Amounts borrowed at December 31, 2016325
 425
 300
 225
325
 425
 300
 225
Amounts borrowed at December 31, 2015325
 425
 254
 225
Nuclear Asset-Recovery Bonds – DEFPF
DEFPFDuke Energy Florida Project Finance, LLC (DEFPF) is a bankruptcy remote, wholly owned special purpose subsidiary of Duke Energy Florida. DEFPF was formed in 2016 for the sole purpose of issuing nuclear asset-recovery bonds to finance Duke Energy Florida's unrecovered regulatory asset related to Crystal River Unit 3.

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

In June 2016, DEFPF issued $1,294 million of senior secured bonds and used the proceeds to acquire nuclear asset-recovery property from Duke Energy Florida. The nuclear asset-recovery property acquired includes the right to impose, bill, collect and adjust a non-bypassable nuclear asset-recovery charge from all Duke Energy Florida retail customers until the bonds are paid in full and all financing costs have been recovered. The nuclear asset-recovery bonds are secured by the nuclear asset-recovery property and cash collections from the nuclear asset-recovery charges are the sole source of funds to satisfy the debt obligation. The bondholders have no recourse to Duke Energy Florida. For additional information see Notes 4 and 6.
DEFPF is considered a VIE primarily because the equity capitalization is insufficient to support its operations. Duke Energy Florida has the power to direct the significant activities of the VIE as described above and therefore Duke Energy Florida is considered the primary beneficiary and consolidates DEFPF.
The following table summarizes the impact of DEFPF on Duke Energy Florida's Consolidated Balance Sheets.
(in millions)December 31, 2016
December 31, 2017
December 31, 2016
Receivables of VIEs$6
$4
$6
Regulatory Assets: Current50
51
50
Current Assets: Other53
40
53
Regulatory Assets and Deferred Debits: Regulatory assets1,142
Other Noncurrent Assets: Regulatory assets1,091
1,142
Current Liabilities: Other17
10
17
Current maturities of long-term debt62
53
62
Long-Term Debt1,217
1,164
1,217
Commercial Renewables
Certain 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. Assets are restricted and cannot be pledged as collateral or sold to third parties without prior approval of debt holders. The activities that most significantly impact the economic performance of these renewable energy facilities were decisions associated with siting, negotiating PPAs, engineering, procurement and construction and decisions associated with ongoing operations and maintenance-related activities. Duke Energy consolidates the entities as it is responsible for all of these decisions.
The table below presents material balances reported on Duke Energy's Consolidated Balance Sheets related to renewables VIEs.
(in millions)December 31, 2016
December 31, 2015
December 31, 2017
December 31, 2016
Current Assets: Other$223
$138
$174
$223
Property, plant and equipment, cost3,419
2,015
3,923
3,419
Accumulated depreciation and amortization(453)(321)(591)(453)
Current maturities of long-term debt198
108
170
198
Long-Term Debt1,097
968
1,700
1,097
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities: Deferred income taxes275
289
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities: Other252
33
Other Noncurrent Liabilities: Deferred income taxes(148)275
Other Noncurrent Liabilities: Other241
252
NON-CONSOLIDATED VIEs
The following tables summarize the impact of non-consolidated VIEs on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
 December 31, 2016
 Duke Energy    
         Duke
 Duke
 Pipeline
 Commercial
     Energy
 Energy
(in millions)Investments
 Renewables
 Other
 Total
 Ohio
 Indiana
Receivables from affiliated companies$
 $
 $
 $
 $82
 $101
Investments in equity method unconsolidated affiliates487
 174
 90
 751
 
 
Investments and other assets12
 
 
 12
 
 
Total assets$499
 $174
 $90
 $763
 $82
 $101
Other current liabilities
 
 3
 3
 
 
Deferred credits and other liabilities
 
 13
 13
 
 
Total liabilities$
 $
 $16
 $16
 $
 $
Net assets (liabilities)$499
 $174
 $74
 $747
 $82
 $101


214

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

NON-CONSOLIDATED VIEs
The following tables summarize the impact of non-consolidated VIEs on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
December 31, 2015
Duke Energy    
December 31, 2017
        Duke
 Duke
Duke Energy Duke
 Duke
Pipeline
 Commercial
     Energy
 Energy
Pipeline
 Commercial
 Other
   Energy
 Energy
(in millions)Investments
 Renewables
 Other
 Total
 Ohio
 Indiana
Investments
 Renewables
 
VIEs(a) 

 Total
 Ohio
 Indiana
Receivables from affiliated companies$
 $
 $
 $
 $47
 $60
$
 $
 $
 $
 $87
 $106
Investments in equity method unconsolidated affiliates113
 235
 39
 387
 

 
697
 180
 42
 919
 
 
Other noncurrent assets17
 
 
 17
 
 
Total assets$113
 $235
 $39
 $387
 $47
 $60
$714
 $180
 $42
 $936
 $87
 $106
Taxes accrued(29) 
 
 (29) 
 
Other current liabilities
 
 3
 3
 
 

 
 4
 4
 
 
Deferred credits and other liabilities
 
 14
 14
 
 
Deferred income taxes42
 
 
 42
 
 
Other noncurrent liabilities
 
 12
 12
 
 
Total liabilities$
 $
 $17
 $17
 $
 $
$13
 $
 $16
 $29
 $
 $
Net assets$113
 $235
 $22
 $370
 $47
 $60
$701
 $180
 $26
 $907
 $87
 $106
(a)Duke Energy holds a 50 percent equity interest in Duke-American Transmission Company, LLC (DATC). As of December 31, 2016, DATC was considered a VIE due to having insufficient equity to finance its own activities without subordinated financial support. However, DATC is no longer considered a VIE based on sufficient equity to finance its own activities, and, therefore, is no longer considered a VIE as of December 31, 2017. Duke Energy's investment in DATC was $46 million at December 31, 2017.
 December 31, 2016  
 Duke Energy Duke
 Duke
  
 Pipeline
 Commercial
     Energy
 Energy
  
(in millions)Investments
 Renewables
 Other
 Total
 Ohio
 Indiana
 
Piedmont (a)

Receivables from affiliated companies$
 $
 $
 $
 $82
 $101
 $
Investments in equity method unconsolidated affiliates487
 174
 90
 751
 
 
 139
Other noncurrent assets12
 
 
 12
 
 
 
Total assets$499
 $174
 $90
 $763
 $82
 $101
 $139
Other current liabilities
 
 3
 3
 
 
 
Other noncurrent liabilities
 
 13
 13
 
 
 4
Total liabilities$
 $
 $16
 $16
 $
 $
 $4
Net assets$499
 $174
 $74
 $747
 $82
 $101
 $135
(a)In April 2017, Piedmont transferred its non-consolidated VIE investments to a wholly owned subsidiary of Duke Energy. See Note 12 and the "Pipeline Investments" section below for additional detail.
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 otherOther noncurrent liabilities. For more information on various guarantees, refer to Note 7.
Pipeline Investments
Duke Energy has investments in various joint ventures with pipeline projects currently under construction. These entities are considered VIEs due to having insufficient equity to finance their own activities without subordinated financial support. Duke Energy does not have the power to direct the activities that most significantly impact the economic performance, the obligation to absorb losses or the right to receive benefits of these VIEs and therefore does not consolidate these entities.

215

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

The table below presents Duke Energy's ownership interest and investment balance in in these joint ventures.
  Investment Amount (in millions)  Investment Amount (in millions)
Ownership December 31, December 31,Ownership December 31, December 31,
Entity Name
Interest(a)
 2016 2015Interest 2017 2016
ACP47% $265
 $52
47% $397
 $265
Sabal Trail7.5% 140
 61
7.5% 219
 140
Constitution24% 82
 
24% 81
 82
Total  $487
 $113
  $697
 $487
(a)The percentages presented reflect Duke Energy's ownership interest as of December 31, 2016. The investment amount presented for ACP as of December 31, 2015, reflects 40 percent ownership interest prior to acquiring an additional 7 percent as a result of the Piedmont acquisition. See Notes 2 and 4 for additional information related to the Piedmont acquisition and increased ownership of ACP.
Commercial Renewables
Duke Energy has investments in various renewable energy project entities. Some of these entities are VIEs due to Duke Energy issuing guarantees for debt service and operations and maintenance reserves in support of debt financings. Duke Energy does not consolidate these VIEs because power to direct and control key activities is shared jointly by Duke Energy and other owners.
During the year ended December 31, 2016, Duke Energy recorded a $71 million pretax OTTI of certain wind project investments within Equity in earnings (losses) of unconsolidated affiliates on Duke Energy's Consolidated Statements of Operations. See Note 12 for additional information related to the OTTI.
Other
Duke Energy holds a 50 percent equity interest in DATC. DATC is considered a VIE due to having insufficient equity to finance their own activities without subordinated financial support. The activities that most significantly impact DATC's economic performance are decisions related to investing in existing and development of new transmission facilities. The power to direct these activities is jointly and equally shared by Duke Energy and the other joint venture partner, American Transmission Company, LLC, therefore Duke Energy does not consolidate DATC. VIEs
Duke Energy holds a 50 percent equity interest in Pioneer. Pioneer is considered a VIE due to having insufficient equity to finance their own activities without subordinated financial support. The activities that most significantly impact Pioneer's economic performance are decisions related to the development of new transmission facilities. The power to direct these activities is jointly and equally shared by Duke Energy and the other joint venture partner, American Electric Power, therefore Duke Energy does not consolidate Pioneer.

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

OVEC
Duke Energy Ohio’s 9 percent ownership interest in OVEC is considered a non-consolidated VIE due to having insufficient equity to finance their activities without subordinated financial support. As a counterparty to an inter-company power agreement (ICPA), Duke Energy Ohio has a contractual arrangement to buy power from OVEC’s power plants through June 2040 commensurate with its power participation ratio, which is equivalent to Duke Energy Ohio's ownership interest. Costs, including fuel, operating expenses, fixed costs, debt amortization, and interest expense are allocated to counterparties to the ICPA based on their power participation ratio. The value of the ICPA is subject to variability due to fluctuation in power prices and changes in OVEC's cost of business, including costs associated with its 2,256 MW of coal-fired generation capacity. Deterioration in the credit quality, or bankruptcy of one or more parties to the ICPA could increase the costs of OVEC. In addition, certain proposed environmental rulemaking could result in future increased cost allocations.
CRC
See discussion under Consolidated VIEs for additional information related to CRC.
Amounts included in Receivables from affiliated companies 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 OTTI has occurred.
Key assumptions used in estimating fair value are detailed in the following table.
Duke Energy Ohio Duke Energy IndianaDuke Energy Ohio Duke Energy Indiana
2016
 2015
 2016
 2015
2017
 2016
 2017
 2016
Anticipated credit loss ratio0.5% 0.6% 0.3% 0.3%0.5% 0.5% 0.3% 0.3%
Discount rate1.5% 1.2% 1.5% 1.2%2.1% 1.5% 2.1% 1.5%
Receivable turnover rate13.3% 12.9% 10.6% 10.6%13.5% 13.3% 10.7% 10.6%
The following table shows the gross and net receivables sold.
Duke Energy Ohio Duke Energy IndianaDuke Energy Ohio Duke Energy Indiana
(in millions)2016
 2015
 2016
 2015
2017
 2016
 2017
 2016
Receivables sold$267
 $233
 $306
 $260
$273
 $267
 $312
 $306
Less: Retained interests82
 47
 101
 60
87
 82
 106
 101
Net receivables sold$185
 $186
 $205
 $200
$186
 $185
 $206
 $205

216

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

The following table shows sales and cash flows related to receivables sold.
Duke Energy Ohio Duke Energy IndianaDuke Energy Ohio Duke Energy Indiana
Years Ended December 31, Years Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31, Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2016
 2015
 2014
 2016
 2015
 2014
2017
 2016
 2015
 2017
 2016
 2015
Sales                      
Receivables sold$1,926
 $1,963
 $2,246
 $2,635
 $2,627
 $2,913
$1,879
 $1,926
 $1,963
 $2,711
 $2,635
 $2,627
Loss recognized on sale9
 9
 11
 11
 11
 11
10
 9
 9
 12
 11
 11
Cash Flows                      
Cash proceeds from receivables sold1,882
 1,995
 2,261
 2,583
 2,670
 2,932
1,865
 1,882
 1,995
 2,694
 2,583
 2,670
Collection fees received1
 1
 1
 1
 1
 1
1
 1
 1
 1
 1
 1
Return received on retained interests2
 3
 4
 5
 5
 6
3
 2
 3
 7
 5
 5
Cash flows from the sales of receivables are reflected within Cash Flows From 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.

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

18. COMMON STOCK
Basic Earnings Per Share (EPS) is computed by dividing net income attributable to Duke Energy common stockholders, as adjusted for distributed and undistributed earnings allocated to participating securities, by the weighted average number of common stockshares outstanding during the period. Diluted EPS is computed by dividing net income attributable to Duke Energy common stockholders, as adjusted for distributed and undistributed earnings allocated to participating securities, by the diluted weighted average number of common stockshares outstanding during the period. Diluted EPS reflects the potential dilution that could occur if securities or other agreements to issue common stock,shares, such as stock options and equity forward sale agreements, were exercised or settled. Duke Energy’s participating securities are restricted stock units that are entitled to dividends declared on Duke Energy common stock during the restricted stock unit’s vesting periods.
The following table presents Duke Energy’s basic and diluted EPS calculations and reconciles the weighted average number of common stock outstanding to the diluted weighted average number of common stock outstanding.
Years Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
(in millions, except per share amounts)2016
 2015
 2014
2017
 2016
 2015
Income from continuing operations attributable to Duke Energy common stockholders excluding impact of participating securities$2,567
 $2,640
 $2,529
$3,059
 $2,567
 $2,640
Weighted average shares outstanding – basic691
 694
 707
700
 691
 694
Weighted average shares outstanding – diluted691
 694
 707
700
 691
 694
Earnings per share from continuing operations attributable to Duke Energy common stockholders          
Basic$3.71
 3.80
 3.58
$4.37
 $3.71
 $3.80
Diluted$3.71
 3.80
 3.58
$4.37
 $3.71
 $3.80
Potentially dilutive items excluded from the calculation(a)
2
 2
 2
2
 2
 2
Dividends declared per common share$3.36
 3.24
 3.15
$3.49
 $3.36
 $3.24
(a)Performance stock awards were not included in the dilutive securities calculation because the performance measures related to the awards had not been met.
Equity Distribution Agreement
On February 20, 2018, Duke Energy filed a prospectus supplement and executed an Equity Distribution Agreement (the EDA) under which it may sell up to $1 billion of its common stock through an at-the-market offering program, including an equity forward sales component. The EDA was entered into with Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC (the Agents). Under the terms of the EDA, Duke Energy may issue and sell, through either of the Agents, shares of common stock during the period ending September 23, 2019.
In addition to the issuance and sales of shares by Duke Energy through the Agents, Duke Energy may enter into Equity Forward Agreements with affiliates of the Agents as Forward Purchasers. There were no transactions under the EDA from the time of execution of the EDA to the filing of this document.

217

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

Stock Issuance
In March 2016, Duke Energy marketed an equity offering of 10.6 million shares of common stock. In lieu of issuing equity at the time of the offering, Duke Energy entered into Equity Forwards with Barclays. The Equity Forwards required Duke Energy to either physically settle the transactions by issuing 10.6 million shares, or net settle in whole or in part through the delivery or receipt of cash or shares.
On October 5, 2016, following the close of the Piedmont acquisition, Duke Energy physically settled the Equity Forwards in full by delivering 10.6 million shares of common stock in exchange for net cash proceeds of approximately $723 million. The net proceeds were used to finance a portion of the Piedmont acquisition. As a result of the acquisition, all of Piedmont's issued and outstanding stock became the issued and outstanding shares of a wholly owned subsidiary of Duke Energy. See Note 2 for additional information related to the Piedmont acquisition.
Accelerated Stock Repurchase Program
On April 6, 2015, Duke Energy entered into agreements with each of Goldman, Sachs & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (the Dealers) to repurchase a total of $1.5 billion of Duke Energy common stock under an accelerated stock repurchase program (the ASR). Duke Energy made payments of $750 million to each of the Dealers and was delivered 16.6 million shares, with a total fair value of $1.275 billion, which represented approximately 85 percent of the total number of shares of Duke Energy common stock expected to be repurchased under the ASR. The company recorded the $1.5 billion payment as a reduction to common stock as of April 6, 2015. In June 2015, the Dealers delivered 3.2 million additional shares to Duke Energy to complete the ASR. Approximately 19.8 million shares, in total, were delivered to Duke Energy and retired under the ASR at an average price of $75.75 per share. The final number of shares repurchased was based upon the average of the daily volume weighted average stock prices of Duke Energy’s common stock during the term of the program, less a discount.
19. SEVERANCE
As part of its strategic planning processes, launched in 2015, Duke Energy continued to implementimplemented targeted cost savings initiatives during 2016 and 2015 aimed at reducing operations and maintenance expense. The initiatives included efforts to reduce costs through the standardization of processes and systems, leveraging technology and workforce optimization throughout the company.
Also duringDuring 2016, Duke Energy and Piedmont announced severance plans covering certain eligible employees whose employment will be involuntarily terminated without cause as a result of Duke Energy's acquisition of Piedmont. These reductions continue to be implemented and are a part of the synergies expected to be realized with the acquisition. Refer to Note 2 for additional information on the Piedmont acquisition.

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

As part of the cost savingsSeverance benefit costs for initiatives and the Piedmont integration, voluntary and involuntary severance benefit costsplans discussed above were accrued for a total of approximately 100 employees in 2017, 600 employees in 2016 and 900 employees in 2015. The following table presents the direct and allocated severance and related expenses recorded by the Duke Energy Registrants. Amounts are included within Operation, maintenance and other on the Consolidated Statements of Operations.
 Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 
Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
 
(in millions)Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Piedmont(a)

Year Ended December 31, 2017$15
$2
$2
$1
$1
$
$1
$9
Year Ended December 31, 2016$118
$39
$40
$23
$17
$3
$7
118
39
40
23
17
3
7
 
Year Ended December 31, 2015142
93
36
28
8
2
6
142
93
36
28
8
2
6
 
(a)Piedmont severance benefit costs were $3 million for the two months ended December 31, 2016, and $19 million for the year ended October 31, 2016. Piedmont did not record any severance benefit costs for the year ended October 31, 2015.
The table below presents the severance liability for past and ongoing severance plans including the plans described above. Amounts for Duke Energy Indiana and Duke Energy Ohio are not material.
 Duke
 Duke
Duke
 Duke
 Duke
Duke
 
Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
 
(in millions)Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Piedmont
Balance at December 31, 2015$136
$78
$23
$19
$4
Balance at December 31, 2016$79
$13
$14
$6
$8
$20
Provision/Adjustments110
18
20
11
9
17
2



9
Cash Reductions(167)(83)(29)(24)(5)(77)(10)(12)(5)(8)(24)
Balance at December 31, 2016$79
$13
$14
$6
$8
Balance at December 31, 2017$19
$5
$2
$1
$
$5
20. STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION
The Duke Energy Corporation 2015 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the 2015 Plan) provides for the grant of stock-based compensation awards to employees and outside directors. The 2015 Plan reserves 10 million shares of common stock for issuance. 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 vest in the future. Duke Energy has not determined with certainty the amount of such new share issuances or open market repurchases.
The following table summarizes the total expense recognized by the Duke Energy Registrants, net of tax, for stock-based compensation.
 Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2016
 2015
 2014
Duke Energy$35
 $38
 $38
Duke Energy Carolinas12
 14
 12
Progress Energy12
 14
 14
Duke Energy Progress7
 9
 9
Duke Energy Florida5
 5
 5
Duke Energy Ohio2
 2
 5
Duke Energy Indiana3
 4
 3
Duke Energy's 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)2016
 2015
 2014
Restricted stock unit awards$36
 $38
 $39
Performance awards19
 23
 22
Pretax stock-based compensation cost$55
 $61
 $61
Tax benefit associated with stock-based compensation expense$20
 $23
 $23
Stock-based compensation costs capitalized2
 3
 4


218

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

The following table summarizes the total expense recognized by the Duke Energy Registrants, net of tax, for stock-based compensation.
 Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2017
 2016
 2015
Duke Energy$43
 $35
 $38
Duke Energy Carolinas15
 12
 14
Progress Energy16
 12
 14
Duke Energy Progress10
 7
 9
Duke Energy Florida6
 5
 5
Duke Energy Ohio3
 2
 2
Duke Energy Indiana4
 3
 4
Piedmont(a)
3
    
(a)    See discussion below for information on Piedmont's pre-merger stock-based compensation plans.
Duke Energy's 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)2017
 2016
 2015
Restricted stock unit awards$41
 $36
 $38
Performance awards27
 19
 23
Pretax stock-based compensation cost$68
 $55
 $61
Tax benefit associated with stock-based compensation expense$25
 $20
 $23
Stock-based compensation costs capitalized4
 2
 3
RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AWARDS
Restricted stock unit (RSU) awards generally vest over periods from immediate to three years. Fair value amounts are based on the market price of Duke Energy's common stock on the grant date. The following table includes information related to restricted stock unit awards.
Years Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
2016
 2015
 2014
2017
 2016
 2015
Shares awarded (in thousands)684
 524
 557
583
 684
 524
Fair value (in millions)$52
 $41
 $40
$47
 $52
 $41
The following table summarizes information about restricted stock unit awards outstanding.
  Weighted Average
  Weighted Average
Shares
 Grant Date Fair Value
Shares
 Grant Date Fair Value
(in thousands)
 (per share)
(in thousands)
 (per share)
Outstanding at December 31, 2015953
 $75
Piedmont transfers in113
 79
Outstanding at December 31, 20161,139
 $76
Granted684
 75
583
 80
Vested(525) 73
(553) 76
Forfeited(86) 76
(48) 78
Outstanding at December 31, 20161,139
 76
Outstanding at December 31, 20171,121
 78
Restricted stock unit awards expected to vest1,056
 76
1,094
 78
The total grant date fair value of shares vested during the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 and 2014 was $42 million, $38 million $41 million and $52$41 million, respectively. At December 31, 2016,2017, Duke Energy had $27$29 million of unrecognized compensation cost, which is expected to be recognized over a weighted average period of one year, tentwenty-three months.
PERFORMANCE AWARDS
Stock-based performance awards generally vest after three years if performance targets are met.

219

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

Performance awards granted in 2017, 2016 2015 and 20142015 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 are incorporated within the model.
For performance awards granted in 2016,2017, the model used a risk-free interest rate of 0.91.5 percent, which reflects the yield on three-year Treasury bonds as of the grant date, and an expected volatility of 16.117.2 percent based on Duke Energy's historical volatility over three years using daily stock prices. The
In addition to TSR, performance awards granted in 2017 and 2016 also contain a performance condition based on Duke Energy's cumulative adjusted EPS. Performance awards granted in 2017 also contain a performance condition based on the total incident case rate, one of our key employee safety metrics. The actual number of shares issued will range from zero to 200 percent of target shares depending on the level of performance achieved.
The following table includes information related to stock-based performance awards.
Years Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
2016
 2015
 2014
2017
 2016
 2015
Shares awarded (in thousands)675
 642
 542
Shares granted assuming target performance (in thousands)461
 338
 321
Fair value (in millions)$25
 $26
 $19
$37
 $25
 $26

The following table summarizes information about stock-based performance awards outstanding and assumes payout at the maximumtarget level.
  Weighted Average
  Weighted Average
Shares
 Grant Date Fair Value
Shares
 Grant Date Fair Value
(in thousands)
 (per share)
(in thousands)
 (per share)
Outstanding at December 31, 20151,697
 $40
Outstanding at December 31, 2016862
 $75
Granted675
 38
461
 81
Vested(544) 46
Forfeited(104) 38
(258) 69
Outstanding at December 31, 20161,724
 38
Outstanding at December 31, 20171,065
 79
Stock-based performance awards expected to vest1,199
 38
1,034
 79

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

No performance awards vested during the year ended December 31, 2017. The total grant date fair value of shares vested during the years ended December 31, 2016 2015 and 20142015 was $25 million $26 million and $27$26 million, respectively. At December 31, 2016,2017, Duke Energy had $24$34 million of unrecognized compensation cost, which is expected to be recognized over a weighted average period of one year, tentwenty-three months.
STOCK OPTIONS
Stock options, arewhen granted, withhave a maximum option term of 10 years and with an exercise price not less than the market price of Duke Energy's common stock on the grant date. The following table summarizes information aboutThere were no stock options outstanding.granted or exercised during the year ended December 31, 2017. There were no stock options outstanding at December 31, 2017.
   Weighted Average
 Stock Options
 Exercise Price
 (in thousands)
 (per share)
Outstanding at December 31, 2015103
 $69
Exercised(103) 69
Outstanding at December 31, 2016
 
The following table summarizes additional information related to stock options exercised and granted.
Years Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2016
 2015
 2014
2016
 2015
Intrinsic value of options exercised$1
 $5
 $6
$1
 $5
Tax benefit related to options exercised
 2
 2

 2
Cash received from options exercised7
 17
 25
7
 17
PIEDMONT
Prior to Duke Energy's acquisition of Piedmont, Piedmont had an incentive compensation plan that had a series of three-year performance and RSU awards for eligible officers and other participants. The Agreement and Plan of Merger (Merger Agreement) between Duke Energy and Piedmont provided for the conversion of the 2014-2016 and 2015-2017 performance awards and the nonvested 2016 RSU award into the right to receive $60 cash per share upon the close of the transaction. In December 2015, Piedmont's board of directors authorized the accelerated vesting, payment and taxation of the 2014-2016 and 2015-2017 performance awards, as well as the 2016 RSU award, at the election of the participant. Substantially all participants elected to accelerate the settlement of these awards. As a result of the settlement of these awards, 194 thousand shares of Piedmont shares were issued to participants, net of shares withheld for applicable federal and state income taxes, at a closing price of $56.85 and a fair value of $11 million. The 2016-2018 performance award cycle was approved subsequent to the Merger Agreement and was converted into a Duke Energy RSU award as discussed above at the consummation of the acquisition.

220

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

Piedmont's stock-based compensation costs and the tax benefit associated with stock-based compensation expense are included in the following table. Piedmont's stock-based compensation costs were not material for the two months ended December 31, 2016.
 Years Ended October 31,
(in millions)2016
 2015
Pretax stock-based compensation cost$16
 $14
Tax benefit associated with stock-based compensation expense6
 4
Net of tax stock-based compensation cost$10
 $10
21. EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS
DEFINED BENEFIT RETIREMENT PLANS
Duke Energy or its affiliatesand certain subsidiaries maintain, and the Subsidiary Registrants participate in, qualified, non-contributory defined benefit retirement plans. The Duke Energy 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 or age and years of service and interest credits. Certain employees are covered under planseligible for benefits that use a final average earnings formula. Under these final average earnings formulas, a plan participant accumulates a retirement benefit equal to the sum of percentages of their (i) highest three-year, four-year, or five-year average earnings, (ii) highest three-year, four-year, or five-year average earnings in excess of covered compensation per year of participation (maximum of 35 years), (iii) highest three-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 whichthat cover certain executives. As of January 1, 2014, theThe qualified and non-qualified, non-contributory defined benefit plans are closed to new and rehired non-union and certain unionized employees. Piedmont employees hired or rehired after December 31, 2007, cannot participate in theparticipants.
Duke Energy approved plan amendments to restructure its qualified non-contributory defined benefit retirement plans, but areeffective January 1, 2018. The restructuring involved (i) the spin-off of the majority of inactive participants infrom two plans into a separate inactive plan and (ii) the Money Purchase Pension (MPP)merger of the active participant portions of such plans, along with a pension plan discussed below.acquired as part of the Piedmont transaction, into a single active plan. Benefits offered to the plan participants remain unchanged except that the Piedmont plan's final average earnings formula was frozen as of December 31, 2017, and affected participants were moved into the active plan's cash balance formula. Actuarial gains and losses associated with the Inactive Plan will be amortized over the remaining life expectancy of the inactive participants. The longer amortization period is expected to lower Duke Energy's 2018 pretax qualified pension plan expense by approximately $33 million.
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.
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.
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
  
(in millions)Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
 
Piedmont(a)

Anticipated Contributions:
  
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
Total anticipated 2018 contributions$148
 $46
 $45
 $25
 $20
 $
 $8
 $7
Contributions made January 2, 2018141
 46
 45
 25
 20
 
 8
 
Contributions to be made in 2018$7
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $7
Contributions Made:
  
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
2017$160
 $45
 $45
 $25
 $20
 $4
 $9
$19
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $4
 $
 $11
Contributions Made:
  
   
   
   
   
   
   
2016$155
 $43
 $43
 $24
 $20
 $5
 $9
155
 43
 43
 24
 20
 5
 9
 

2015302
 91
 83
 42
 40
 8
 19
302
 91
 83
 42
 40
 8
 19
 

2014
 
 
 
 
 
 
(a)Piedmont contributed $10 million to its U.S. qualified defined benefit pension plan during the two months ended December 31, 2016, and for each of the years ended October 31, 2016, and 2015, respectively.


221

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

QUALIFIED PENSION PLANS
Components of Net Periodic Pension Costs
Year Ended December 31, 2016Year Ended December 31, 2017
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
  
(in millions) Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
 Piedmont
Service cost $147
 $48
 $42
 $24
 $19
 $4
 $9
$159
 $48
 $45
 $26
 $19
 $4
 $9
 $10
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation 335
 86
 106
 49
 55
 19
 28
328
 79
 100
 47
 53
 18
 26
 14
Expected return on plan assets (519) (142) (168) (82) (84) (27) (42)(545) (142) (167) (82) (85) (27) (42) (24)
Amortization of actuarial loss 134
 33
 51
 23
 29
 4
 11
146
 31
 52
 23
 29
 5
 12
 11
Amortization of prior service credit(17) (8) (3) (2) (1) 
 (1)(24) (8) (3) (2) (1) (1) (2) (2)
Settlement charge3
 
 
 
 
 
 
12
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12
Other 8
 2
 3
 1
 1
 1
 1
8
 2
 2
 1
 1
 
 1
 1
Net periodic pension costs(a)(b)
$91

$19
 $31
 $13
 $19
 $1
 $6
$84

$10
 $29
 $13
 $16
 $(1) $4
 $22
Year Ended December 31, 2015Year Ended December 31, 2016
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
(in millions) Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Service cost $159
 $50
 $44
 $23
 $20
 $4
 $10
$147
 $48
 $42
 $24
 $19
 $4
 $9
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation 324
 83
 104
 48
 54
 18
 27
335
 86
 106
 49
 55
 19
 28
Expected return on plan assets (516) (139) (171) (79) (87) (26) (42)(519) (142) (168) (82) (84) (27) (42)
Amortization of actuarial loss 166
 39
 65
 33
 31
 7
 13
134
 33
 51
 23
 29
 4
 11
Amortization of prior service (credit) cost(15) (7) (3) (2) (1) 
 1
Amortization of prior service (credit)(17) (8) (3) (2) (1) 
 (1)
Settlement charge3
 
 
 
 
 
 
Other 8
 2
 3
 1
 1
 
 1
8
 2
 3
 1
 1
 1
 1
Net periodic pension costs(a)(b)
$126
 $28
 $42
 $24
 $18
 $3
 $10
$91
 $19
 $31
 $13
 $19
 $1
 $6
Year Ended December 31, 2014Year Ended December 31, 2015
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
(in millions) Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Service cost $135
 $41
 $40
 $21
 $20
 $4
 $9
$159
 $50
 $44
 $23
 $20
 $4
 $10
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation 344
 85
 112
 54
 57
 20
 29
324
 83
 104
 48
 54
 18
 27
Expected return on plan assets (511) (132) (173) (85) (85) (27) (41)(516) (139) (171) (79) (87) (26) (42)
Amortization of actuarial loss 150
 36
 68
 32
 32
 4
 13
166
 39
 65
 33
 31
 7
 13
Amortization of prior service credit (15) (8) (3) (2) (1) 
 
Amortization of prior service (credit) cost(15) (7) (3) (2) (1) 
 1
Other 8
 2
 3
 1
 1
 
 1
8
 2
 3
 1
 1
 
 1
Net periodic pension costs(a)(b)
$111
 $24
 $47
 $21
 $24
 $1
 $11
$126
 $28
 $42
 $24
 $18
 $3
 $10
(a)Duke Energy amounts exclude $7 million, $8 million $9 million and $10$9 million for the years ended December 2017, 2016 2015 and 2014,2015, respectively, of regulatory asset amortization resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.
(b)Duke Energy Ohio amounts exclude $4$3 million, $4 million and $5$4 million for the years ended December 2017, 2016 2015 and 2014,2015, respectively, of regulatory asset amortization resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

222

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

  Piedmont
 Two Months Ended Years Ended October 31,
(in millions)  
December 31, 2016 2016 2015
Service cost  $2
 $11
 $11
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation  2
 9
 12
Expected return on plan assets  (4) (24) (24)
Amortization of actuarial loss  2
 8
 9
Amortization of prior service credit(1) (2) (2)
Settlement charge3
 
 
Net periodic pension costs$4
 $2
 $6
Amounts Recognized in Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income and Regulatory Assets
Year Ended December 31, 2016Year Ended December 31, 2017
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
  
(in millions) Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
 Piedmont
Regulatory assets, net increase$214
 $4
 $34
 $18
 $16
 $2
 $9
Regulatory assets, net (decrease) increase$(212) $(70) $(49) $(37) $(11) $9
 $(19) $(64)
Accumulated other comprehensive loss (income)                            
Deferred income tax expense$4
 
 
 
 
 
 
$
 
 3
 
 
 
 
 
Prior year service credit arising during the year(2) 
 
 
 
 
 
Prior year service cost arising during the year1
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Amortization of prior year actuarial losses (7) 
 (1) 
 
 
 
(7) 
 (7) 
 
 
 
 
Net amount recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income $(5) $
 $(1) $
 $
 $
 $
$(6) $
 $(4) $
 $
 $
 $
 $
Year Ended December 31, 2015Year Ended December 31, 2016
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
(in millions) Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Regulatory assets, net increase (decrease)$173
 $65
 $18
 $14
 $4
 $14
 $11
Regulatory assets, net increase$214
 $4
 $34
 $18
 $16
 $2
 $9
Accumulated other comprehensive (income) loss   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
   
   
   
   
   
   
Deferred income tax expense$6
 $
 $5
 $
 $
 $
 $
$4
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
Actuarial losses arising during the year 4
 
 
 
 
 
 
Prior year service credit arising during the year 1
 
 
 
 
 
 
(2) 
 
 
 
 
 
Amortization of prior year actuarial losses (11) 
 (4) 
 
 
 
(7) 
 (1) 
 
 
 
Transfer with the Midwest Generation Disposal Group3
 
 
 
 
 
 
Reclassification of actuarial losses to regulatory assets (6) 
 
 
 
 
 
Net amount recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income $(3) $
 $1
 $
 $
 $
 $
$(5) $
 $(1) $
 $
 $
 $
Piedmont's regulatory asset net increase was $34 million, $35 million and $20 million for the two months ended December 31, 2016, and for the years ended October 31, 2016, and 2015, respectively.

223

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

Reconciliation of Funded Status to Net Amount Recognized
Year Ended December 31, 2016Year Ended December 31, 2017
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
  
(in millions) Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
 Piedmont
Change in Projected Benefit Obligation
  
                    
                    
Obligation at prior measurement date $7,727
 $1,995
 $2,451
 $1,143
 $1,276
 $453
 $649
$8,131
 $1,952
 $2,512
 $1,158
 $1,323
 $447
 $658
 $344
Obligation assumed from acquisition352
 
 
 
 
 
 
Service cost 147
 48
 42
 24
 19
 4
 9
159
 48
 45
 26
 19
 4
 9
 10
Interest cost 335
 86
 106
 49
 55
 19
 28
328
 79
 100
 47
 53
 18
 26
 14
Actuarial loss307
 46
 111
 52
 57
 13
 41
455
 68
 158
 57
 99
 35
 26
 38
Transfers
 14
 (3) (3) 
 (3) 

 27
 (32) (2) (15) 12
 
 
Plan amendments (52) (3) 
 
 
 (3) (15)(61) 
 
 
 
 

 
 (61)
Benefits paid (679) (234) (195) (107) (84) (36) (54)(537) (145) (146) (75) (69) (37) (50) (5)
Impact of settlements(6) 
 
 
 
 
 
Benefits paid - settlements(27) 
 
 
 
 
 
 (27)
Obligation at measurement date $8,131

$1,952

$2,512

$1,158

$1,323

$447

$658
$8,448

$2,029

$2,637

$1,211

$1,410

$479

$669
 $313
Accumulated Benefit Obligation at measurement date $8,006
 $1,952
 $2,479
 $1,158
 $1,290
 $436
 $649
$8,369
 $2,029
 $2,601
 $1,211
 $1,375
 $468
 $652
 $313
Change in Fair Value of Plan Assets
  
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
Plan assets at prior measurement date
$8,136
 $2,243
 $2,640
 $1,284
 $1,321
 $433
 $655
$8,531
 $2,225
 $2,675
 $1,290
 $1,352
 $428
 $657
 $346
Assets received from acquisition343
 
 
 
 
 
 
Employer contributions155
 43
 43
 24
 20
 5
 9
19
 
 
 
 
 4
 
 11
Actual return on plan assets 582
 159
 190
 92
 95
 29
 47
1,017
 265
 317
 153
 161
 51
 77
 43
Benefits paid (679) (234) (195) (107)
(84)
(36)
(54)(537) (145) (146) (75)
(69)
(37)
(50) (5)
Impact of settlements(6) 
 
 
 
 
 
Benefits paid - settlements

(27) 
 
 
 
 
 
 (27)
Transfers
 14
 (3) (3)


(3)


 27
 (32) (2)
(15)
12


 
Plan assets at measurement date $8,531
 $2,225
 $2,675
 $1,290
 $1,352
 $428
 $657
$9,003
 $2,372
 $2,814
 $1,366
 $1,429
 $458
 $684
 $368
Funded status of plan $400
 $273
 $163
 $132
 $29
 $(19) $(1)$555
 $343
 $177
 $155
 $19
 $(21) $15
 $55


224

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

Year Ended December 31, 2015Year Ended December 31, 2016
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
(in millions) Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Change in Projected Benefit Obligation
                                      
Obligation at prior measurement date $8,107
 $2,053
 $2,557
 $1,187
 $1,335
 $469
 $673
$7,727
 $1,995
 $2,451
 $1,143
 $1,276
 $453
 $649
Obligation transferred with Midwest Generation Disposal Group(83) 
 
 
 
 
 
Obligation assumed from acquisition352
 
 
 
 
 
 
Service cost 159
 50
 44
 23
 20
 4
 10
147
 48
 42
 24
 19
 4
 9
Interest cost 324
 83
 104
 48
 54
 18
 27
335
 86
 106
 49
 55
 19
 28
Actuarial gain(241) (53) (111) (46) (62) (9) (15)
Actuarial loss307
 46
 111
 52
 57
 13
 41
Transfers
 8
 4
 7
 (3) 8
 

 14
 (3) (3) 
 (3) 
Plan amendments (6) 
 
 
 
 
 (4)(52) (3) 
 
 
 (3) (15)
Benefits paid (533) (146) (147) (76) (68) (37) (42)(679) (234) (195) (107) (84) (36) (54)
Impact of settlements(6) 
 
 
 
 
 
Obligation at measurement date $7,727
 $1,995
 $2,451
 $1,143
 $1,276
 $453
 $649
$8,131
 $1,952
 $2,512
 $1,158
 $1,323
 $447
 $658
Accumulated Benefit Obligation at measurement date
$7,606
 $1,993
 $2,414
 $1,143
 $1,240
 $442
 $628
$8,006
 $1,952
 $2,479
 $1,158
 $1,290
 $436
 $649
Change in Fair Value of Plan Assets
               
   
   
   
   
   
   
Plan assets at prior measurement date $8,498
 $2,300
 $2,722
 $1,321
 $1,363
 $456
 $681
$8,136
 $2,243
 $2,640
 $1,284
 $1,321
 $433
 $655
Obligation transferred with Midwest Generation Disposal Group(81) 
 
 
 
 
 
Assets received from acquisition343
 
 
 
 
 
 
Employer contributions302
 91
 83
 42
 40
 8
 19
155
 43
 43
 24
 20
 5
 9
Actual return on plan assets (50) (10) (22) (10) (11) (2) (3)582
 159
 190
 92
 95
 29
 47
Benefits paid (533) (146) (147) (76) (68) (37) (42)(679) (234) (195) (107) (84) (36) (54)
Impact of settlements(6) 
 
 
 
 
 
Transfers
 8
 4
 7
 (3) 8
 

 14
 (3) (3) 
 (3) 
Plan assets at measurement date $8,136
 $2,243
 $2,640
 $1,284
 $1,321
 $433
 $655
$8,531
 $2,225
 $2,675
 $1,290
 $1,352
 $428
 $657
Funded status of plan $409
 $248
 $189
 $141
 $45
 $(20) $6
$400
 $273
 $163
 $132
 $29
 $(19) $(1)
  Piedmont
 Two Months Ended Years Ended
(in millions)  December 31, 2016  October 31, 2016
Change in Projected Benefit Obligation  
    
Obligation at prior measurement date  $352
 $312
Service cost  2
 11
Interest cost  2
 9
Actuarial gain(5) 34
Benefits paid  (1) (14)
Impact of settlements(6) 
Obligation at measurement date  $344
 $352
Accumulated Benefit Obligation at measurement date  
$289
 $296
Change in Fair Value of Plan Assets  
  
   
Plan assets at prior measurement date  $343
 $329
Employer contributions10
 10
Actual return on plan assets  
 18
Benefits paid  (1) (14)
Impact of settlements(6) 
Plan assets at measurement date  $346
 $343
Funded status of plan  $2
 $(9)

225

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

Amounts Recognized in the Consolidated Balance Sheets
December 31, 2016December 31, 2017
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
  
(in millions) Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
 Piedmont
Prefunded pension(a)
$518
 $273
 $225
 $132
 $91
 $6
 $
$680
 $343
 $245
 $155
 $87
 $8
 $16
 $55
Noncurrent pension liability(b)
$118
 $
 $62
 $
 $62
 $25
 $1
$125
 $
 $68
 $
 $68
 $29
 $1
 $
Net asset recognized $400

$273

$163

$132

$29

$(19)
$(1)
Net asset (liability) recognized $555

$343

$177

$155

$19

$(21)
$15
 $55
Regulatory assets $2,098
 $476
 $805
 $378
 $426
 $81
 $171
$1,886
 $406
 $756
 $341
 $415
 $90
 $152
 $73
Accumulated other comprehensive (income) loss   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
Deferred income tax asset $(41) $
 $(6) $
 $
 $
 $
Deferred income tax benefit$(41) $
 $(3) $
 $
 $
 $
 $
Prior service credit (6) 
 
 
 
 
 
(5) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net actuarial loss 123
 
 16
 
 
 
 
116
 
 9
 
 
 
 
 
Net amounts recognized in accumulated other comprehensive loss$76
 $
 $10
 $
 $
 $
 $
$70
 $
 $6
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
Amounts to be recognized in net periodic pension costs in the next year   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
Unrecognized net actuarial loss $147
 $31
 $52
 $23
 $29
 $5
 $8
$132
 $29
 $44
 $21
 $23
 $5
 $7
 $11
Unrecognized prior service credit
(24) (8) (3) (2) (1) 
 (2)(32) (8) (3) (2) (1) 
 (2) (9)
December 31, 2015December 31, 2016
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
  
(in millions) Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
 Piedmont
Prefunded pension(a)
$474
 $252
 $232
 $145
 $84
 $1
 $6
$518
 $273
 $225
 $132
 $91
 $6
 $
 3
Noncurrent pension liability(b)
$65
 $4
 $43
 $4
 $39
 $21
 $
$118
 $
 $62
 $
 $62
 $25
 $1
 
Net asset recognized $409
 $248
 $189
 $141
 $45
 $(20) $6
$400
 $273
 $163
 $132
 $29
 $(19) $(1) $3
Regulatory assets $1,884
 $472
 $771
 $360
 $410
 $79
 $162
$2,098
 $476
 $805
 $378
 $426
 $81
 $171
 $137
Accumulated other comprehensive (income) loss   
     
   
   
   
   
  
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
Deferred income tax asset $(45) $
 $(6) $
 $
 $
 $
Deferred income tax benefit$(41) $
 $(6) $
 $
 $
 $
 $
Prior service credit (4) 
 
 
 
 
 
(6) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net actuarial loss 130
 
 17
 
 
 
 
123
 
 16
 
 
 
 
 
Net amounts recognized in accumulated other comprehensive loss(c)
$81
 $
 $11
 $
 $
 $
 $
$76
 $
 $10
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
Amounts to be recognized in net periodic pension costs in the next year               
Unrecognized net actuarial loss$147
 $31
 $52
 $23
 $29
 $5
 $8
 $13
Unrecognized prior service credit$(24) $(8) $(3) $(2) $(1) $
 $(2) $(2)
(a)Included in Other within Investments and Other Noncurrent 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 $13 million as of December 31, 2015, net of tax, associated with a Brazilian retirement plan.

226

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

Information for Plans with Accumulated Benefit Obligation in Excess of Plan Assets
December 31, 2016December 31, 2017
  Duke
Duke
  Duke
Duke
Duke
Progress
Energy
Energy
Duke
Progress
Energy
Energy
(in millions) Energy
Energy
Florida
Ohio
Energy
Energy
Florida
Ohio
Projected benefit obligation $1,299
$665
$665
$311
$1,386
$718
$718
$337
Accumulated benefit obligation 1,239
633
633
299
1,326
683
683
326
Fair value of plan assets 1,182
604
604
286
1,260
650
650
308
December 31, 2015December 31, 2016
 Duke
Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Progress
Energy
Energy
Duke
Progress
Energy
Energy
(in millions) Energy
Energy
Florida
Ohio
Energy
Energy
Florida
Ohio
Projected benefit obligation $1,216
$611
$611
$307
$1,299
$665
$665
$311
Accumulated benefit obligation 1,158
575
575
298
1,239
633
633
299
Fair value of plan assets 1,151
574
574
289
1,182
604
604
286
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 rate with the market value of the bonds selected.
The average remaining service period of active covered employees is nine13 years for Duke Energy and Duke Energy Progress, 12 years for Duke Energy Carolinas, Progress Energy, Duke Energy Progress,and Duke Energy Florida, 14 years for Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana.Indiana, and nine years for Piedmont.
The following tables present the assumptions or range of assumptions used for pension benefit accounting.
 December 31, December 31,
 2016 2015 2014 2017 2016 2015
Benefit Obligations                              
Discount rate    4.10%   4.40%   4.10%   3.60%   4.10%   4.40%
Salary increase 4.00%-4.50% 4.00%-4.40% 4.00%-4.40% 3.50%4.00% 4.00%4.50% 4.00%4.40%
Net Periodic Benefit Cost                              
Discount rate    4.40%   4.10% 

 4.70%   4.10%   4.40% 

 4.10%
Salary increase
 4.00%-4.40% 4.00%-4.40% 4.00%-4.40% 4.00%4.50% 4.00%4.40% 4.00%4.40%
Expected long-term rate of return on plan assets  6.50%-6.75%   6.50% 

 6.75% 6.50%6.75% 6.50%6.75% 

 6.50%
Expected Benefit Payments
  Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
(in millions)  Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Years ending December 31,                
2017$585
$162
$159
$84
$74
$35
$49
2018595
171
159
83
75
33
49
2019613
177
164
86
76
33
48
2020632
186
171
90
79
34
47
2021637
181
175
92
81
35
48
2022 – 20263,099
867
890
455
425
161
219
  Piedmont
   Two Months Ended Years Ended October 31,
   December 31, 2016 2016 2015
Benefit Obligations         
Discount rate   4.10% 3.80% 4.34%
Salary increase 4.50% 4.05% 4.07%
Net Periodic Benefit Cost     
   
Discount rate   3.80% 4.34% 4.13%
Salary increase  
 4.05% 4.07% 3.68%
Expected long-term rate of return on plan assets   6.75% 7.25% 7.50%


227

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

Expected Benefit Payments
  Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 
 Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
 
(in millions)  Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Piedmont
Years ending December 31,                 
2018$642
$185
$161
$85
$75
$36
$47
$29
2019644
185
164
86
77
36
46
26
2020661
195
172
90
80
36
44
24
2021666
194
175
93
81
37
44
24
2022672
197
176
92
83
36
44
23
2023-20273,099
865
888
449
435
166
210
103
NON-QUALIFIED PENSION PLANS
Components of Net Periodic Pension Costs
  Year Ended December 31, 2017
  Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 
 Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
 
(in millions)  Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Piedmont
Service cost  $2
$1
$
$
$
$
$
$
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation  13
1
5
1
2



Amortization of actuarial loss  8

2
1
1



Amortization of prior service credit  (2)






Net periodic pension costs  $21
$2
$7
$2
$3
$
$
$
  Year Ended December 31, 2016
  Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
(in millions)  Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Service cost  $2
$
$
$
$
$
$
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation  14
1
5
1
2


Amortization of actuarial loss  8
1
1
1
1


Amortization of prior service credit  (1)





Net periodic pension costs  $23
$2
$6
$2
$3
$
$
  Year Ended December 31, 2015
  Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
(in millions)  Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Service cost  $3
$
$1
$
$
$
$
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation  13
1
4
1
2


Amortization of actuarial loss  6

2
1
2

1
Amortization of prior service credit  (1)
(1)



Net periodic pension costs  $21
$1
$6
$2
$4
$
$1
  Year Ended December 31, 2014
  Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
(in millions)  Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
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
$
$
  Piedmont
 Years Ended October 31,
(in millions)  
20162015
Amortization of prior service cost$
$1
Settlement charge1

Net periodic pension costs$1
$1

228

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

Amounts Recognized in Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income and Regulatory Assets and Liabilities
Year Ended December 31, 2016Year Ended December 31, 2017
 Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 
Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
 
(in millions) Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Piedmont
Regulatory assets, net (decrease) increase $(3)$(2)$2
$1
$1
$
$(1)$5
$(1)$3
$1
$2
$
$
$
Regulatory liabilities, net increase (decrease)$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Accumulated other comprehensive (income) loss   
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Deferred income tax benefit $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$(1)$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Prior service credit arising during the year(1)





Actuarial loss arising during the year 1






2







Net amount recognized in accumulated other comprehensive loss (income) $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Year Ended December 31, 2015Year Ended December 31, 2016
 Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
(in millions) Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Regulatory assets, net (decrease) increase $(13)$2
$(16)$(1)$(15)$
$(1)$(3)$(2)$2
$1
$1
$
$(1)
Accumulated other comprehensive (income) loss   
Deferred income tax benefit $(7)$
$(5)$
$
$
$
Amortization of prior service credit1






Prior service credit arising during the year$(1)$
$
$
$
$
$
Actuarial gains arising during the year 17

13




1






Net amount recognized in accumulated other comprehensive loss (income) $11
$
$8
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Reconciliation of Funded Status to Net Amount Recognized
  Year Ended December 31, 2017
  Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 
 Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
 
(in millions)  Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Piedmont
Change in Projected Benefit Obligation  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Obligation at prior measurement date  $332
$14
$114
$33
$46
$4
$3
$4
Service cost  2
1






Interest cost  13
1
5
1
2



Actuarial losses (gains)15

5
4
2



Benefits paid  (31)(2)(8)(3)(3)


Obligation at measurement date  $331
$14
$116
$35
$47
$4
$3
$4
Accumulated Benefit Obligation at measurement date  
$331
$14
$116
$35
$47
$4
$3
$4
Change in Fair Value of Plan Assets  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Benefits paid  $(31)$(2)$(8)$(3)$(3)$
$
$
Employer contributions  31
2
8
3
3



Plan assets at measurement date  $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

229

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

Reconciliation of Funded Status to Net Amount Recognized
Year Ended December 31, 2016Year Ended December 31, 2016
 Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
(in millions) Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Change in Projected Benefit Obligation
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
    
  
  
  
  
  
Obligation at prior measurement date $341
$16
$112
$33
$46
$4
$5
$341
$16
$112
$33
$46
$4
$5
Obligation assumed from acquisition5






5






Service cost ��2






Service cost 2






Interest cost 14
1
5
1
2


14
1
5
1
2


Actuarial losses (gains)4
(1)5
2
1

(2)4
(1)5
2
1

(2)
Plan amendments(2)





(2)




 
Benefits paid (32)(2)(8)(3)(3)

(32)(2)(8)(3)(3)

Obligation at measurement date $332
$14
$114
$33
$46
$4
$3
$332
$14
$114
$33
$46
$4
$3
Accumulated Benefit Obligation at measurement date
$332
$14
$114
$33
$46
$4
$3
$332
$14
$114
$33
$46
$4
$3
Change in Fair Value of Plan Assets
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Benefits paid $(32)$(2)$(8)$(3)$(3)$
$
$(32)$(2)$(8)$(3)$(3)

Employer contributions 32
2
8
3
3


32
2
8
3
3


Plan assets at measurement date $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Year Ended December 31, 2015
 Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
Piedmont
Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
Two Months Ended Years Ended
(in millions) Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
December 31, 2016  October 31, 2016
Change in Projected Benefit Obligation
    
  
  
  
  
  
    
Obligation at prior measurement date $337
$16
$116
$35
$61
$4
$5
$5
 $6
Service cost 3

1




Interest cost 13
1
4
1
2


Actuarial losses (gains)10
1
(1)
(14)

Transfers 4






Benefits paid (26)(2)(8)(3)(3)

Actuarial gain(1) 
Impact of settlements
 (1)
Obligation at measurement date $341
$16
$112
$33
$46
$4
$5
$4
 $5
Accumulated Benefit Obligation at measurement date $336
$16
$112
$33
$46
$4
$5
$
 $5
Change in Fair Value of Plan Assets   
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
Plan assets at prior measurement date






$
 $1
Benefits paid (26)(2)(8)(3)(3)

Employer contributions 26
2
8
3
3


Impact of settlements
 (1)
Plan assets at measurement date $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
 $


230

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

Amounts Recognized in the Consolidated Balance Sheets
December 31, 2016December 31, 2017
 Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 
Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
 
(in millions) Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Piedmont
Current pension liability(a)
$28
$2
$8
$2
$3
$
$
$23
$2
$8
$3
$3
$
$
$
Noncurrent pension liability(b)
304
12
106
31
43
4
3
308
12
108
32
44
4
3
4
Total accrued pension liability $332
$14
$114
$33
$46
$4
$3
$331
$14
$116
$35
$47
$4
$3
$4
Regulatory assets $73
$5
$18
$7
$11
$1
$
$78
$4
$21
$8
$13
$1
$
$1
Accumulated other comprehensive (income) loss    
  
  
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
  
  
  
Deferred income tax asset$(3)$
$(3)$
$
$
$
Deferred income tax benefit$(4)$
$(3)$
$
$
$
$
Prior service credit(1)





(1)






Net actuarial loss 10

9




12

9





Net amounts recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income$6
$
$6
$
$
$
$
Net amounts recognized in accumulated other comprehensive loss$7
$
$6
$
$
$
$
$
Amounts to be recognized in net periodic pension expense in the next year    
  
  
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
  
  
  
Unrecognized net actuarial loss $7
$
$2
$1
$1
$
$
$8
$
$2
$1
$1
$
$
$
Unrecognized prior service credit
(2)





(2)






December 31, 2015December 31, 2016
 Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 
Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
 
(in millions) Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Piedmont
Current pension liability(a)
$27
$2
$8
$3
$3
$
$
$28
$2
$8
$2
$3
$
$
$
Noncurrent pension liability(b)
314
14
104
30
43
4
5
304
12
106
31
43
4
3
4
Total accrued pension liability $341
$16
$112
$33
$46
$4
$5
$332
$14
$114
$33
$46
$4
$3
$4
Regulatory assets $76
$7
$16
$6
$10
$1
$1
$73
$5
$18
$7
$11
$1
$
$1
Accumulated other comprehensive (income) loss   
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Deferred income tax asset$(3)$
$(3)$
$
$
$
Deferred income tax benefit$(3)$
$(3)$
$
$
$
$
Prior service credit(1)






Net actuarial loss9

9




10

9





Net amounts recognized in accumulated other comprehensive loss $6
$
$6
$
$
$
$
$6
$
$6
$
$
$
$
$
Amounts to be recognized in net periodic pension expense in the next year 
Unrecognized net actuarial loss$7
$
$2
$1
$1
$
$
$
Unrecognized prior service credit$(2)$
$
$
$
$
$
$
(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, 2016
  Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
(in millions)  Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Projected benefit obligation  $332
$14
$114
$33
$46
$4
$3
Accumulated benefit obligation  332
14
114
33
46
4
3
  December 31, 2015
  Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
(in millions)  Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Projected benefit obligation  $341
$16
$112
$33
$46
$4
$5
Accumulated benefit obligation  336
16
112
33
46
4
5


231

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

Information for Plans with Accumulated Benefit Obligation in Excess of Plan Assets
  December 31, 2017
  Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 
 Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
 
(in millions)  Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Piedmont
Projected benefit obligation  $331
$14
$116
$35
$47
$4
$3
$4
Accumulated benefit obligation  331
14
116
35
47
4
3
4
  December 31, 2016
  Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 
 Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
 
(in millions)  Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Piedmont
Projected benefit obligation  $332
$14
$114
$33
$46
$4
$3
$4
Accumulated benefit obligation  332
14
114
33
46
4
3
4
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 rate with the market value of the bonds selected.
The average remaining service period of active covered employees is 1011 years for Duke Energy sevenand Duke Energy Progress, 14 years for Progress Energy, 15 years for Duke Energy Florida, eight years for Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio, and Duke Energy Indiana, 14and nine years for Progress Energy, 12 years for Duke Energy Progress and 15 years for Duke Energy Florida.
Piedmont. The following tables present the assumptions used for pension benefit accounting.
 December 31, December 31,
 2016
 2015
 2014
 2017 2016
 2015
Benefit Obligations
   
   
   
     
   
  ��
Discount rate  4.10% 4.40% 4.10% 

 3.60% 4.10% 4.40%
Salary increase  4.40% 4.40% 4.40% 3.50%4.00% 4.40% 4.40%
Net Periodic Benefit Cost
   
   
   
     
   
   
Discount rate  4.40% 4.10% 4.70%   4.10% 4.40% 4.10%
Salary increase
 4.40% 4.40% 4.40%   4.40% 4.40% 4.40%
  Piedmont
   Two Months Ended Years Ended October 31,
   December 31, 2016 2016 2015
Benefit Obligations         
Discount rate   4.10% 3.80% 3.85%
Net Periodic Benefit Cost     
   
Discount rate   3.80% 3.85% 3.69%

232

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

Expected Benefit Payments
 Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 
Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
 
(in millions) Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Piedmont
Years ending December 31,      
2017$29
$2
$8
$3
$3
$
$
201825
2
8
3
3


$23
$2
$8
$3
$3
$
$
$
201925
2
8
2
3


21
1
8
2
3



202024
2
8
2
3


21
1
8
2
3



202124
1
8
2
3


22
1
8
2
3



2021 - 2025111
5
36
11
15
1
1
202225
1
8
2
3



2023-2027117
6
36
11
15
1
1
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.copayments.
Duke Energy did not make any pre-funding contributions to its other post-retirement benefit plans during the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 2015 or 2014.2015.
Components of Net Periodic Other Post-Retirement Benefit Costs
  Year Ended December 31, 2017
   Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  
 Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
  
(in millions)  Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
 Piedmont
Service cost  $4
 $1
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $1
Interest cost on accumulated post-retirement benefit obligation  34
 8
 13
 7
 6
 1
 3
 1
Expected return on plan assets  (14) (8) 
 
 
 
 (1) (2)
Amortization of actuarial loss (gain)  10
 (2) 21
 12
 9
 (2) (1) 1
Amortization of prior service credit  (115) (10) (84) (54) (30) 
 (1) 
Curtailment credit (c)
$(30) $(4) $(16) $
 $(16) $(2) $(2) $
Net periodic post-retirement benefit costs(a)(b)
$(111) $(15) $(66) $(35) $(31) $(3) $(2) $1
  Year Ended December 31, 2016
   Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
(in millions)  Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Service cost  $3
 $1
 $1
 $
 $1
 $
 $
Interest cost on accumulated post-retirement benefit obligation  35
 8
 15
 8
 7
 1
 4
Expected return on plan assets  (12) (8) 
 
 
 
 (1)
Amortization of actuarial loss (gain)  6
 (3) 22
 13
 9
 (2) (1)
Amortization of prior service credit  (141) (14) (103) (68) (35) 
 (1)
Net periodic post-retirement benefit costs(a)(b)
$(109) $(16) $(65) $(47) $(18) $(1) $1

233

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

  Year Ended December 31, 2015
   Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
(in millions)  Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Service cost  $6
 $1
 $1
 $1
 $1
 $
 $1
Interest cost on accumulated post-retirement benefit obligation  36
 9
 15
 8
 7
 2
 4
Expected return on plan assets  (13) (8) 
 
 
 (1) (1)
Amortization of actuarial loss (gain)  16
 (2) 28
 18
 10
 (2) (2)
Amortization of prior service credit  (140) (14) (102) (68) (35) 
 
Net periodic post-retirement benefit costs(a)(b)
$(95) $(14) $(58) $(41) $(17) $(1) $2
  Year Ended December 31, 2014
   Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
(in millions)  Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 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(a)(b)
$(40) $(3) $(27) $(30) $4
 $
 $5
(a)Duke Energy amounts exclude $7 million, $8 million $10 million and $9$10 million for the years ended December 2017, 2016 2015 and 2014,2015, respectively, of regulatory asset amortization resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.
(b)Duke Energy Ohio amounts exclude $2 million, $3$2 million and $2$3 million for the years ended December 2017, 2016 2015 and 2014,2015, respectively, of regulatory asset amortization resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.
(c)Curtailment credit resulted from a reduction in average future service of plan participants due to a plan amendment.
  Piedmont
 Years Ended October 31,
(in millions)  
20162015
Service cost  $1
$1
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation  1
2
Expected return on plan assets  (2)(2)
Amortization of actuarial loss  1

Net periodic pension costs$1
$1

234

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

Amounts Recognized in Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income and Regulatory Assets and Liabilities
Year Ended December 31, 2016Year Ended December 31, 2017
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
  
(in millions) Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
 Piedmont
Regulatory assets, net increase (decrease)$53
 $
 $47
 $38
 $9
 $
 $(6)$71
 $
 $81
 $42
 $39
 $
 $(5) $(11)
Regulatory liabilities, net increase (decrease) $(114) $(22) $(51) $(25) $(26) $(2) $(12)$(27) $(2) $
 $
 $
 $(3) $(7) $
Accumulated other comprehensive (income) loss                             
Deferred income tax benefit $(2) $
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
$(1) $
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
Actuarial losses arising during the year 3
 
 
 
 
 
 
Amortization of prior year prior service credit 1
 
 1
 
 
 
 
3
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net amount recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income $2
 $
 $1
 $
 $
 $
 $
$2
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
Year Ended December 31, 2015Year Ended December 31, 2016
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
(in millions) Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Regulatory assets, net increase (decrease)$1
 $
 $1
 $
 $1
 $
 $(7)$53
 $
 $47
 $38
 $9
 $
 $(6)
Regulatory liabilities, net increase (decrease) $(92) $(8) $(71) $(36) $(35) $2
 $(8)$(114) $(22) $(51) $(25) $(26) $(2) $(12)
Accumulated other comprehensive (income) loss                           
Deferred income tax benefit $2
 $
 $(1) $
 $
 $
 $
$(2) $
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
Actuarial losses (gains) arising during the year (5) 
 2
 
 
 
 
Transfer with the Midwest Generation Disposal Group(3) 
 
 
 
 
 
Actuarial losses arising during the year 3
 
 
 
 
 
 
Amortization of prior year prior service credit 3
 
 (1) 
 
 
 
1
 
 1
 
 
 
 
Net amount recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income $(3) $
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
$2
 $
 $1
 $
 $
 $
 $
Piedmont's regulatory assets net decreased $1 million for the two months ended December 31, 2016, and increased $2 million and $1 million for the years ended October 31, 2016, and 2015, respectively.

235

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

Reconciliation of Funded Status to Accrued Other Post-Retirement Benefit Costs
Year Ended December 31, 2016Year Ended December 31, 2017
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
  
(in millions) Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
 Piedmont
Change in Projected Benefit Obligation
  
                    
                    
Accumulated post-retirement benefit obligation at prior measurement date $828
 $200
 $354
 $188
 $164
 $35
 $87
$868
 $201
 $357
 $191
 $164
 $32
 $83
 $39
Obligation assumed from acquisition39
 
 
 
 
 
 
Service cost 3
 1
 1
 
 1
 
 
4
 1
 
 
 
 
 
 1
Interest cost 35
 8
 15
 8
 7
 1
 4
34
 8
 13
 7
 6
 1
 3
 1
Plan participants' contributions 19
 3
 7
 4
 3
 1
 2
17
 3
 6
 3
 3
 1
 2
 
Actuarial (gains) losses33
 5
 16
 8
 8
 
 3
4
 (3) 4
 1
 3
 
 3
 1
Transfers
 1
 
 
 
 
 

 2
 (1) 
 (1) 1
 
 
Plan amendments (1) 
 
 
 
 (1) 
(28) (5) (3) (1) (2) (2) (2) (9)
Benefits paid (88) (17) (36) (17) (19) (4) (13)(86) (18) (34) (17) (17) (3) (11) (1)
Accumulated post-retirement benefit obligation at measurement date $868
 $201
 $357
 $191
 $164
 $32
 $83
$813
 $189
 $342
 $184
 $156
 $30
 $78
 $32
Change in Fair Value of Plan Assets
  
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
Plan assets at prior measurement date
$208
 $134
 $
 $
 $1
 $8
 $19
$244
 $137
 $1
 $
 $
 $7
 $22
 $29
Assets received from acquisition29
 
 
 
 
 
 
Actual return on plan assets 14
 8
 1
 
 
 1
 2
25
 15
 1
 
 
 2
 1
 3
Benefits paid (88) (17) (36) (17) (19) (4) (13)(86) (18) (34) (17) (17) (3) (11) (1)
Employer contributions 62
 9
 29
 13
 15
 1
 12
Employer contributions (reimbursements)25
 (4) 26
 14
 14
 
 (3) 
Plan participants' contributions 19
 3
 7

4

3

1

2
17
 3
 6

3

3

1

2
 
Plan assets at measurement date $244
 $137
 $1
 $
 $
 $7
 $22
$225
 $133
 $
 $
 $
 $7
 $11
 $31
Year Ended December 31, 2015Year Ended December 31, 2016
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
(in millions) Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Change in Projected Benefit Obligation
                                        
Accumulated post-retirement benefit obligation at prior measurement date $916
 $220
 $379
 $207
 $170
 $39
 $96
$828
 $200
 $354
 $188
 $164
 $35
 $87
Obligation assumed from acquisition39
 
 
 
 
 
 
Service cost 6
 1
 1
 1
 1
 
 1
3
 1
 1
 
 1
 
 
Interest cost 36
 9
 15
 8
 7
 2
 4
35
 8
 15
 8
 7
 1
 4
Plan participants' contributions 20
 4
 7
 4
 3
 1
 2
19
 3
 7
 4
 3
 1
 2
Actuarial (gains) losses(39) (18) (1) (13) 11
 (3) 1
33
 5
 16
 8
 8
 
 3
Transfers
 2
 
 
 
 
 

 1
 
 
 
 
 
Plan amendments (9) 
 
 
 
 (1) (4)(1) 
 
 
 
 (1) 
Benefits paid (100) (18) (47) (19) (28) (3) (13)(88) (17) (36) (17) (19) (4) (13)
Obligations transferred with the Midwest Generation Disposal Group(3) 
 
 
 
 
 
Accrued retiree drug subsidy 1
 
 
 
 
 
 
Accumulated post-retirement benefit obligation at measurement date $828
 $200
 $354
 $188
 $164
 $35
 $87
$868
 $201
 $357
 $191
 $164
 $32
 $83
Change in Fair Value of Plan Assets
  
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
   
   
   
   
   
   
Plan assets at prior measurement date $227
 $145
 $
 $(1) $
 $8
 $23
$208
 $134
 $
 $
 $1
 $8
 $19
Assets received from acquisition29
 
 
 
 
 
 
Actual return on plan assets (1) (1) 1
 1
 1
 
 (1)14
 8
 1
 
 
 1
 2
Benefits paid (100) (18) (47) (19) (28) (3) (13)(88) (17) (36) (17) (19) (4) (13)
Employer contributions 62
 4
 39
 15
 25
 2
 8
62
 9
 29
 13
 15
 1
 12
Plan participants' contributions 20
 4
 7
 4
 3
 1
 2
19
 3
 7
 4
 3
 1
 2
Plan assets at measurement date $208
 $134
 $
 $
 $1
 $8
 $19
$244
 $137
 $1
 $
 $
 $7
 $22


236

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

  Piedmont
 Two Months Ended Years Ended
(in millions)  December 31, 2016  October 31, 2016
Change in Projected Benefit Obligation  
    
Accumulated post-retirement benefit obligation at prior measurement date  $39
 $38
Service cost  
 1
Interest cost  
 1
Actuarial gain
 2
Benefits paid  
 (3)
Accumulated post-retirement benefit obligation at measurement date  $39
 $39
Change in Fair Value of Plan Assets  
  
   
Plan assets at prior measurement date  $29
 $28
Employer contributions
 3
Actual return on plan assets  
 1
Benefits paid  
 (3)
Plan assets at measurement date  $29
 $29

237

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

Amounts Recognized in the Consolidated Balance Sheets
December 31, 2016December 31, 2017
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
  
(in millions) Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
 Piedmont
Current post-retirement liability(a)
$38
 $
 $31
 $17
 $15
 $2
 $
$36
 $
 $29
 $15
 $14
 $2
 $
 $
Noncurrent post-retirement liability(b)
586
 64
 325
 174
 149
 23
 63
552
 56
 313
 169
 142
 21
 67
 1
Total accrued post-retirement liability $624
 $64
 $356
 $191
 $164
 $25
 $63
$588
 $56
 $342
 $184
 $156
 $23
 $67
 $1
Regulatory assets $54
 $
 $48
 $38
 $10
 $
 $51
$125
 $
 $129
 $80
 $49
 $
 $46
 $(4)
Regulatory liabilities $174
 $46
 $
 $
 $
 $19
 $71
$147
 $44
 $
 $
 $
 $16
 $64
 $
Accumulated other comprehensive (income) loss   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
Deferred income tax liability $5
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
Deferred income tax expense$4
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
Prior service credit (5) 
 
 
 
 
 
(2) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net actuarial gain (10) 
 
 
 
 
 
(10) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net amounts recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income $(10) $
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
$(8) $
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
Amounts to be recognized in net periodic pension expense in the next year   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
Unrecognized net actuarial loss (gain) $10
 $(2) $21
 $12
 $9
 $(2) $(6)
Unrecognized net actuarial loss $5
 $3
 $1
 $
 $1
 $
 $
 $
Unrecognized prior service credit(115) (10) (85) (55) (30) 
 (1)(19) (5) (7) (1) (6) (1) (1) (2)
December 31, 2015December 31, 2016
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
  
(in millions) Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
 Piedmont
Current post-retirement liability(a)
$37
 $
 $31
 $16
 $15
 $2
 $
$38
 $
 $31
 $17
 $15
 $2
 $
 $
Noncurrent post-retirement liability(b)
583
 66
 323
 172
 149
 25
 68
586
 64
 325
 174
 149
 23
 63
 10
Total accrued post-retirement liability $620
 $66
 $354
 $188
 $164
 $27
 $68
$624
 $64
 $356
 $191
 $164
 $25
 $63
 $10
Regulatory assets $1
 $
 $1
 $
 $1
 $
 $57
$54
 $
 $48
 $38
 $10
 $
 $51
 $7
Regulatory liabilities $288
 $68
 $51
 $25
 $26
 $21
 $83
$174
 $46
 $
 $
 $
 $19
 $71
 $
Accumulated other comprehensive (income) loss   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
Deferred income tax liability $7
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
Deferred income tax expense$5
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
Prior service credit (6) 
 (1) 
 
 
 
(5) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net actuarial gain (13) 
 
 
 
 
 
(10) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net amounts recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income $(12) $
 $(1) $
 $
 $
 $
$(10) $
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
 $
Amounts to be recognized in net periodic pension expense in the next year               
Unrecognized net actuarial loss (gain)$10
 $(2) $21
 $12
 $9
 $(2) $(6) $
Unrecognized prior service credit(115) (10) (85) (55) (30) 
 (1) 
(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.

238

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

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 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 nine years for Duke Energy, 11eight years for Duke Energy Carolinas, eightseven years for Duke Energy Ohio, nine years forFlorida, Duke Energy IndianaOhio, and Duke Energy Kentucky, sevenPiedmont, and six years for Progress Energy, and Duke Energy Progress, and eight years for Duke Energy Florida.Indiana.
The following tables present the assumptions used for other post-retirement benefits accounting.
   December 31,
   2017
 2016
 2015
Benefit Obligations  
   
   
   
Discount rate   3.60% 4.10% 4.40%
Net Periodic Benefit Cost  
   
   
   
Discount rate   4.10% 4.40% 4.10%
Expected long-term rate of return on plan assets   6.50% 6.50% 6.50%
Assumed tax rate   35% 35% 35%
  Piedmont
   Two Months Ended Years Ended October 31,
   December 31, 2016 2016 2015
Benefit Obligations         
Discount rate   4.10% 3.80% 4.38%
Net Periodic Benefit Cost     
   
Discount rate   3.80% 4.38% 4.03%
Expected long-term rate of return on plan assets   6.75% 7.25% 7.50%
Assumed Health Care Cost Trend Rate
  December 31,
  2017
 2016
Health care cost trend rate assumed for next year  7.00% 7.00%
Rate to which the cost trend is assumed to decline (the ultimate trend rate)  4.75% 4.75%
Year that rate reaches ultimate trend  2024
 2023
Sensitivity to Changes in Assumed Health Care Cost Trend Rates
  Year Ended December 31, 2017
  Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 
 Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
 
(in millions)  Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Piedmont
1-Percentage Point Increase  
          
     
Effect on total service and interest costs  $1
$
$1
$1
$
$
$
$
Effect on post-retirement benefit obligation  27
6
11
6
5
1
3
1
1-Percentage Point Decrease        
Effect on total service and interest costs  (1)






Effect on post-retirement benefit obligation  (24)(6)(10)(5)(5)(1)(2)(1)

239

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

The following tables present the assumptions used for other post-retirement benefits accounting.
   December 31,
   2016
 2015
 2014
Benefit Obligations  
   
   
   
Discount rate   4.10% 4.40% 4.10%
Net Periodic Benefit Cost  
   
   
   
Discount rate   4.40% 4.10% 4.70%
Expected long-term rate of return on plan assets   6.50% 6.50% 6.75%
Assumed tax rate   35% 35% 35%
Assumed Health Care Cost Trend Rate
  December 31,
  2016
 2015
Health care cost trend rate assumed for next year  7.00% 7.50%
Rate to which the cost trend is assumed to decline (the ultimate trend rate)  4.75% 4.75%
Year that rate reaches ultimate trend  2023
 2023
Sensitivity to Changes in Assumed Health Care Cost Trend Rates
  Year Ended December 31, 2016
  Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
(in millions)  Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
1-Percentage Point Increase  
          
    
Effect on total service and interest costs  $1
$
$1
$1
$
$
$
Effect on post-retirement benefit obligation  29
7
12
6
5
1
3
1-Percentage Point Decrease       
Effect on total service and interest costs  (1)
(1)(1)


Effect on post-retirement benefit obligation  (25)(6)(10)(6)(5)(1)(2)
Expected Benefit Payments
 Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 
Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
 
(in millions) Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Piedmont
Years ending December 31,    
      
   
2017$85
$18
$32
$17
$15
$4
$10
201881
18
31
16
15
3
9
$78
$17
$30
$16
$14
$3
$9
$2
201978
18
31
16
14
3
9
76
17
29
15
14
3
9
2
202075
18
30
16
14
3
8
73
17
29
15
14
3
8
2
202172
18
29
15
13
3
7
71
17
28
15
13
3
7
3
2021 – 2025310
76
126
67
58
12
31
202268
17
27
14
13
3
7
3
2023 – 2027290
70
117
63
54
12
29
13
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. Piedmont also has qualifiedQualified pension (Piedmont Pension Assets) and other post-retirement assets.assets related to Piedmont were transferred into the Duke Energy Master Retirement Trust during 2017. 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 (comprised of 401(h) accounts), as of December 31, 20162017, and 2015.2016. 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.

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

As of December 31, 2016,2017, Duke Energy assumes pension and other post-retirement plan assets will generate a long-term rate of return of 6.50 percent (6.75 percent for Piedmont Pension and OPEB Assets).percent. The expected long-term rate of return was developed using a weighted average calculation of expected returns based primarily on future expected returns across asset classes considering the use of active asset managers, where applicable. The asset allocation targets were set after considering the investment objective and the risk profile. Equity securities are held for their higher expected return.returns. Debt securities are primarily held to hedge the qualified pension plan liability. Hedge funds, real estate and other global securities are held for diversification. Investments within asset classes are 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 pension plans increase, the targeted allocation to fixed-income assets may be increased to better manage Duke Energy’s pension liability and reduce funded status volatility. Duke Energy regularly reviews its actual asset allocation and periodically rebalances its investments to the targeted allocation when considered appropriate.
The Duke Energy Master Retirement 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 Master Retirement Trust to earn additional income. Securities lending involves the loaning of securities to approved parties. In return for the loaned securities, the Duke Energy Master Retirement Trust receives collateral in the form of cash and securities as a safeguard against possible default of any borrower on the return of the loan under terms that permit the Duke Energy Master Retirement Trust to sell the securities. The Duke Energy Master Retirement 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 $156$195 million and $305$156 million at December 31, 20162017, and 2015,2016, respectively. Cash and securities obtained as collateral exceeded the fair value of the securities loaned at December 31, 20162017, and 2015,2016, respectively. Securities lending income earned by the Duke Energy Master Retirement Trust was immaterial for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 2015 and 2014,2015, 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.

240

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

The following table includes the target asset allocations by asset class at December 31, 20162017, and the actual asset allocations for the Duke Energy Master Retirement Trust.
   Actual Allocation at   Actual Allocation at
Target
 December 31,Target
 December 31,
Allocation(a)

 
2016(a)

 2015
Allocation
 2017
 
2016(a)

U.S. equity securities 10% 11% 11%10% 11% 11%
Non-U.S. equity securities 8% 8% 8%8% 8% 8%
Global equity securities 10% 10% 10%10% 10% 10%
Global private equity securities 3% 2% 2%3% 2% 2%
Debt securities 63% 63% 63%63% 63% 63%
Hedge funds 2% 2% 2%2% 2% 2%
Real estate and cash 2% 2% 2%2% 2% 2%
Other global securities 2% 2% 2%2% 2% 2%
Total 100% 100% 100%100% 100% 100%
(a)
Excludes Piedmont Pension Assets, which havehad a targeted asset allocation of 60 percent return-seeking and 40 percent liability hedging fixed-income. Actual asset allocations were 61 percent return-seeking and 39 percent liability hedging fixed-income at December 31, 2016.
Other post-retirement assets
Duke Energy's other post-retirement assets (OPEB Assets) are comprised of Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association (VEBA) trusts and mutual funds within a Piedmont 401(h) account (OPEB Assets exclude 401(h) accounts held within the Duke Energy Master Retirement Trust).Trust. Duke Energy's investment objective 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.  
The following table presents target and actual asset allocations for the OPEB AssetsVEBA trusts at December 31, 2016.2017.
     Actual Allocation at
 Target
 December 31,
  Allocation
 2016
 2015
U.S. equity securities  38% 39% 29%
Real estate2% 2% %
Debt securities  45% 37% 28%
Cash  15% 22% 43%
Total  100% 100% 100%

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

     Actual Allocation at
 Target
 December 31,
  Allocation
 2017
 2016
U.S. equity securities  32% 41% 39%
Non-US equity securities6% 8% %
Real estate2% 2% 2%
Debt securities  45% 36% 37%
Cash  15% 13% 22%
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 below are as follows:
Investments in equity securities
Investments in equity securities 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 the price of an institutional commingled fund is unpublished, it is not categorized in the fair value hierarchy, even though the funds are readily available at the fair value.
Investments in corporate debt securities and U.S. government 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 and are readily redeemable at the measurement date. 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.

241

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

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 at net asset value of units held at year end and are not readily redeemable at the measurement date. Investments in real estate limited partnerships are not categorized within the fair value hierarchy.
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, 2017
 Total Fair
       Not
(in millions)  Value
 Level 1
 Level 2
 Level 3
 
Categorized(b)

Equity securities  $2,823
 $1,976
 $
 $
 847
Corporate debt securities  4,694
 
 4,694
 
 
Short-term investment funds  246
 192
 54
 
 
Partnership interests  137
 
 
 
 137
Hedge funds  226
 
 
 
 226
Real estate limited partnerships  135
 
 
 
 135
U.S. government securities  762
 
 762
 
 
Guaranteed investment contracts  28
 
 
 28
 
Governments bonds – foreign  38
 
 38
 
 
Cash  6
 6
 
 
 
Government and commercial mortgage backed securities  2
 
 2
 
 
Net pending transactions and other investments  17
 15
 2
 
 
Total assets(a)
$9,114
 $2,189
 $5,552
 $28

$1,345
(a)Duke Energy Carolinas, Progress Energy, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Florida, Duke Energy Ohio, Duke Energy Indiana, and Piedmont were allocated approximately 27 percent, 30 percent, 15 percent, 15 percent, 5 percent, 8 percent, and 4 percent, respectively, of the Duke Energy Master Retirement Trust at December 31, 2017. Accordingly, all amounts included in the table above are allocable to the Subsidiary Registrants using these percentages.
(b)Certain investments that are measured at fair value using the net asset value per share practical expedient have not been categorized in the fair value hierarchy.

242

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

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 and Piedmont Pension Assets.
December 31, 2016December 31, 2016
Total Fair
       Not
Total Fair
       Not
(in millions) Value
 Level 1
 Level 2
 Level 3
 
Categorized(b)

Value
 Level 1
 Level 2
 Level 3
 
Categorized(b)

Equity securities $2,472
 $1,677
 $27
 $9
 759
$2,472
 $1,677
 $27
 $9
 759
Corporate debt securities 4,330
 8
 4,322
 
 
4,330
 8
 4,322
 
 
Short-term investment funds 476
 211
 265
 
 
476
 211
 265
 
 
Partnership interests 157
 
 
 
 157
157
 
 
 
 157
Hedge funds 232
 
 
 
 232
232
 
 
 
 232
Real estate limited partnerships 144
 17
 
 
 127
144
 17
 
 
 127
U.S. government securities 734
 
 734
 
 
734
 
 734
 
 
Guaranteed investment contracts 29
 
 
 29
 
29
 
 
 29
 
Governments bonds – foreign 32
 
 32
 
 
32
 
 32
 
 
Cash 17
 15
 2
 
 
17
 15
 2
 
 
Government and commercial mortgage backed securities
 
 
 
 
Net pending transactions and other investments 32
 1
 6
 
 25
32
 1
 6
 
 25
Total assets(a)
$8,655
 $1,929
 $5,388
 $38

$1,300
$8,655
 $1,929
 $5,388
 $38
 $1,300
(a)Duke Energy Carolinas, Progress Energy, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Florida, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana were allocated approximately 27 percent, 30 percent, 15 percent, 15 percent, 5 percent and 8 percent, respectively, of the Duke Energy Master Retirement Trust and PiedmontPiedmont's Pension assets at December 31, 2016. Accordingly, all amounts included in the table above are allocable to the Subsidiary Registrants using these percentages.
(b)Certain investments are not categorized. These investmentsthat are measured based onat fair value using the net asset value per share practical expedient have not been categorized in the fair value of the underlying investments but may not be readily redeemable at that fair value.hierarchy.
  December 31, 2015
 Total Fair
       Not
(in millions)  Value
 Level 1
 Level 2
 Level 3
 
Categorized(b)

Equity securities  $2,160
 $1,470
 $2
 $
 $688
Corporate debt securities  4,362
 
 4,362
 
 
Short-term investment funds  404
 192
 212
 
 
Partnership interests  185
 
 
 
 185
Hedge funds  210
 
 
 
 210
Real estate limited partnerships  118
 
 
 
 118
U.S. government securities  748
 
 748
 
 
Guaranteed investment contracts  31
 
 
 31
 
Governments bonds – foreign  34
 
 34
 
 
Cash  10
 10
 
 
 
Government and commercial mortgage backed securities  9
 
 9
 
 
Net pending transactions and other investments  (28) (36) 8
 
 
Total assets(a)
$8,243
 $1,636
 $5,375
 $31
 $1,201
(a)Duke Energy Carolinas, Progress Energy, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Florida, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana were allocated approximately 28 percent, 32 percent, 15 percent, 16 percent, 5 percent and 8 percent, respectively, of the Duke Energy Master Retirement Trust assets at December 31, 2015. Accordingly, all amounts included in the table above are allocable to the Subsidiary Registrants using these percentages.
(b)Certain investments are not categorized. These investments are measured based on the fair value of the underlying investments but may not be readily redeemable at that fair value.

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

The following table provides a reconciliation of beginning and ending balances of Duke Energy Master Retirement Trust qualified pension and other post-retirement assets and Piedmont Pension Assets at fair value on a recurring basis where the determination of fair value includes significant unobservable inputs (Level 3).
(in millions) 2016
 2015
2017
 2016
Balance at January 1 $31
 $34
$38
 $31
Combination of Piedmont Pension Assets9
 

 9
Sales (2) (2)(2) (2)
Total gains (losses) and other, net
 (1)1
 
Transfer of Level 3 assets to other classifications(9) 
Balance at December 31 $38
 $31
$28
 $38
Other post-retirement assets
The following tables provide the fair value measurement amounts for OPEB Assets.VEBA trust assets.
December 31, 2016December 31, 2017
Total Fair
      Total Fair
  
(in millions) Value
 Level 1
 Level 2
 Level 3
Value
 Level 2
Cash and cash equivalents $14
 
 $14
 
$8
 $8
Real estate1
 
 1
 
1
 1
Equity securities 26
 
 26
 
28
 28
Debt securities 25
 
 25
 
21
 21
Total assets $66
 
 $66
 
$58
 $58
December 31, 2015December 31, 2016
Total Fair
      Total Fair
  
(in millions) Value
 Level 1
 Level 2
 Level 3
Value
 Level 2
Cash and cash equivalents $18
 
 $18
 
$14
 $14
Real estate1
 1
Equity securities 12
 
 12
 
26
 26
Debt securities 12
 
 12
 
25
 25
Total assets $42
 
 $42
 
$66
 $66
 

243

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

EMPLOYEE SAVINGS PLANS
Retirement Savings Plan
Duke Energy or its affiliates sponsor, 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 of up to 6 percent of eligible pay per pay period (5 percent for Piedmont employees). 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 EPS.
As of January 1, 2014, for new and rehired non-union and certain unionized employees (excludes Piedmont employees until 2018 plan year, discussed below) 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.
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
  
(in millions) Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
 
Piedmont(a)

Years ended December 31,                                           
2017$179
 $61
 $53
 $37
 $16
 $3
 $9
 $7
2016$169
 $57
 $50
 $35
 $15
 $3
 $8
169
 57
 50
 35
 15
 3
 8
 
2015159
 54
 48
 34
 13
 3
 7
159
 54
 48
 34
 13
 3
 7
 
2014143
 47
 43
 30
 14
 3
 7

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

(a)Piedmont's pretax employer matching contributions were $1 million, $7 million and $7 million during the two months ended December 31, 2016 and for the years ended October 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.
Money Purchase Pension Plan
Piedmont sponsors the MPP plan, which is a defined contribution pension plan that allows employees to direct investments and assume risk of investment returns. Under the MPP plan, Piedmont annually deposits a percentage of each participant’s pay into an account of the MPP plan. This contribution equals 4 percent of the participant’s eligible compensation plus an additional 4 percent of eligible compensation above the Social Security wage base up to the IRS compensation limit. The participant is vested in MPP plan after three years of service. No contributions were made to the MPP plan during the threetwo months ended December 31, 2016. In January 2017, a $2.2Piedmont contributed $2 million contribution was made to the MPP plan.plan during each of the years ended December 31, 2017, October 31, 2016 and 2015. Effective December 31, 2017, the MPP Plan was merged into the Retirement Savings Plan and the money purchase plan formula was discontinued. Beginning with the 2018 plan year, the former MPP Plan participants are eligible to receive the additional employer contribution under the Retirement Savings Plan, discussed above.
22. INCOME TAXES
Tax Act
On December 22, 2017, President Trump signed the Tax Act into law. Among other provisions, the Tax Act lowers the corporate federal income tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent and eliminates bonus depreciation for regulated utilities, effective January 1, 2018. The Tax Act also could be amended or subject to technical correction, which could change the financial impacts that were recorded at December 31, 2017, or are expected to be recorded in future periods. The FERC and state utility commissions will determine the regulatory treatment of the impacts of the Tax Act for the Subsidiary Registrants. The Duke Energy Registrants’ future results of operations, financial condition and cash flows could be adversely impacted by the Tax Act, subsequent amendments or corrections or the actions of the FERC, state utility commissions or credit rating agencies related to the Tax Act. Duke Energy is reviewing orders to address the rate treatment of the Tax Act by each state utility commission in which the Subsidiary Registrants operate. See Note 4 for additional information. Beginning in January 2018, the Subsidiary Registrants will defer the estimated ongoing impacts of the Tax Act that are expected to be returned to customers.
As a result of the Tax Act, Duke Energy revalued its existing deferred tax assets and deferred tax liabilities as of December 31, 2017, to account for the estimated future impact of lower corporate tax rates on these deferred tax amounts. For Duke Energy's regulated operations, where the reduction in the net accumulated deferred income tax (ADIT) liability is expected to be returned to customers in future rates, the net remeasurement has been deferred as a regulatory liability. The regulatory liability for income taxes includes the effect of the reduction of the net deferred tax liability including the tax gross-up of the excess accumulated deferred tax liabilities and the effect of the new tax rate on the previous regulatory asset for income taxes. Excess accumulated deferred income taxes are generally classified as either “protected” or “unprotected” under IRS rules. Protected excess ADIT, resulting from accumulated tax depreciation of public utility property, are required to utilize the average rate assumption method under the IRS normalization rules for determining the timing of the return to customers. The majority of the excess ADIT is related to protected amounts associated with public utility property. See Note 4 for additional information on the Tax Act's impact to the regulatory asset and liability accounts.

244

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

On December 22, 2017, the SEC staff issued Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 118, Income Tax Accounting Implications of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (SAB 118), which provides guidance on accounting for the Tax Act’s impact. SAB 118 provides a measurement period, which in no case should extend beyond one year from the Tax Act enactment date, during which a company acting in good faith may complete the accounting for the impacts of the Tax Act under ASC Topic 740. In accordance with SAB 118, a company must reflect the income tax effects of the Tax Act in the reporting period in which the accounting under ASC Topic 740 is complete. To the extent that a company’s accounting for certain income tax effects of the Tax Act is incomplete, a company can determine a reasonable estimate for those effects and record a provisional estimate in the financial statements in the first reporting period in which a reasonable estimate can be determined.
Duke Energy recorded a provisional net tax benefit of $112 million related to the Tax Act in the period ending December 31, 2017. This net benefit primarily consists of a net benefit of $534 million due to the remeasurement of deferred tax accounts to reflect the corporate rate reduction impact to net deferred tax balances, a net expense for the establishment of a valuation allowance related to foreign tax credits of $406 million and a transition tax on previously untaxed earnings and profits on foreign subsidiaries of $10 million. The majority of Duke Energy’s operations are regulated and it is expected that the Subsidiary Registrants will ultimately pass on the savings associated with the amount representing the remeasurement of deferred tax balances related to regulated operations to customers. Duke Energy recorded a regulatory liability of $8,313 million, representing the revaluation of those deferred tax balances. The Subsidiary Registrants continue to respond to requests from regulators in various jurisdictions to determine the timing and magnitude of savings they will pass on to customers.
The net provisional charge from deferred tax remeasurement and assessment of valuation allowance is based on currently available information and interpretations which are continuing to evolve. Duke Energy continues to analyze additional information and guidance related to certain aspects of the Tax Act, such as limitations on the deductibility of interest and executive compensation, conformity or decoupling by state legislatures in response to the Tax Act, and the final determination of the net deferred tax liabilities subject to the remeasurement. The prospects of supplemental legislation or regulatory processes to address questions that arise because of the Tax Act, or evolving technical interpretations of the tax law, may also cause the final impact from the Tax Act to differ from the estimated amounts. Duke Energy continues to appropriately refine such amounts within the measurement period allowed by SAB 118, which will be completed no later than the fourth quarter of 2018.
Income Tax Expense
Components of Income Tax Expense
 Year Ended December 31, 2017
  Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 
 Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
 
(in millions)  
Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Piedmont
Current income taxes        
Federal$(247)$221
$(436)$(95)$(188)$(37)$128
$(90)
State4
20
(5)2
(11)2
21
(3)
Foreign3







Total current income taxes(240)241
(441)(93)(199)(35)149
(93)
Deferred income taxes        
Federal1,344
381
664
378
194
99
138
147
State102
35
44
10
51
(4)14
8
Total deferred income taxes(a) (b)
1,446
416
708
388
245
95
152
155
Investment tax credit amortization(10)(5)(3)(3)
(1)

Income tax expense from continuing operations1,196
652
264
292
46
59
301
62
Tax benefit from discontinued operations(6)






Total income tax expense included in Consolidated Statements of Operations$1,190
$652
$264
$292
$46
$59
$301
$62
(a)Includes utilization of NOL (Net operating loss) carryforwards and tax credit carryforwards of $428 million at Duke Energy, $74 million at Progress Energy, $36 million at Duke Energy Florida, $17 million at Duke Energy Ohio, $42 million at Duke Energy Indiana and $79 million at Piedmont. In addition the total deferred income taxes Includes benefits of NOL carryforwards and tax credit carryforwards of $10 million at Duke Energy Carolinas and $1 million at Duke Energy Progress.
(b)As a result of the Tax Act, Duke Energy's deferred tax assets and liabilities were revalued as of December 31, 2017. See the Statutory Rate Reconciliation section below for additional information on the Tax Act's impact on income tax expense.

245

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

 Year Ended December 31, 2016
  Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
(in millions)Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Current income taxes       
Federal$
$139
$15
$(59)$76
$(7)$7
State(15)25
(19)(25)22
(13)6
Foreign2






Total current income taxes(13)164
(4)(84)98
(20)13
Deferred income taxes       
Federal1,064
430
486
350
199
88
202
State117
45
50
40
25
11
11
Total deferred income taxes(a)
1,181
475
536
390
224
99
213
Investment tax credit amortization(12)(5)(5)(5)
(1)(1)
Income tax expense from continuing operations1,156
634
527
301
322
78
225
Tax (benefit) expense from discontinued operations(30)
1


(36)
Total income tax expense included in Consolidated Statements of Operations$1,126
$634
$528
$301
$322
$42
$225
(a)Includes benefits of net operating loss (NOL)NOL carryforwards and utilization of NOL and tax credit carryforwards of $648 million at Duke Energy, $4 million at Duke Energy Carolinas, $190 million at Progress Energy, $60 million at Duke Energy Progress, $49 million at Duke Energy Florida, $26 million at Duke Energy Ohio and $58 million at Duke Energy Indiana.
 Year Ended December 31, 2015
  Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
(in millions)  
Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Current income taxes       
Federal$
$216
$(193)$(56)$1
$(18)$(86)
State(12)14
1
(4)(7)(1)(12)
Foreign4






Total current income taxes(8)230
(192)(60)(6)(19)(98)
Deferred income taxes       
Federal1,097
345
694
334
290
96
245
State181
57
27
27
58
5
17
Total deferred income taxes(a)
1,278
402
721
361
348
101
262
Investment tax credit amortization(14)(5)(7)(7)
(1)(1)
Income tax expense from continuing operations1,256
627
522
294
342
81
163
Tax expense (benefit) from discontinued operations89

(1)

22

Total income tax expense included in Consolidated Statements of Operations$1,345
$627
$521
$294
$342
$103
$163
(a)Includes benefitsutilization of NOL carryforwards and utilization of NOL and tax credit carryforwards of $264 million at Duke Energy, $15 million at Duke Energy Carolinas, $119 million at Progress Energy, $21 million at Duke Energy Progress, $84 million at Duke Energy Florida, $3 million at Duke Energy Ohio and $45 million at Duke Energy Indiana.

246

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

Year Ended December 31, 2014
 Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
Piedmont
Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
Two Months Ended
Years Ended October 31,
(in millions)
Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
December 31, 201620162015
Current income taxes    
Federal $
$161
$(466)$(184)$(53)$(73)$(112)$4
$27
$(1)
State 56
51
(8)14
1
3
1
(2)12
1
Foreign 6






Total current income taxes 62
212
(474)(170)(52)(70)(111)2
39

Deferred income taxes    
Federal 1,144
407
938
436
350
113
294
24
79
78
State 35
(25)84
25
52
1
15
6
6
12
Total deferred income taxes(a)(b)
1,179
382
1,022
461
402
114
309
30
85
90
Investment tax credit amortization (16)(6)(8)(6)(1)(1)(1)
Income tax expense from continuing operations 1,225
588
540
285
349
43
197
Tax expense (benefit) from discontinued operations 149

(4)

(300)
Total income tax expense (benefit) included in Consolidated Statements of Operations $1,374
$588
$536
$285
$349
$(257)$197
Total income tax expense from continuing operations included in Consolidated Statements of Operations$32
$124
$90
(a)There were noIncludes benefits of NOL carryforwards.and tax carryforwards of $17 million and $91 million for the two months ended December 31, 2016, and the year ended October 31, 2016, respectively.
(b)Includes benefits and utilization of NOL carryforwards of $1,544$46 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.for the year ended October 31, 2015.
Duke Energy Income from Continuing Operations before Income Taxes
Years Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2016 2015 20142017 2016 2015
Domestic(a)$3,689
 $3,831
 $3,637
$4,207
 $3,689
 $3,831
Foreign45
 79
 126
59
 45
 79
Income from continuing operations before income taxes$3,734
 $3,910
 $3,763
$4,266
 $3,734
 $3,910
(a)Includes a $16 million expense in 2017 related to the Tax Act impact on equity earnings included within Equity in earnings (losses) of unconsolidated affiliates on the Consolidated Statement of Operations.
Taxes on Foreign Earnings
During 2014, Duke Energy declared a taxable dividend of foreign earnings in the form of notes payable that was expected to result in the repatriation of approximately $2.7 billion of cash held, and expected to be generated, by International businesses over a period of up to eight years. As a result of the decision to repatriate cumulative historical undistributed foreign earnings, Duke Energy recorded U.S. income tax expense of approximately $373 million in 2014. As of December 31, 2014, Duke Energy's intention was to indefinitely reinvest any future undistributed foreign earnings.
In February 2016, Duke Energy announced it had initiated a process to divest the International Disposal Group and, accordingly, no longer intended to indefinitely reinvest post-2014 undistributed foreign earnings. This change in the Company'scompany's intent, combined with the extension of bonus depreciation by Congress in late 2015, allowed Duke Energy to more efficiently utilize foreign tax credits and reduce U.S. deferred tax liabilities associated with the historical unremitted foreign earnings by approximately $95 million during the year ended December 31, 2016.
Due to the classification of the International Disposal Group as discontinued operations beginning in the fourth quarter of 2016, income tax amounts related to the International Disposal Group's foreign earnings are presented within (Loss) Income fromFrom Discontinued Operations, net of tax on the Consolidated Statements of Operations. In December 2016, Duke Energy closed on the sale of the International Disposal Group in two separate transactions to execute the divestiture. See Note 2 for additional information on the sale.

PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION – DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC – PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, LLC – DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. – DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, LLC
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, 2017
  Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 
 Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
 
(in millions)  
Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Piedmont
Income tax expense, computed at the statutory rate of 35 percent$1,493
$653
$536
$353
$265
$88
$229
$70
State income tax, net of federal income tax effect69
36
25
8
26
(1)23
3
AFUDC equity income(81)(37)(32)(17)(16)(4)(8)
Renewable energy production tax credits(132)






Tax Act(a)
(112)15
(246)(40)(226)(23)55
(12)
Tax true-up(52)(24)(19)(13)(7)(5)(6)
Other items, net11
9

1
4
4
8
1
Income tax expense from continuing operations$1,196
$652
$264
$292
$46
$59
$301
$62
Effective tax rate28.0%34.9%17.2%29.0%6.1%23.4%46.0%30.8%

247

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

(a)Amounts primarily include but are not limited to items that are excluded for ratemaking purposes related to abandoned or impaired assets, certain wholesale fixed rate contracts, remeasurement of nonregulated net deferred tax liabilities, Federal net operating losses, and valuation allowance on foreign tax credits.
 Year Ended December 31, 2016
  Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
(in millions)  
Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Income tax expense, computed at the statutory rate of 35 percent$1,307
$630
$548
$315
$306
$95
$212
State income tax, net of federal income tax effect64
46
20
10
30
(2)11
AFUDC equity income(70)(36)(26)(17)(9)(2)(6)
Renewable energy production tax credits(97)





Audit adjustment5
3





Tax true-up(14)(14)(11)(3)(9)(16)2
Other items, net(39)5
(4)(4)4
3
6
Income tax expense from continuing operations$1,156
$634
$527
$301
$322
$78
$225
Effective tax rate31.0%35.2%33.7%33.4%36.9%28.9%37.1%
 Year Ended December 31, 2015
  Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
(in millions)  
Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Income tax expense, computed at the statutory rate of 35 percent$1,369
$598
$555
$302
$330
$81
$168
State income tax, net of federal income tax effect109
46
18
15
33
2
2
AFUDC equity income(58)(34)(19)(17)(3)(1)(4)
Renewable energy production tax credits(72)
(1)



Audit adjustment(22)
(23)1
(24)

Tax true-up2
2
(3)(4)2
(5)(9)
Other items, net(72)15
(5)(3)4
4
6
Income tax expense from continuing operations$1,256
$627
$522
$294
$342
$81
$163
Effective tax rate32.1%36.7%32.9%34.2%36.3%35.2%34.0%
  Year Ended December 31, 2014
  Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
(in millions)  
Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Income tax expense, computed at the statutory rate of 35 percent$1,317
$581
$497
$263
$314
$39
$195
State income tax, net of federal income tax effect59
17
49
25
34
3
10
AFUDC equity income(47)(32)(9)(9)
(1)(5)
Renewable energy production tax credits(67)





Other items, net(37)22
3
6
1
2
(3)
Income tax expense from continuing operations$1,225
$588
$540
$285
$349
$43
$197
Effective tax rate32.6%35.4%38.0%37.9%38.9%38.9%35.5%
 Piedmont
 Two Months Ended
Years Ended October 31,
(in millions)  
December 31, 201620162015
Income tax expense, computed at the statutory rate of 35 percent$30
$111
$79
State income tax, net of federal income tax effect1
11
9
Other items, net1
2
2
Income tax expense from continuing operations$32
$124
$90
Effective tax rate37.2%39.1%39.7%
Valuation allowances have been established for certain 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 the State income tax, net of federal income tax effect in the above tables.

248

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

DEFERRED TAXES
Net Deferred Income Tax Liability Components
December 31, 2016December 31, 2017
 Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 
Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
 
(in millions)
Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Piedmont
Deferred credits and other liabilities $382
$66
$126
$40
$93
$21
$4
$143
$33
$78
$23
$49
$11
$6
$(5)
Capital lease obligations 60
8




1
49
14




2

Pension, post-retirement and other employee benefits 561
16
199
91
96
22
37
295
(17)111
44
60
14
18
(4)
Progress Energy merger purchase accounting adjustments(a)
918






536







Tax credits and NOL carryforwards 4,682
192
1,165
222
232
49
278
4,527
234
402
156
143
25
216
70
Regulatory liabilities and deferred credits
222



65

61
Investments and other assets




3







1
18
Other 205
16
35
8

5
9
73
10
1
4




Valuation allowance (96)
(12)



(519)
(14)




Total deferred income tax assets 6,712
298
1,513
361
421
100
329
5,104
496
578
227
252
115
243
140
Investments and other assets (1,892)(1,149)(597)(313)(297)
(21)(1,419)(849)(470)(289)(187)
(14)
Accelerated depreciation rates (14,872)(4,664)(4,490)(2,479)(2,038)(1,404)(1,938)(9,216)(3,060)(2,803)(1,583)(1,257)(896)(966)(697)
Regulatory assets and deferred debits, net (4,103)(1,029)(1,672)(892)(780)(139)(270)(1,090)
(807)(238)(569)
(188)
Other






(7)
Total deferred income tax liabilities (20,867)(6,842)(6,759)(3,684)(3,115)(1,543)(2,229)(11,725)(3,909)(4,080)(2,110)(2,013)(896)(1,168)(704)
Net deferred income tax liabilities $(14,155)$(6,544)$(5,246)$(3,323)$(2,694)$(1,443)$(1,900)$(6,621)$(3,413)$(3,502)$(1,883)$(1,761)$(781)$(925)$(564)
(a)Primarily related to capital lease obligations and debt fair value adjustments.
As noted above, as a result of the Tax Act, Duke Energy revalued its existing deferred tax assets and liabilities as of December 31, 2017, to account for the estimated future impact of lower corporate tax rates on these deferred amounts. The following table shows the decrease reflected in the net deferred income tax liabilities balance above:
(in millions)December 31, 2017
Duke Energy$8,982
Duke Energy Carolinas3,454
Progress Energy3,282
Duke Energy Progress1,882
Duke Energy Florida1,420
Duke Energy Ohio771
Duke Energy Indiana1,053
Piedmont521
The following table presents the expiration of tax credits and NOL carryforwards.
December 31, 2016December 31, 2017
(in millions)
Amount
 Expiration YearAmount
 Expiration Year
Investment tax credits $1,143
 2027  2036$1,406
 2024  2037
Alternative minimum tax credits 1,151
 Indefinite1,147
 Refundable by 2021
Federal NOL carryforwards 1,267
 2020  2036393
 2022  2036
State NOL carryforwards and credits(a)
248
 2017  2036296
 2018  2037
Foreign NOL carryforwards(b)
12
 2026  203613
 2027  2036
Foreign Tax Credits(c)859
 2024  20261,272
 2024  2027
Charitable Carryforwards2
 2017  2019
Total tax credits and NOL carryforwards $4,682
         4,527
      
(a)A valuation allowance of $84 million has been recorded on the state NOL carryforwards, as presented in the Net Deferred Income Tax Liability Components table.
(b)A valuation allowance of $12 million has been recorded on the foreign NOL carryforwards, as presented in the Net Deferred Income Tax Liability Components table.

249

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

(a)A valuation allowance of $90 million has been recorded on the state NOL carryforwards, as presented in the Net Deferred Income Tax Liability Components table.
(b)A valuation allowance of $13 million has been recorded on the foreign NOL carryforwards, as presented in the Net Deferred Income Tax Liability Components table.
(c)A valuation allowance of $416 million has been recorded on the foreign tax credits, as presented in the Net Deferred Income Tax Liability Components table.
December 31, 2015December 31, 2016
 Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 
Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
 
(in millions)
Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Piedmont
Deferred credits and other liabilities $201
$38
$115
$25
$66
$29
$5
$382
$66
$126
$40
$93
$21
$4
$71
Capital lease obligations 63
9




2
60
8




1

Pension, post-retirement and other employee benefits 580
46
186
92
82
24
40
561
16
199
91
96
22
37
10
Progress Energy merger purchase accounting adjustments(a)
1,009






918







Tax credits and NOL carryforwards 3,631
170
997
163
177
25
215
4,682
192
1,165
222
232
49
278
192
Investments and other assets




3






3


Other 206
20
48
2
46
37
20
205
16
35
8

5
9
45
Valuation allowance (93)
(38)



(96)
(12)



(1)
Total deferred income tax assets 5,597
283
1,308
282
371
118
282
6,712
298
1,513
361
421
100
329
317
Investments and other assets (1,573)(1,057)(412)(228)(201)
(7)(1,892)(1,149)(597)(313)(297)
(21)(21)
Accelerated depreciation rates (12,939)(4,429)(4,169)(2,325)(1,868)(1,356)(1,797)(14,872)(4,664)(4,490)(2,479)(2,038)(1,404)(1,938)(1,080)
Regulatory assets and deferred debits, net (3,633)(943)(1,517)(756)(762)(169)(135)(4,103)(1,029)(1,672)(892)(780)(139)(270)(147)
Total deferred income tax liabilities (18,145)(6,429)(6,098)(3,309)(2,831)(1,525)(1,939)(20,867)(6,842)(6,759)(3,684)(3,115)(1,543)(2,229)(1,248)
Net deferred income tax liabilities $(12,548)$(6,146)$(4,790)$(3,027)$(2,460)$(1,407)$(1,657)$(14,155)$(6,544)$(5,246)$(3,323)$(2,694)$(1,443)$(1,900)$(931)
(a)Primarily related to capital lease obligations and debt fair value adjustments.
On August 6, 2015, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 105-130.3C, the North Carolina Department of Revenue announced the North Carolina corporate income tax rate would be reduced from a statutory rate of 5.0 percent to 4.0 percent beginning January 1, 2016. Duke Energy and Piedmont recorded a net reductionreductions of approximately $95 million and $18 million to itstheir North Carolina deferred tax liabilityliabilities in the third quarter of 2015. The significant majority of thisthese deferred tax liability reduction wasreductions were offset by recording a regulatory liability pending NCUC determination of the disposition of amounts related to Duke Energy Carolinas, and Duke Energy Progress.Progress and Piedmont. The impact 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.
On August 4, 2016, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 105-130.3C, the North Carolina Department of Revenue announced the North Carolina corporate income tax rate would be reduced from a statutory rate of 4.0 percent to 3.0 percent beginning January 1, 2017. Duke Energy and Piedmont recorded a net reductionreductions of approximately $80 million and $16 million to itstheir North Carolina deferred tax liabilityliabilities in the third quarter of 2016. The significant majority of this deferred tax liability reduction was offset by recording a regulatory liability pending NCUC determination of the disposition of amounts related to Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Piedmont. The impact 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.
On June 28, 2017, the North Carolina General Assembly amended N.C. Gen. Stat. 105-130.3, reducing the North Carolina corporate income tax rate from a statutory rate of 3.0 percent to 2.5 percent beginning January 1, 2019.  Duke Energy recorded a net reduction of approximately $55 million to their North Carolina deferred tax liabilities in the second quarter of 2017. The significant majority of this deferred tax liability reduction was offset by recording a regulatory liability pending NCUC determination of the disposition of amounts related to Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Piedmont. The impact 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.
        
        

250

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

UNRECOGNIZED TAX BENEFITS
The following tables present changes to unrecognized tax benefits.
  Year Ended December 31, 2016
  Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
 Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
(in millions)  
Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Ohio
Indiana
Unrecognized tax benefits – January 1$88
$72
$1
$3
$
$1
Unrecognized tax benefits increases (decreases)      
Gross increases – tax positions in prior periods



4

Gross decreases – tax positions in prior periods(4)(4)(1)(1)

Decreases due to settlements(68)(67)


(1)
Reduction due to lapse of statute of limitations1

2



Total changes(71)(71)1
(1)4
(1)
Unrecognized tax benefits – December 31$17
$1
$2
$2
$4
$
 Year Ended December 31, 2017
  Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 
 Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
 
(in millions)  
Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Piedmont
Unrecognized tax benefits – January 1$17
$1
$2
$2
$4
$4
$
$
Unrecognized tax benefits increases (decreases)        
Gross increases – tax positions in prior periods12
4
3
3
1
1
1
3
Gross decreases – tax positions in prior periods(4)



(4)

Total changes8
4
3
3
1
(3)1
3
Unrecognized tax benefits – December 31$25
$5
$5
$5
$5
$1
$1
$3
 Year Ended December 31, 2016
  Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
(in millions)  
Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Unrecognized tax benefits – January 1$88
$72
$1
$3
$
$
$1
Unrecognized tax benefits increases (decreases)       
Gross increases – tax positions in prior periods



4
4

Gross decreases – tax positions in prior periods(4)(4)(1)(1)


Decreases due to settlements(68)(67)



(1)
Reduction due to lapse of statute of limitations1

2




Total changes(71)(71)1
(1)4
4
(1)
Unrecognized tax benefits – December 31$17
$1
$2
$2
$4
$4
$
 Year Ended December 31, 2015
  Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
 Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
(in millions)  
Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Indiana
Unrecognized tax benefits – January 1$213
$160
$32
$23
$8
$1
Unrecognized tax benefits increases (decreases)      
Gross increases – tax positions in prior periods

1
1


Gross decreases – tax positions in prior periods(48)(45)



Decreases due to settlements(45)(43)



Reduction due to lapse of statute of limitations(32)
(32)(21)(8)
Total changes(125)(88)(31)(20)(8)
Unrecognized tax benefits – December 31$88
$72
$1
$3
$
$1
  Year Ended December 31, 2014
  Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
 Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
(in millions)  
Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
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

251

The following table includes additional information regarding the Duke Energy Registrants' unrecognized tax benefits. It is reasonably possible that Duke Energy could reflect an approximate $8 million reduction and Duke Energy Carolinas could reflect an approximate $1 million reduction in unrecognized tax benefits within the next 12 months. All other Duke Energy Registrants do not anticipate a material increase or decrease in unrecognized tax benefits within the next 12 months.
  December 31, 2016 
  Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
(in millions)  
Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Amount that if recognized, would affect the
effective tax rate or regulatory liability(a)
$8
$1
$2
$2
$
$
$
Amount that if recognized, would be recorded as a
component of discontinued operations  
5




2

(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.

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

The following table includes additional information regarding the Duke Energy Registrants' unrecognized tax benefits at December 31, 2017. During the first quarter of 2018, Duke Energy recognized an approximate $8 million reduction and Duke Energy Carolinas recognized an approximate $1 million reduction in unrecognized tax benefits. No additional material reductions are expected in the next 12 months.
 December 31, 2017
  Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 
 Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
 
(in millions)  
Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Piedmont
Amount that if recognized, would affect the
effective tax rate or regulatory liability(a)
$15
$4
$7
$5
$1
$1
$1
$3
Amount that if recognized, would be recorded as
a component of discontinued operations  
7




2


(a)Duke Energy, Duke Energy Carolinas, Progress Energy, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Florida, Duke Energy Indiana and Piedmont 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, 2017
  Duke
 Duke
Duke
 Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
(in millions)  
Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Net interest income recognized related to income taxes$
$
$1
$
$1
Net interest expense recognized related to income taxes
2



Interest payable related to income taxes5
25
1
1

 Year Ended December 31, 2016
  Duke
 Duke
Duke
 Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
(in millions)  
Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Net interest income recognized related to income taxes$
$
$1
$
$2
Net interest expense recognized related to income taxes
7



Interest payable related to income taxes4
23
1
1

 Year Ended December 31, 2015
  Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
 Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
(in millions)  
Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Indiana
Net interest income recognized related to income taxes$12
$
$2
$2
$1
$1
Net interest expense recognized related to income taxes
1




Interest receivable related to income taxes3




3
Interest payable related to income taxes
14

1


  Year Ended December 31, 2014
  Duke
 Duke
Duke
Duke
Duke
 Duke
Energy
Progress
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
(in millions)  
Energy
Carolinas
Energy
Progress
Florida
Ohio
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


Piedmont recognized $1 million in net interest income recognized related to income taxes in the Consolidated Statements of Operations for the year ended October 31, 2016.
Duke Energy and its subsidiaries are no longer subject to U.S. federal examination for years before 2015. 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 2004.2015.
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, 2016
   Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
(in millions)Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Interest income$21
 $4
 $4
 $3
 $2
 $5
 $6
AFUDC equity200
 102
 76
 50
 26
 6
 16
Post in-service equity returns67
 55
 12
 12
 
 
 
Nonoperating income (expense), other36
 1
 22
 6
 16
 (2) 
Other income and expense, net$324
 $162
 $114
 $71
 $44
 $9
 $22
Amounts for Piedmont were not material.
 Year Ended December 31, 2015
   Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
(in millions)Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Interest income$20
 $2
 $4
 $2
 $2
 $4
 $6
AFUDC equity164
 96
 54
 47
 7
 3
 11
Post in-service equity returns73
 60
 13
 13
 
 
 
Nonoperating income (expense), other33
 2
 26
 9
 15
 (1) (6)
Other income and expense, net$290
 $160
 $97
 $71
 $24
 $6
 $11


252

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

 Year Ended December 31, 2017
   Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
(in millions)Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Interest income$13
 $2
 $6
 $2
 $5
 $6
 $8
AFUDC equity237
 106
 92
 47
 45
 11
 28
Post in-service equity returns40
 28
 12
 12
 
 
 
Nonoperating income, other62
 3
 18
 4
 11
 
 1
Other income and expense, net$352
 $139
 $128
 $65
 $61
 $17
 $37
Year Ended December 31, 2014Year Ended December 31, 2016
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
(in millions)Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Interest income$16
 $4
 $3
 $
 $2
 $8
 $6
$21
 $4
 $4
 $3
 $2
 $5
 $6
AFUDC equity135
 91
 26
 25
 
 4
 14
200
 102
 76
 50
 26
 6
 16
Post in-service equity returns89
 71
 17
 17
 
 
 
67
 55
 12
 12
 
 
 
Nonoperating income (expense), other80
 6
 31
 9
 18
 (2) 2
36
 1
 22
 6
 16
 (2) 
Other income and expense, net$320
 $172
 $77
 $51
 $20
 $10
 $22
$324
 $162
 $114
 $71
 $44
 $9
 $22
 Year Ended December 31, 2015
   Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
(in millions)Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Interest income$20
 $2
 $4
 $2
 $2
 $4
 $6
AFUDC equity164
 96
 54
 47
 7
 3
 11
Post in-service equity returns73
 60
 13
 13
 
 
 
Nonoperating income (expense), other33
 2
 26
 9
 15
 (1) (6)
Other income and expense, net$290
 $160
 $97
 $71
 $24
 $6
 $11
24. SUBSEQUENT EVENTS
For information on subsequent events related to regulatory matters, commitments and contingencies, and debt and credit facilities, investments in unconsolidated affiliates, variable interest entities and common stock see Notes 4, 5, 6, 12, 17 and 6,18, respectively.

253


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

25. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL DATA (UNAUDITED)
DUKE ENERGY
Quarterly EPS amounts may not sum to the full-year total due to changes in the weighted average number of common shares outstanding and rounding.
First
 Second
 Third
 Fourth
  First
 Second
 Third
 Fourth
  
(in millions, except per share data)Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Total
Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Total
2017         
Operating revenues$5,729
 $5,555
 $6,482
 $5,799
 $23,565
Operating income1,437
 1,387
 1,695
 1,262
 5,781
Income from continuing operations717
 691
 957
 705
 3,070
Loss from discontinued operations, net of tax
 (2) (2) (2) (6)
Net income717
 689
 955
 703
 3,064
Net income attributable to Duke Energy Corporation716
 686
 954
 703
 3,059
Earnings per share:         
Income from continuing operations attributable to Duke Energy Corporation common stockholders         
Basic$1.02
 $0.98
 $1.36
 $1.00
 $4.37
Diluted$1.02
 $0.98
 $1.36
 $1.00
 $4.37
Loss from discontinued operations attributable to Duke Energy Corporation common stockholders         
Basic$
 $
 $
 $
 $(0.01)
Diluted$
 $
 $
 $
 $(0.01)
Net income attributable to Duke Energy Corporation common stockholders         
Basic$1.02
 $0.98
 $1.36
 $1.00
 $4.36
Diluted$1.02
 $0.98
 $1.36
 $1.00
 $4.36
2016                  
Operating revenues$5,377
 $5,213
 $6,576
 $5,577
 $22,743
$5,377
 $5,213
 $6,576
 $5,577
 $22,743
Operating income1,240
 1,259
 1,954
 888
 5,341
1,240
 1,259
 1,954
 888
 5,341
Income from continuing operations577
 624
 1,001
 376
 2,578
577
 624
 1,001
 376
 2,578
Income (loss) from discontinued operations, net of tax122
 (112) 180
 (598) (408)
Income (Loss) from discontinued operations, net of tax122
 (112) 180
 (598) (408)
Net income (loss)699
 512
 1,181
 (222) 2,170
699
 512
 1,181
 (222) 2,170
Net income (loss) attributable to Duke Energy Corporation694
 509
 1,176
 (227) 2,152
694
 509
 1,176
 (227) 2,152
Earnings per share:                  
Income from continuing operations attributable to Duke Energy Corporation common stockholders                  
Basic$0.83
 $0.90
 $1.44
 $0.53
 $3.71
$0.83
 $0.90
 $1.44
 $0.53
 $3.71
Diluted$0.83
 $0.90
 $1.44
 $0.53
 $3.71
$0.83
 $0.90
 $1.44
 $0.53
 $3.71
Income (Loss) from discontinued operations attributable to Duke Energy Corporation common stockholders                  
Basic$0.18
 $(0.16) $0.26
 $(0.86) $(0.60)$0.18
 $(0.16) $0.26
 $(0.86) $(0.60)
Diluted$0.18
 $(0.16) $0.26
 $(0.86) $(0.60)$0.18
 $(0.16) $0.26
 $(0.86) $(0.60)
Net income (loss) attributable to Duke Energy Corporation common stockholders                  
Basic$1.01
 $0.74
 $1.70
 $(0.33) $3.11
$1.01
 $0.74
 $1.70
 $(0.33) $3.11
Diluted$1.01
 $0.74
 $1.70
 $(0.33) $3.11
$1.01
 $0.74
 $1.70
 $(0.33) $3.11
2015         
Operating revenues$5,792
 $5,302
 $6,202
 $5,075
 $22,371
Operating income1,390
 1,192
 1,606
 890
 5,078
Income from continuing operations755
 576
 890
 433
 2,654
Income (Loss) from discontinued operations, net of tax112
 (29) 45
 49
 177
Net income867
 547
 935
 482
 2,831
Net income attributable to Duke Energy Corporation864
 543
 932
 477
 2,816
Earnings per share:         
Income from continuing operations attributable to Duke Energy Corporation common stockholders         
Basic$1.06
 $0.83
 $1.29
 $0.62
 $3.80
Diluted$1.06
 $0.83
 $1.29
 $0.62
 $3.80
Income (Loss) from discontinued operations attributable to Duke Energy Corporation common stockholders         
Basic$0.16
 $(0.05) $0.06
 $0.07
 $0.25
Diluted$0.16
 $(0.05) $0.06
 $0.07
 $0.25
Net income attributable to Duke Energy Corporation common stockholders         
Basic$1.22
 $0.78
 $1.35
 $0.69
 $4.05
Diluted$1.22
 $0.78
 $1.35
 $0.69
 $4.05


254

PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION – DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC – PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, LLC – DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. – DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, LLCLLC– PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS COMPANY, 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.
First
 Second
 Third
 Fourth
  First
 Second
 Third
 Fourth
  
(in millions)
Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Total
Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Total
2017         
Costs to Achieve Piedmont Merger (see Note 2)$(16) $(30) $(23) $(34) $(103)
Regulatory Settlements (see Note 4)
 
 (135) (23) (158)
Commercial Renewables Impairments (see Notes 10 and 11)
 
 (84) (18) (102)
Impacts of the Tax Act (see Note 22)
 
 
 102
 102
Total$(16) $(30) $(242) $27
 $(261)
2016                  
Costs to Achieve Mergers (see Note 2)$(120) $(111) $(84) $(208) $(523)$(120) $(111) $(84) $(208) $(523)
Commercial Renewables Impairment (see Note 12)
 
 (71) 
 (71)
 
 (71) 
 (71)
Loss on Sale of International Disposal Group (see Note 2)
 
 
 (514) (514)
 
 
 (514) (514)
Impairment of Assets in Central America (see Note 2)
 (194) 
 
 (194)
 (194) 
 
 (194)
Cost Savings Initiatives (see Note 19)(20) (24) (19) (29) (92)(20) (24) (19) (29) (92)
Total$(140) $(329) $(174) $(751) $(1,394)$(140) $(329) $(174) $(751) $(1,394)
2015         
Costs to Achieve Mergers$(21) $(22) $(24) $(30) $(97)
Edwardsport Settlement (see Note 4)
 
 (90) (3) (93)
Ash Basin Settlement and Penalties (see Note 5)
 
 (7) (7) (14)
State Tax Adjustment related to Midwest Generation Sale
 (41) 
 
 (41)
Cost Savings Initiatives (see Note 19)
 
 
 (142) (142)
Total$(21) $(63) $(121) $(182) $(387)
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS
First
 Second
 Third
 Fourth
  First
 Second
 Third
 Fourth
  
(in millions)Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Total
Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Total
2017         
Operating revenues$1,716
 $1,729
 $2,136
 $1,721
 $7,302
Operating income484
 485
 777
 403
 2,149
Net income270
 273
 466
 205
 1,214
2016                  
Operating revenues$1,740
 $1,675
 $2,226
 $1,681
 $7,322
$1,740
 $1,675
 $2,226
 $1,681
 $7,322
Operating income481
 464
 815
 302
 2,062
481
 464
 815
 302
 2,062
Net income271
 261
 494
 140
 1,166
271
 261
 494
 140
 1,166
2015         
Operating revenues$1,901
 $1,707
 $2,061
 $1,560
 $7,229
Operating income515
 483
 666
 296
 1,960
Net income292
 265
 383
 141
 1,081
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.
First
 Second
 Third
 Fourth
  First
 Second
 Third
 Fourth
  
(in millions)
Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Total
Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Total
2017         
Costs to Achieve Piedmont Merger (see Note 2)$(4) $(6) $(5)
$(5) $(20)
Impacts of the Tax Act (see Note 22)
 
 
 (15) (15)
Total$(4) $(6) $(5) $(20) $(35)
2016                  
Costs to Achieve Mergers$(11) $(12) $(13)
$(68) $(104)$(11) $(12) $(13) $(68) $(104)
Cost Savings Initiatives (see Note 19)(10) (10) (8) (11) (39)(10) (10) (8) (11) (39)
Total$(21) $(22) $(21) $(79) $(143)$(21) $(22) $(21) $(79) $(143)
2015         
Costs to Achieve Mergers$(9) $(11) $(11) $(16) $(47)
Ash Basin Settlement and Penalties (see Note 5)
 
 (1) (7) (8)
Cost Savings Initiatives (see Note 19)
 
 
 (93) (93)
Total$(9) $(11) $(12) $(116) $(148)

255

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

PROGRESS ENERGY
 First
 Second
 Third
 Fourth
  
(in millions)Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Total
2017         
Operating revenues$2,179
 $2,392
 $2,864
 $2,348
 $9,783
Operating income487
 591
 657
 493
 2,228
Net income201
 277
 343
 447
 1,268
Net income attributable to Parent199
 274
 341
 444
 1,258
2016         
Operating revenues$2,332
 $2,348
 $2,965
 $2,208
 $9,853
Operating income475
 560
 814
 292
 2,141
Income from continuing operations212
 274
 449
 104
 1,039
Net income212
 274
 449
 106
 1,041
Net income attributable to Parent209
 272
 446
 104
 1,031
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.
 First
 Second
 Third
 Fourth
  
(in millions)  
Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Total
2017         
Costs to Achieve Piedmont Merger (see Note 2)$(4) $(7) $(6) $(6) $(23)
Regulatory Settlements (see Note 4)
 
 (135) (23) (158)
Impacts of the Tax Act (see Note 22)
 
 
 246
 246
Total$(4) $(7) $(141) $217
 $65
2016         
Costs to Achieve Mergers$(7) $(8) $(10) $(44) $(69)
Cost Savings Initiatives (see Note 19)(8) (8) (10) (14) (40)
Total$(15) $(16) $(20) $(58) $(109)
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS
 First
 Second
 Third
 Fourth
  
(in millions)  
Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Total
2017         
Operating revenues$1,219
 $1,199
 $1,460
 $1,251
 $5,129
Operating income286
 282
 411
 256
 1,235
Net income147
 154
 246
 168
 715
2016         
Operating revenues$1,307
 $1,213
 $1,583
 $1,174
 $5,277
Operating income258
 255
 438
 135
 1,086
Net income137
 131
 271
 60
 599
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.
 First
 Second
 Third
 Fourth
  
(in millions)  
Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Total
2017         
Costs to Achieve Piedmont Merger (see Note 2)$(2) $(4) $(4) $(4) $(14)
Regulatory Settlements (see Note 4)
 
 
 (23) (23)
Impacts of the Tax Act (see Note 22)
 
 
 40
 40
Total$(2)
$(4)
$(4)
$13

$3
2016         
Costs to Achieve Mergers$(5) $(5) $(6) $(40) $(56)
Cost Savings Initiatives (see Note 19)(5) (5) (7) (6) (23)
Total$(10) $(10) $(13) $(46) $(79)

256

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

PROGRESSDUKE ENERGY FLORIDA
First
 Second
 Third
 Fourth
  First
 Second
 Third
 Fourth
  
(in millions)Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Total
Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Total
2017         
Operating revenues$959
 $1,191
 $1,401
 $1,095
 $4,646
Operating income196
 306
 240
 234
 976
Net income90
 158
 120
 344
 712
2016                  
Operating revenues$2,332
 $2,348
 $2,965
 $2,208
 $9,853
$1,024
 $1,133
 $1,381
 $1,030
 $4,568
Operating income475
 560
 814
 292
 2,141
213
 300
 373
 155
 1,041
Income from continuing operations212
 274
 449
 104
 1,039
Net income212
 274
 449
 106
 1,041
110
 171
 206
 64
 551
Net income attributable to Parent209
 272
 446
 104
 1,031
2015         
Operating revenues$2,536
 $2,476
 $2,929
 $2,336
 $10,277
Operating income549
 504
 756
 351
 2,160
Income from continuing operations264
 217
 452
 132
 1,065
Net income263
 217
 451
 131
 1,062
Net income attributable to Parent260
 215
 448
 128
 1,051
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.
First
 Second
 Third
 Fourth
  First
 Second
 Third
 Fourth
  
(in millions)
Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Total
Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Total
2017         
Costs to Achieve Piedmont Merger (see Note 2)$(2) $(3) $(2) $(2) $(9)
Regulatory Settlements (see Note 4)
 
 (135) 
 (135)
Impacts of the Tax Act (see Note 22)
 
 
 226
 226
Total$(2) $(3) $(137) $224
 $82
2016                  
Costs to Achieve Mergers$(7) $(8) $(10) $(44) $(69)$(2) $(3) $(4) $(4) $(13)
Cost Savings Initiatives (see Note 19)(8) (8) (10) (14) (40)(2) (3) (3) (9) (17)
Total$(15) $(16) $(20) $(58) $(109)$(4) $(6) $(7) $(13) $(30)
2015         
Costs to Achieve Mergers$(8) $(8) $(8) $(10) $(34)
Ash Basin Settlement and Penalties (see Note 5)
 
 (6) 
 (6)
Cost Savings Initiatives (see Note 19)
 
 
 (36) (36)
Total$(8) $(8) $(14) $(46) $(76)
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESSOHIO
First
 Second
 Third
 Fourth
  First
 Second
 Third
 Fourth
  
(in millions)
Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Total
Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Total
2017         
Operating revenues$518
 $437
 $471
 $497
 $1,923
Operating income83
 65
 102
 76
 326
Loss from discontinued operations, net of tax
 
 (1) 
 (1)
Net income42
 30
 55
 65
 192
2016                  
Operating revenues$1,307
 $1,213
 $1,583
 $1,174
 $5,277
$516
 $428
 $489
 $511
 $1,944
Operating income258
 255
 438
 135
 1,086
96
 55
 106
 90
 347
Income from discontinued operations, net of tax2
 
 34
 
 36
Net income137
 131
 271
 60
 599
59
 23
 89
 57
 228
2015         
Operating revenues$1,449
 $1,193
 $1,488
 $1,160
 $5,290
Operating income316
 184
 394
 130
 1,024
Net income183
 85
 229
 69
 566
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.
First
 Second
 Third
 Fourth
  First
 Second
 Third
 Fourth
  
(in millions)
Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Total
Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Total
2017         
Costs to Achieve Piedmont Merger (see Note 2)$(1) $(1) $(2) $(2) $(6)
Impacts of the Tax Act (see Note 22)
 
 
 23
 23
Total$(1) $(1) $(2) $21
 $17
2016                  
Costs to Achieve Mergers$(5) $(5) $(6) $(40) $(56)$(1) $(1) $(2) $(2) $(6)
Cost Savings Initiatives (see Note 19)(5) (5) (7) (6) (23)(1) (1) 
 (1) (3)
Total$(10)
$(10)
$(13)
$(46)
$(79)$(2) $(2) $(2) $(3) $(9)
2015         
Costs to Achieve Mergers$(5) $(5) $(6) $(6) $(22)
Ash Basin Settlement and Penalties (see Note 5)
 
 (6) 
 (6)
Cost Savings Initiatives (see Note 19)
 
 
 (28) (28)
Total$(5) $(5) $(12) $(34) $(56)


257

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

DUKE ENERGY FLORIDAINDIANA
First
 Second
 Third
 Fourth
  First
 Second
 Third
 Fourth
  
(in millions)
Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Total
Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Total
2017         
Operating revenues$758
 $742
 $802
 $745
 $3,047
Operating income186
 210
 230
 170
 796
Net income91
 106
 121
 36
 354
2016                  
Operating revenues$1,024
 $1,133
 $1,381
 $1,030
 $4,568
$714
 $702
 $809
 $733
 $2,958
Operating income213
 300
 373
 155
 1,041
176
 174
 239
 176
 765
Net income110
 171
 206
 64
 551
95
 85
 129
 72
 381
2015         
Operating revenues$1,086
 $1,281
 $1,436
 $1,174
 $4,977
Operating income227
 315
 357
 216
 1,115
Net income113
 165
 216
 105
 599
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.
First
 Second
 Third
 Fourth
  First
 Second
 Third
 Fourth
  
(in millions)
Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Total
Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Total
2017         
Costs to Achieve Piedmont Merger (see Note 2)$(1) $(2) $(2) $(1) $(6)
Impacts of the Tax Act (see Note 22)
 
 
 (55) (55)
Total$(1) $(2) $(2) $(56) $(61)
2016                  
Costs to Achieve Mergers$(2) $(3) $(4) $(4) $(13)$(1) $(2) $(3) $(3) $(9)
Cost Savings Initiatives (see Note 19)(2) (3) (3) (9) (17)(1) (4) (1) (1) (7)
Total$(4) $(6) $(7) $(13) $(30)$(2) $(6) $(4) $(4) $(16)
2015         
Costs to Achieve Mergers$(3) $(3) $(3) $(4) $(13)
Cost Savings Initiatives (see Note 19)
 
 
 (8) (8)
Total$(3) $(3) $(3) $(12) $(21)
PIEDMONT
DUKE ENERGY OHIOThe following tables include data for Piedmont's fiscal years ending December 31, 2017, and October 31, 2016.
 First
 Second
 Third
 Fourth
  
(in millions)  
Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Total
2016         
Operating revenues$516
 $428
 $489
 $511
 $1,944
Operating income96
 55
 106
 90
 347
Income from discontinued operations, net of tax2
 
 34
 
 36
Net income59
 23
 89
 57
 228
2015         
Operating revenues$586
 $405
 $462
 $452
 $1,905
Operating income111
 43
 76
 73
 303
Income (Loss) from discontinued operations, net of tax90
 (65) (2) 
 23
Net income (loss)149
 (52) 32
 43
 172
 First
 Second
 Third
 Fourth
  
(in millions)Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Total
2017         
Operating revenues$500
 $201
 $183
 $444
 $1,328
Operating income (loss)170
 5
 (4) 115
 286
Net income (loss)95
 (8) (11) 63
 139
2016         
Operating revenues$464
 $353
 $160
 $172
 $1,149
Operating income (loss)171
 104
 
 (50) 225
Net income (loss)98
 63
 (7) 39
 193
For the two months ended December 31, 2016, Piedmont's operating revenues, operating income, and net income were $322 million, $96 million and $54 million, respectively.
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.
First
 Second
 Third
 Fourth
  First
 Second
 Third
 Fourth
  
(in millions)
Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Total
Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Total
2017         
Costs to Achieve Piedmont Merger (see Note 2)$(6) $(13) $(8) $(19) $(46)
Impacts of the Tax Act (see Note 22)
 
 
 2
 2
Total$(6) $(13) $(8) $(17) $(44)
2016                  
Costs to Achieve Mergers$(1) $(1) $(2) $(2) $(6)$(6) $(2) $(1) $(53) $(62)
Cost Savings Initiatives (see Note 19)(1) (1) 
 (1) (3)
Total$(2) $(2) $(2) $(3) $(9)
2015         
Costs to Achieve Mergers$(1) $(1) $(1) $(1) $(4)
Cost Savings Initiatives (see Note 19)
 
 
 (2) (2)
Total$(1) $(1) $(1) $(3) $(6)

PART II
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION – DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC – PROGRESS ENERGY, INC. –
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, LLC – DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. – DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, LLC
Combined Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)
For the two months ended December 31, 2016, Piedmont's costs to achieve merger were $7 million.

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA
258

 First
 Second
 Third
 Fourth
  
(in millions)  
Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Total
2016         
Operating revenues$714
 $702
 $809
 $733
 $2,958
Operating income176
 174
 239
 176
 765
Net income95
 85
 129
 72
 381
2015         
Operating revenues$788
 $686
 $749
 $667
 $2,890
Operating income210
 146
 117
 171
 644
Net income108
 68
 46
 94
 316
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.
 First
 Second
 Third
 Fourth
  
(in millions)  
Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Quarter
 Total
2016         
Costs to Achieve Mergers$(1) $(2) $(3) $(3) $(9)
Cost Savings Initiatives (see Note 19)(1) (4) (1) (1) (7)
Total$(2) $(6) $(4) $(4) $(16)
2015         
Costs to Achieve Mergers$(2) $(1) $(2) $(2) $(7)
Edwardsport Settlement (see Note 4)
 
 (90) (3) (93)
Cost Savings Initiatives (see Note 19)
 
 
 (6) (6)
Total$(2) $(1) $(92) $(11) $(106)

PART II

ITEM 9. CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
 
None.

259


PART II

ITEM 9A. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
 
Disclosure Controls and Procedures
Disclosure controls and procedures are controls and other procedures that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by the Duke Energy Registrants in the reports they file or submit 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 reports they file or submit under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to 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, 2016,2017, 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.
Changes 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, 2016,2017, and have concluded no change has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, internal control over financial reporting.
Management’s Annual Report On Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
The Duke Energy Registrants’ management is responsible for establishing and maintaining an adequate system of internal control over financial reporting, as such term is defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a−15(f)13a-15(f) and 15d−15(f)15d-15(f). The Duke Energy Registrants’ internal control system 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 in the United States. Due to 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 policies and procedures may deteriorate.
The Duke Energy Registrants’ management, including their Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, has conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of their internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2016,2017, based on the framework in the Internal Control – Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based on that evaluation, management concluded that its internal controls over financial reporting were effective as of December 31, 2016.2017.
Deloitte & Touche LLP, Duke Energy’s independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the effectiveness of Duke Energy’s internal control over financial reporting. This attestation report is included in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K. This report is not applicable to the Subsidiary Registrants as these companies are not accelerated or large accelerated filers.

260


PART II

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the shareholders and the Board of Directors of Duke Energy Corporation
Opinion on Internal Control over Financial Reporting
We have audited the internal control over financial reporting of Duke Energy Corporation and subsidiaries (the "Company") as of December 31, 2017, based on criteria established in Internal Control – Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). In our opinion, the Company maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017, based on criteria established in Internal Control – Integrated Framework (2013) issued by COSO.
We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB), the consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2017, the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive income, changes in equity, and cash flows, for the period ended December 31, 2017, and the related notes of the Company and our report dated February 23, 2018, expressed an unqualified opinion on those financial statements.
Basis for Opinion
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 Annual 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 are a public accounting firm registered with the PCAOB and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. 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, testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
Definition and Limitations of Internal Control over Financial Reporting
A company’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 generally accepted accounting principles. A company’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’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.

/s/Deloitte & Touche LLP
Charlotte, North Carolina
February 21, 2018

261


PART III

 
ITEM 10. DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
 
Information regarding Duke Energy's Executive Officers is set forth in Part I, Item 1, "Business – Executive Officers of the Registrants," in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Duke Energy will provide information that is responsive to the remainder of this Item 10 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 10 by reference.
ITEM 11. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
 
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
 
Equity Compensation Plan Information
The following table shows information as of December 31, 2016,2017, about securities to be issued upon exercise of outstanding options, warrants and rights under Duke Energy's equity compensation plans, along with the weighted averageweighted-average exercise price of the outstanding options, warrants and rights and the number of securities remaining available for future issuance under the plans.
Plan Category
Number of securities
to be issued upon
exercise of
outstanding options,
warrants and rights
(a)
Weighted average
exercise price of
outstanding options,
warrants and rights
(b)(1)
Number of securities remaining available for future issuance under equity compensation plans (excluding securities reflected in column (a))
(c)
Number of securities
to be issued upon
exercise of
outstanding options,
warrants and rights
(a)
Weighted average
exercise price of
outstanding options,
warrants and rights
(b)(1)
Number of securities remaining available for future issuance under equity compensation plans (excluding securities reflected in column (a))
(c)
Equity compensation plans approved by security holders3,224,537
(2) 
n/a8,661,659
(3) 
3,566,563
(2) 
n/a7,314,882
(3) 
Equity compensation plans not approved by security holders191,181
(4) 
n/a
(5) 
191,394
(4) 
n/a
(5) 
Total3,415,718
 n/a8,661,659 3,757,957
 n/a7,314,882 
(1)    As of December 31, 2016,2017, no options were outstanding under equity compensation plans.
(2)Includes restricted stock units and performance shares (assuming the maximum payout level) granted under the Duke Energy Corporation 2010 Long-Term Incentive Plan or the Duke Energy Corporation 2015 Long-Term Incentive Plan, as well as shares that could be payable with respect to certain compensation deferred under the Duke Energy Corporation Executive Savings Plan (Executive Savings Plan) andor the Duke Energy Corporation Directors' Savings Plan (Directors'(Directors’ Savings Plan).
(3)    Includes shares remaining for issuance pursuant to stock awards under the Duke Energy Corporation 2015 Long-Term Incentive Plan.
(3)Includes shares remaining available for issuance pursuant to stock awards under the Duke Energy Corporation 2015 Long-Term Incentive Plan.
(4)Includes shares that could be payable with respect to certain compensation deferred under the Executive Savings Plan or and the Directors' Savings Plan, each of which is a non-qualifiednonqualified deferred compensation plan described in more detail below. Upon the acquisition of Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc., performance shares granted prior to thesuch acquisition under the Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc. Incentive Compensation Plan were converted tointo restricted stock units payable in shares of Duke Energy common stock. As of December 31, 2016, 109,0232017, 45,173 such restricted stock units were outstanding. Following the acquisition, no further stock awards were permitted to be granted under the Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc. Incentive Compensation Plan. These converted awards are not listed in the table above.
(5)The number of shares remaining available for future issuance under equity compensation plans not approved by security holders cannot be determined because it is based on the amount of future voluntary deferrals, if any, under the Executive Savings Plan and the Directors' Savings Plan.
Under the Executive Savings Plan, participants can elect to defer a portion of their base salary and short-termshort‑term incentive compensation. Participants also receive a company matching contribution in excess of the contribution limits prescribed by the Internal Revenue Code under the Duke Energy Retirement Savings Plan, which is the 401(k) plan in which the named executive officersemployees are generally eligible to participate. In general, payments are made following the termination of employment or death in the form of a lump sum or installments, as selected by the participant. Participants may direct the deemed investment of base salary deferrals, short-term incentive compensation deferrals and matching contributions among investment options available under the Duke Energy Retirement Savings Plan, including the Duke Energy Common Stock Fund. Participants may change their investment elections on a daily basis. Deferrals of equity awards are credited with earnings and losses based on the performance of the Duke Energy Common Stock Fund. The benefits payable under the plan are unfunded and subject to the claims of Duke Energy'sEnergy’s creditors.
Under the Directors'Directors’ Savings Plan, outside directors may elect to defer all or a portion of their annual compensation, generally consisting of retainers and attendance fees.retainers. Deferred amounts are credited to an unfunded account, the balance of which is adjusted for the performance of phantom investment options, including the Duke Energy Common Stock Fund,common stock fund, as elected by the director, and generally are paid when the director terminates his or her service from the Board of Directors.

262


PART III

Duke Energy will provide additional information that is responsive to this Item 12 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 12 by reference.
ITEM 13. CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS AND DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE
 
Duke Energy will provide information that is responsive to this Item 13 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 13 by reference.
ITEM 14. PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING FEES AND SERVICES
 
Deloitte & Touche LLP and the member firms of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu and their respective affiliates (collectively, Deloitte) provided professional services to the Duke Energy Registrants. The following tables present the Deloitte fees for services rendered to the Duke Energy Registrants during 20162017 and 2015.2016.
Year Ended December 31, 2016Year Ended December 31, 2017  
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
  
(in millions)
Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
 Piedmont
Types of Fees
                            
Audit Fees(a)
$13.8
 $4.9
 $5.2
 $3.0
 $2.2
 $0.8
 $1.4
$13.6
 $4.7
 $5.6
 $3.1
 $2.4
 $0.8
 $1.4
 $0.8
Audit-Related Fees(b)
0.7
 
 
 
 
 
 
0.2
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Tax Fees(c)
0.4
 0.1
 0.1
 0.1
 
 
 0.1
1.7
 0.6
 0.1
 0.4
 
 0.1
 0.1
 0.1
Other Fees(d)0.2
 0.1
 0.1
 0.1
 
 
 
0.1
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total Fees$15.1
 $5.1
 $5.4
 $3.2
 $2.2
 $0.8
 $1.5
$15.6
 $5.3
 $5.7
 $3.5
 $2.4
 $0.9
 $1.5
 $0.9
Year Ended December 31, 2015Year Ended December 31, 2016
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
  Duke
   Duke
 Duke
 Duke
 Duke
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
Duke
 Energy
 Progress
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
 Energy
(in millions)
Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Energy
 Carolinas
 Energy
 Progress
 Florida
 Ohio
 Indiana
Types of Fees
                          
Audit Fees(a)
$12.4
 $4.6
 $5.1
 $2.9
 $2.2
 $0.8
 $1.3
$13.6
 $4.8
 $5.2
 $3.0
 $2.2
 $0.8
 $1.4
Audit-Related Fees(b)
2.4
 
 
 
 
 1.2
 
0.7
 
 
 
 
 
 
Tax Fees(c)
0.2
 0.1
 
 
 
 
 
0.4
 0.1
 0.1
 0.1
 
 
 0.1
Other Fees(d)0.1
 
 
 
 
 
 
0.2
 0.1
 0.1
 0.1
 
 
 
Total Fees$15.1
 $4.7
 $5.1
 $2.9
 $2.2
 $2.0
 $1.3
$14.9
 $5.0
 $5.4
 $3.2
 $2.2
 $0.8
 $1.5
 
Piedmont(e)
 Two Months Ended
Year Ended October 31,
(in millions)  
December 31, 20162016
Types of Fees  
  
Audit Fees(a)
$0.6
$1.3
Audit-Related Fees(b)

0.1
Total Fees$0.6
$1.4
(a)Audit Fees are fees billed, or expected to be billed, by Deloitte for professional services for the financial statement audits, audit of the Duke Energy Registrants’ financial statements included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K, and the reviewreviews of financial statements included in quarterly reportsQuarterly Reports on Form 10‑Q, forand services that are normally provided by Deloitte in connectionassociated with statutory, regulatory or othersecurities filings or engagements, or for any other service performed by Deloitte to comply with generally accepted auditing standards. Total Fees for Duke Energy in 2016 include amounts for audit work related to Piedmont. For additional information related to acquisition of Piedmont see Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, “Acquisitionssuch as comfort letters and Dispositions.”consents.
(b)Audit-Related Fees are fees billed, or expected to be billed, by Deloitte 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.statutory reporting requirements.
(c)Tax Fees are fees billed by Deloitte for tax return assistance and preparation, tax examination assistance and professional services related to tax planning and tax strategy.
(d)Other Fees are billed by Deloitte for attendance at Deloitte-sponsored conferences and access to Deloitte research tools and subscription services. In 2016, Other Fees also included non-audit fees related to consulting services.
(e)Includes all accounting fees and services paid prior to and subsequent to the acquisition. Prior to the acquisition, Piedmont's Audit Committee preapproved all services provided by the independent auditor.


263


PART III

To safeguard the continued independence of the independent auditor, the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors (Audit Committee) of Duke Energy adopted a policy that all services provided by the independent auditor require preapproval by the Audit Committee. Pursuant to the policy, certain audit services, audit-related services, tax services and other services have been specifically preapproved up to fee limits. In the event the cost of any of these services may exceed the fee limits, the Audit Committee must preapprovespecifically approve the service. All services performed in 20162017 and 20152016 by the independent accountant were approved by the Audit Committee pursuant to theirthe preapproval policy.

264


PART IV

 
ITEM 15. EXHIBITS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES
 
(a)Consolidated Financial Statements, Supplemental Financial Data and Supplemental Schedules included in Part II of this annual report are as follows:
Duke Energy Corporation
Consolidated Financial Statements
Consolidated Statements of Operations for the Years Ended December 31, 2017, 2016 2015 and 20142015
Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income for the Years Ended December 31, 2017, 2016 2015 and 20142015
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 20162017, and 20152016
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the Years Ended December 31, 2017, 2016 2015 and 20142015
Consolidated Statements of Changes in Equity for the Years Ended December 31, 2017, 2016 2015 and 20142015
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, 2017, 2016 2015 and 20142015
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 20162017, and 20152016
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the Years Ended December 31, 2017, 2016 2015 and 20142015
Consolidated Statements of Changes in Equity for the Years Ended December 31, 2017, 2016 2015 and 20142015
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, 2017, 2016 2015 and 20142015
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 20162017, and 20152016
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the Years Ended December 31, 2017, 2016 2015 and 20142015
Consolidated Statements of Changes in Equity for the Years Ended December 31, 2017, 2016 2015 and 20142015
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, LLC
Consolidated Financial Statements
Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income for the Years Ended December 31, 2017, 2016 2015 and 20142015
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 20162017, and 20152016
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the Years Ended December 31, 2017, 2016 2015 and 20142015
Consolidated Statements of Changes in Equity for the Years Ended December 31, 2017, 2016 2015 and 20142015
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, LLC
Consolidated Financial Statements
Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income for the Years Ended December 31, 2017, 2016 2015 and 20142015
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 20162017, and 20152016
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the Years Ended December 31, 2017, 2016 2015 and 20142015
Consolidated Statements of Changes in Equity for the Years Ended December 31, 2017, 2016 2015 and 20142015
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.

265


PART IV

Duke Energy Ohio, Inc.
Consolidated Financial Statements
Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income for the Years Ended December 31, 2017, 2016 2015 and 20142015
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 20162017, and 20152016
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the Years Ended December 31, 2017, 2016 2015 and 20142015
Consolidated Statements of Changes in Equity for the Years Ended December 31, 2017, 2016 2015 and 20142015
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, LLC
Consolidated Financial Statements
Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income for the Years Ended December 31, 2017, 2016 2015 and 20142015
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 20162017, and 20152016
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the Years Ended December 31, 2017, 2016 2015 and 20142015
Consolidated Statements of Changes in Equity for the Years Ended December 31, 2017, 2016 2015 and 20142015
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 followingPiedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc.
Consolidated Financial Statements
Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income for the signature page.Year Ended December 31, 2017, Two Months Ended December 31, 2016, and the Years Ended October 31, 2016, and 2015
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2017, and 2016
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the Year Ended December 31, 2017, Two Months Ended December 31, 2016, and the Years Ended October 31, 2016, and 2015
Consolidated Statements of Changes in Equity for the Year Ended December 31, 2017, Two Months Ended December 31, 2016, and the Years Ended October 31, 2016, and 2015
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.

266


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 (***).
DukeDukeDukeDukeDuke
ExhibitDukeEnergyProgressEnergyEnergyEnergyEnergy
NumberEnergyCarolinasEnergyProgressFloridaOhioIndianaPiedmont
2.1X
2.2X
3.1X
3.2X
3.3X
3.3.1X
3.4X
3.4.1X
3.5X
3.5.1X
3.5.2X
3.5.3X
3.5.4X
3.6X
3.7X
3.8X
3.8.1X
3.8.2X
3.9X
3.9.1X
3.9.2X
3.9.3X
3.10X
3.10.1
X
3.10.2X
3.10.3X
3.11X
3.11.1X
4.1X
4.1.1X
4.1.2X
4.1.3X
4.1.4X
4.1.5X
4.1.6X
4.1.7X
4.1.8X
4.1.9X
4.1.10X
4.1.11X
4.1.12X
4.1.13X
4.1.14X
4.1.15X
4.1.16X
4.1.17X
4.2X
4.2.1X
4.2.2X
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
4.3.1X
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.1-4928).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
4.3.7X
4.3.8X
4.3.9X
4.3.10X
4.3.11X
4.3.12X
4.3.13X
4.3.14X
4.3.15X
4.3.16X
4.3.17X
4.3.18X
4.3.19X
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 (Tina D. Gonzalez, successor), as Trustees, dated as of May 1, 1940.X
4.4.1First through Fifth Supplemental Indentures thereto (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2(b), File No. 2-64189).X
4.4.2Sixth Supplemental Indenture dated April 1, 1960 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2(b)-5, File No. 2-16210).X
4.4.3Seventh Supplemental Indenture dated November 1, 1961 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2(b)-6, File No. 2-16210).X
4.4.4Eighth Supplemental Indenture dated July 1, 1964 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(b)-8, File No. 2-19118).X
4.4.5Ninth Supplemental Indenture dated April 1, 1966 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(b)-2, File No. 2-22439).X
4.4.6Tenth Supplemental Indenture dated October 1, 1967 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(b)-2, File No. 2-24624).X
4.4.7Eleventh Supplemental Indenture dated October 1, 1968 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2(c), File No. 2-27297).X
4.4.8Twelfth Supplemental Indenture dated January 1, 1970 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2(c), File No. 2-30172).X
4.4.9Thirteenth Supplemental Indenture dated August 1, 1970 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2(c), File No. 2-35694).X
4.4.10Fourteenth Supplemental Indenture dated January 1, 1971 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2(c), File No. 2-37505).X
4.4.11Fifteenth Supplemental Indenture dated October 1, 1971 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2(c), File No. 2-39002).X
4.4.12Sixteenth Supplemental Indenture dated May 1, 1972 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2(c), File No. 2-41738).X
4.4.13Seventeenth Supplemental Indenture dated November 1, 1973 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2(c), File No. 2-43439).X
4.4.14Eighteenth Supplemental Indenture dated (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2(c), File No. 2-47751).X
4.4.15Nineteenth Supplemental Indenture dated May 1, 1974 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2(c), File No. 2-49347).X
4.4.16Twentieth Supplemental Indenture dated December 1, 1974 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2(c), File No. 2-53113).X
4.4.17Twenty-first Supplemental Indenture dated April 15, 1975 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2(d), File No. 2-53113).X
4.4.18Twenty-second Supplemental Indenture dated October 1, 1977 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2(c), File No. 2-59511).X
4.4.19Twenty-third Supplemental Indenture dated June 1, 1978 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2(c), File No. 2-61611).X
4.4.20Twenty-fourth Supplemental Indenture dated May 15, 1979 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2(d), File No. 2-64189).X
4.4.21Twenty-fifth Supplemental Indenture dated November 1, 1979 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2(c), File No. 2-65514).X
4.4.22Twenty-sixth Supplemental Indenture dated November 1, 1979 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2(c), File No. 2-66851).X
4.4.23Twenty-seventh Supplemental Indenture dated April 1, 1980 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2 (d), File No. 2-66851).X
4.4.24Twenty-eighth Supplemental Indenture dated October 1, 1980 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(b)-1, File No. 2-81299).X
4.4.25Twenty-ninth Supplemental Indenture dated October 1, 1980 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(b)-2, File No. 2-81299).X
4.4.26Thirtieth Supplemental Indenture dated December 1, 1982 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(b)- 3, File No. 2-81299).X
4.4.27Thirty-first Supplemental Indenture dated March 15, 1983 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(c)-1, File No. 2-95505).X
4.4.28Thirty-second Supplemental Indenture dated March 15, 1983 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(c)-2, File No. 2-95505).X
4.4.29Thirty-third Supplemental Indenture dated December 1, 1983 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(c)-3, File No. 2-95505).X
4.4.30Thirty-fourth Supplemental Indenture dated December 15, 1983 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(c)-4, File No. 2-95505).X
4.4.31Thirty-fifth Supplemental Indenture dated April 1, 1984 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(c)-5, File No. 2-95505).X
4.4.32Thirty-sixth Supplemental Indenture dated June 1, 1984 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(c)-6, File No. 2-95505).X
4.4.33Thirty-seventh Supplemental Indenture dated June 1, 1984 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(c)-7, File No. 2-95505).X
4.4.34Thirty-eighth Supplemental Indenture dated June 1, 1984 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(c)- 8, File No. 2-95505).X
4.4.35Thirty-ninth Supplemental Indenture dated April 1, 1985 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(b), File No. 33-25560).X
4.4.36Fortieth Supplemental Indenture dated October 1, 1985 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(c), File No. 33-25560).X
4.4.37Forty-first Supplemental Indenture dated March 1, 1986 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(d), File No. 33-25560).X
4.4.38Forty-second Supplemental Indenture dated July 1, 1986 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(e), File No. 33-25560).X
4.4.39Forty-third Supplemental Indenture dated January 1, 1987 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(f), File No. 33-25560).X
4.4.40Forty-fourth Supplemental Indenture dated December 1, 1987 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(g), File No. 33-25560).X
4.4.41Forty-fifth supplemental Indenture dated September 1, 1988 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(h), File No. 33-25560).X
4.4.42Forty-sixth Supplemental Indenture dated April 1, 1989 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(b), File No. 33-33431).X
4.4.43Forty-seventh Supplemental Indenture dated August 1, 1989 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(c), File No. 33-33431).X
4.4.44Forty-eighth Supplemental Indenture dated November 15, 1990 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(b), File No. 33-38298).X
4.4.45Forty-ninth Supplemental Indenture dated November 15, 1990 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(c), File No. 33-38298).X
4.4.46Fiftieth Supplemental Indenture dated February 15, 1991 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(h), File No. 33-42869).X
4.4.47Fifty-first Supplemental Indenture dated April 1, 1991 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(i), File No. 33-42869).X
4.4.48Fifty-second Supplemental Indenture dated September 15, 1991(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(e), File No. 33-48607).X
4.4.49Fifty-third Supplemental Indenture dated January 1, 1992 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(f), File No. 33-48607).X
4.4.50Fifty-fourth Supplemental Indenture dated April 15, 1992 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4 (g), File No. 33-48607).X
4.4.51Fifty-fifth Supplemental Indenture dated July 1, 1992 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(e), File No. 33-55060).X
4.4.52Fifty-sixth Supplemental Indenture dated October 1, 1992 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(f), File No. 33-55060).X
4.4.53Fifty-seventh Supplemental Indenture dated February 1, 1993 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(e), File No. 33-60014).X
4.4.54Fifty-eighth Supplemental Indenture dated March 1, 1993 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(f), File No. 33-60014).X
4.4.55Fifty-ninth Supplemental Indenture dated July 1, 1993 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(a) to Post-Effective Amendment No. 1, File No. 33-38349).X
4.4.56Sixtieth Supplemental Indenture dated July 1, 1993 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(b) to Post-Effective Amendment No. 1, File No. 33-38349).X
4.4.57Sixty-first Supplemental Indenture dated August 15, 1993 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(e), File No. 33-50597).X
4.4.58X
4.4.59X
4.4.60X
4.4.61X
4.4.62X
4.4.63X
4.4.64X
4.4.65X
4.4.66X
4.4.67X
4.4.68X
4.4.69X
4.4.70X
4.4.71X
4.4.72X
4.4.73X
4.4.74X
4.4.75X
4.4.76X
4.4.77X
4.4.78X
4.4.79X
4.4.80X
4.4.81X
4.5X
4.6X
4.7Indenture (for First Mortgage Bonds) between Duke Energy Florida, Inc. (formerly Florida Power Corporation) and The Bank of New York Mellon (as successor to Guaranty Trust Company of New York and The Florida National Bank of Jacksonville), as Trustee, dated as of January 1, 1944, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit B-18 to registrant's Form A-2, File No. 2-5293).X
4.7.1Seventh Supplemental Indenture (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(b) to Duke Energy Florida, Inc.'s (formerly Florida Power Corporation) Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed on September 27, 1991, File No. 33-16788).X
4.7.2Eighth Supplemental Indenture (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(c) to Duke Energy Florida, Inc.'s (formerly Florida Power Corporation) Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed on September 27, 1991, File No. 33-16788).X
4.7.3Sixteenth Supplemental Indenture (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(d) to Duke Energy Florida, Inc.'s (formerly Florida Power Corporation) Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed on September 27, 1991, File No. 33-16788).X
4.7.4Twenty-ninth Supplemental Indenture (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(c) to Duke Energy Florida, Inc.'s (formerly Florida Power Corporation) Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed on September 17, 1982, File No. 2-79832).X
4.7.5X
4.7.6X
4.7.7X
4.7.8X
4.7.9X
4.7.10X
4.7.11X
4.7.12X
4.7.13X
4.7.14X
4.7.15X
4.7.16X
4.8X
4.8.1X
4.9X
4.10X
4.10.1X
4.10.2X
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
4.11.1X
4.11.2X
4.11.3X
4.11.4X
4.12X
4.12.1X
4.12.2X
4.12.3X
4.12.4X
4.13Original Indenture (First Mortgage Bonds) between Duke Energy Indiana, LLC (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. 1-3543).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. 1-3543).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. 1-3543).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. 1-3543).X
4.13.10X
4.13.11X
4.13.12X
4.13.13X
4.13.14X
4.13.15X
4.13.16X
4.13.17X
4.13.18X
4.13.19X
4.13.20X
4.13.21X
4.13.22X
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. 1-1232).X
4.15X
4.16X
4.17X
4.18X
4.19X
4.20X
4.21X
4.22X
4.23X
4.24X
4.25X
4.26X
4.26.1X
4.26.2X
4.26.3X
4.26.4X
4.26.5X
4.26.6X
4.27Medium-Term Note, Series A, dated as of October 6, 1993 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.8 to registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended October 31, 1993, File No. 1-06196).X
4.28X
4.29X
4.30X
4.31X
4.32X
4.33X
4.34X
10.1**Directors’ Charitable Giving Program (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10-P to Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1992, File No. 1-4928).X
10.1.1**X
10.1.2**X
10.1.3**X
10.2X
10.3X
10.4X
10.5X
10.6X
10.7X
10.8X
10.9X
10.10X
10.11X
10.12X
10.13**X
10.14XX
10.15**X
10.16XXXX
10.16.1XXXXXX
10.16.2XXXXXX
10.16.3XXXXXXX
10.17**X
10.17.1**X
10.18**X
10.19**X
10.20**X
10.21**X
10.22**X
10.23**X
*10.24**X
10.25**X
10.26**X
*10.27*X
10.28X
10.29X
10.30**X
10.31**X
10.32Purchase, Construction and Ownership Agreement, dated as of July 30, 1981, between Duke Energy Progress, Inc. (formerly Carolina Power & Light Company) 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, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(a) to registrant's File No. 33-25560).X
10.33Operating and Fuel Agreement, dated as of July 30, 1981, between Duke Energy Progress, Inc. (formerly Carolina Power & Light Company) 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, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(b) to registrant's File No. 33-25560).X
10.34Power Coordination Agreement, dated as of July 30, 1981, between Duke Energy Progress, Inc. (formerly Carolina Power & Light Company) 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, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(c) to registrant's File No. 33-25560).X
10.35Amendment, 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 Company) and North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(d) to registrant's File No. 33-25560).X
10.36**X
10.37**X
10.38**XXX
10.39XX
10.40XX
10.41**X
10.41.1**X
10.42**X
10.43**X
10.44**X
10.44.1X
10.45XX
10.46XX
10.47X
10.48X
10.49X
10.50X
10.51X
10.52X
10.53X
10.54**X
10.55**X
10.56**X
10.56.1**X
10.56.2**X
10.57**X
10.57.1**X
10.58**X
10.59**X
10.60**X
10.61**X
10.62X
10.62.1X
10.63X
10.64X
10.65X
10.66X
10.66.1X
10.66.2X
10.67X
10.68X
*12.1X
*12.2X
*12.3X
*12.4X
*12.5X
*12.6X
*12.7X
*12.8X
*21X
*23.1.1X
*23.1.2X
*23.1.3X
*23.1.4X
*23.1.5X
*23.1.6X
*23.1.7X
*24.1X
*24.2X
*31.1.1X
*31.1.2X
*31.1.3X
*31.1.4X
*31.1.5X
*31.1.6X
*31.1.7X
*31.1.8X
*31.2.1X
*31.2.2X
*31.2.3X
*31.2.4X
*31.2.5X
*31.2.6X
*31.2.7X
*31.2.8X
*32.1.1X
*32.1.2X
*32.1.3X
*32.1.4X
*32.1.5X
*32.1.6X
*32.1.7X
*32.1.8X
*32.2.1X
*32.2.2X
*32.2.3X
*32.2.4X
*32.2.5X
*32.2.6X
*32.2.7X
*32.2.8X
*101.INSXBRL Instance DocumentXXXXXXXX
*101.SCHXBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema DocumentXXXXXXXX
*101.CALXBRL Taxonomy Calculation Linkbase DocumentXXXXXXXX
*101.LABXBRL Taxonomy Label Linkbase DocumentXXXXXXXX
*101.PREXBRL Taxonomy Presentation Linkbase DocumentXXXXXXXX
*101.DEFXBRL Taxonomy Definition Linkbase DocumentXXXXXXXX
The total amount of securities of each respective registrant or its subsidiaries authorized under any instrument with respect to long-term debt not filed as an exhibit does not exceed 10 percent of the total assets of such registrant and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis. Each registrant agrees, upon request of the SEC, to furnish copies of any or all of such instruments to it.

E-1


PART IV

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 24, 201721, 2018
 
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION
(Registrant)
 
 By:/s/ LYNN J. GOOD
   
Lynn J. Good
Chairman, President and 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 
 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/ WILLIAM E. CURRENS JR.    
 William E. Currens Jr. 
 Senior Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer and Controller (Principal Accounting Officer)
    
(iv)Directors:  
    
 Michael J. Angelakis*G. Browning*James B. Hyler, Jr.*
Theodore F. Craver, Jr.*William E. Kennard* 
    
 Michael G. Browning*Robert M. Davis*E. Marie McKee* 
    
 Daniel R. DiMicco*Charles W. Moorman IV* 
    
 John H. Forsgren*Carlos A. Saladrigas* 
    
 Ann Maynard Gray*Lynn J. Good*Thomas E. Skains* 
    
 John T. Herron*William E. Webster, Jr.*
James B. Hyler, Jr.* 
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 
     
 Date: February 24, 201721, 2018

E-2


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 24, 201721, 2018
 
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC
(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/ WILLIAM E. CURRENS JR. 
 William E. Currens Jr. 
 Senior Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer and Controller (Principal Accounting Officer)
   
(iv)Directors: 
   
 /s/ LYNN J. GOOD  
 Lynn J. Good 
   
 /s/ DHIAA M. JAMIL 
 Dhiaa M. Jamil 
   
 /s/ LLOYD M. YATES  
 Lloyd M. Yates 
Date: February 24, 201721, 2018

E-3


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 24, 201721, 2018
 
PROGRESS ENERGY, 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/ WILLIAM E. CURRENS JR. 
 William E. Currens Jr. 
 Senior Vice President, 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 24, 201721, 2018

E-4


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 24, 201721, 2018
 
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC
(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/ WILLIAM E. CURRENS JR. 
 William E. Currens Jr. 
 Senior Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer and Controller (Principal Accounting Officer)
   
(iv)Directors: 
   
 /s/ DOUGLAS F ESAMANN 
 Douglas F Esamann 
   
 /s/ LYNN J. GOOD 
 Lynn J. Good 
   
 /s/ DHIAA M. JAMIL 
 Dhiaa M. Jamil 
   
 /s/ JULIA S. JANSON 
 Julia S. Janson 
   
 /s/ LLOYD M. YATES 
 Lloyd M. Yates 
Date: February 24, 201721, 2018

E-5


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 24, 201721, 2018
 
DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, LLC
(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/ WILLIAM E. CURRENS JR. 
 William E. Currens Jr. 
 Senior Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer and Controller (Principal Accounting Officer)
   
(iv)Directors: 
   
 /s/ DOUGLAS F ESAMANN 
  Douglas F Esamann 
   
 /s/ LYNN J. GOOD 
 Lynn J. Good 
   
 /s/ DHIAA M. JAMIL 
 Dhiaa M. Jamil 
   
 /s/ JULIA S. JANSON 
 Julia S. Janson 
   
 /s/ LLOYD M. YATES 
 Lloyd M. Yates 
Date: February 24, 201721, 2018

E-6


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 24, 201721, 2018
 
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/ WILLIAM E. CURRENS JR. 
 William E. Currens Jr. 
 Senior Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer and Controller (Principal Accounting Officer)
   
(iv)Directors: 
   
 /s/ DOUGLAS F ESAMANN 
 Douglas F Esamann 
   
 /s/ LYNN J. GOOD 
 Lynn J. Good 
   
 /s/ DHIAA M. JAMIL 
 Dhiaa M. Jamil 
Date: February 24, 201721, 2018

E-7


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 24, 201721, 2018
 
DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, LLC
(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/ WILLIAM E. CURRENS JR. 
 William E. Currens Jr. 
 Senior Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer and Controller (Principal Accounting Officer)
   
(iv)Directors: 
   
 /s/ MELODY BIRMINGHAM-BYRD 
 Melody Birmingham-Byrd 
   
 /s/ DOUGLAS F ESAMANN 
 Douglas F Esamann 
   
 /s/ KELLEY A. KARN 
 Kelley A. Karn 
Date: February 24, 201721, 2018














E-8


PART IV

EXHIBIT INDEXSIGNATURES
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 requestPursuant to the Commission a copyrequirements of any omitted schedulesSection 13 or exhibits upon request15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on all items designatedits behalf by a triple asterisk (***).the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
Date: February 21, 2018
PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS COMPANY, 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
 DukeLynn J. Good 
 DukeDukeDukeDukeChief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
ExhibitDukeEnergyProgressEnergyEnergyEnergyEnergy
NumberEnergyCarolinasEnergyProgressFloridaOhioIndiana
2.1Agreement and Plan of Merger between Duke Energy Corporation, Diamond Acquisition Corporation and Progress Energy, Inc., dated as of January 8, 2011 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.1 to Duke Energy Corporation's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on January 11, 2011, File No. 1-32853).X   
2.2(ii)Agreement and Plan of Merger between Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Duke Energy Corporation and Forest Subsidiary, Inc. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.1 to Duke Energy Corporation's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on October 26, 2015, File No. 1-32853).X/s/ STEVEN K. YOUNG 
 Steven K. Young 
 Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
   
3.1(iii)Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to Duke Energy Corporation's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on May 20, 2014, File No. 1-32853).X/s/ WILLIAM E. CURRENS JR. 
 William E. Currens Jr. 
 Senior Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer and Controller (Principal Accounting Officer)
   
3.2(iv)Amended and Restated By-Laws of Duke Energy Corporation (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to Duke Energy Corporation's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on January 4, 2016, File No. 1-32853).XDirectors: 
   
3.3Articles 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. 1-4928)./s/ LYNN J. GOOD 
 XLynn J. Good 
   
3.3.1Amended 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. 1-4928)./s/ FRANKLIN H. YOHO 
 XFranklin H. Yoho 
   
3.4Amended 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. 1-1232).X/s/ DHIAA M. JAMIL 
3.4.1Amended 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. 1-1232).XDhiaa M. Jamil 
3.5Certificate of Conversion of Duke Energy Indiana, LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on January 4, 2016, File No. 1-3543).X
3.5.1Articles of Entity Conversion of Duke Energy Indiana, LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.2 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on January 4, 2016, File No. 1-3543).X
3.5.2Plan of Entity Conversion of Duke Energy Indiana, LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.3 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on January 4, 2016, File No. 1-3543).X
3.5.3Articles of Organization of Duke Energy Indiana, LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.4 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on January 4, 2016, File No. 1-3543).X
3.5.4Limited Liability Company Operating Agreement of Duke Energy Indiana, LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.5 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on January 4, 2016, File No. 1-3543).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. 1-4928).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. 1-1232).X
3.8Articles of Organization including Articles of Conversion for Duke Energy Progress, LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on August 4, 2015, File No. 1-3382).X
3.8.1Plan of Conversion of Duke Energy Progress, Inc. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.2 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on August 4, 2015, File No. 1-3382).X
3.8.2Limited Liability Company Operating Agreement of Duke Energy Progress, LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.3 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on August 4, 2015, File No. 1-3382).X
3.9Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of Progress Energy, Inc. (formerly CP&L Energy, Inc.), effective June 15, 2000 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3(a)(1) to registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2000 filed on August 14, 2000, File No. 1-3382).X
3.9.1Articles of Amendment to the Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of Progress Energy, Inc. (formerly CP&L Energy, Inc.), effective December 4, 2000 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3(b)(1) to registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001 filed on March 28, 2002, File No. 1-3382).X
3.9.2Articles of Amendment to the Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of Progress Energy, Inc. (formerly CP&L Energy, Inc.), effective May 10, 2006 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3(a) 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
3.9.3By-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
4.1Articles of Conversion for Duke Energy Florida, LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.4 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on August 4, 2015, File No. 1-3274).X
4.1.1Articles of Organization for Duke Energy Florida, LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.5 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on August 4, 2015, File No. 1-3274).
X
4.1.2Plan of Conversion of Duke Energy Florida, Inc. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.6 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on August 4, 2015, File No. 1-3274).X
4.1.3Limited Liability Company Operating Agreement of Duke Energy Florida, LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.7 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on August 4, 2015, File No. 1-3274).X
4.2Indenture 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 Duke Energy Corporation's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on June 16, 2008, File No. 1-32853).X
4.2.1First Supplemental Indenture, dated as of June 16, 2008 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.2 to Duke Energy Corporation's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on June 16, 2008, File No. 1-32853).X
4.2.2Second Supplemental Indenture, dated as of January 26, 2009 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Duke Energy Corporation's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on January 26, 2009, File No. 1-32853).X
4.2.3Third Supplemental Indenture, dated as of August 28, 2009 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Duke Energy Corporation's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on August 28, 2009, File No. 1-32853).X
4.2.4Fourth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of March 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
4.2.5Fifth 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
4.2.6Sixth 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
4.2.7Seventh 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
4.2.8Eighth 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
4.2.9Ninth 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
4.2.10Tenth 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
4.2.11Eleventh 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
4.2.12Twelfth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of November 19, 2015 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.2 to Duke Energy Corporation's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on November 19, 2015, File No. 1-32853).X
4.2.13Thirteenth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of April 18, 2016, to the indenture dated as of June 3, 2008, between Duke Energy Corporation and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as Trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Duke Energy Corporation's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2016 filed on May 5, 2016, File No. 1-32853).X
4.2.14Fourteenth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of August 12, 2016 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on August 12, 2016, File No. 1-32853).X
4.3Senior Indenture between Duke 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
4.3.1Fifteenth 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
4.3.2Sixteenth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of June 5, 2007 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on June 6, 2007, File No. 1-4928).X
4.4First 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
4.4.1Instrument 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
4.4.2Ninth 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
4.4.3Twentieth 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
4.4.4Twenty-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
4.4.5Sixtieth 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.1-4928).X
4.4.6Sixty-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
4.4.7Eighty-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
4.4.8Eighty-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.1-4928).X
4.4.9Eighty-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.1-4928).X
4.4.10Eighty-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.1-4928).X
4.4.11Ninetieth 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.1-4928).X
4.4.12Ninety-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.1-4928).X
4.4.13Ninety-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.1-4928).X
4.4.14Ninety-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.1-4928).X
4.4.15Ninety-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.1-4928).X
4.4.16Ninety-sixth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of March 12, 2015, between Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as Trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 12, 2015, File No. 1-4928).X
4.4.17Ninety-seventh Supplemental Indenture, dated as of March 11, 2016 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 11, 2016, File No. 1-4928).X
4.4.18Ninety-eighth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of November 17, 2016 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on November 17, 2016, File No. 1-4928).X
4.5Mortgage 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 (Tina D. Gonzalez, successor), as Trustees, dated as of May 1, 1940.X
4.5.1First 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, filed on February 24, 1995; Exhibit to the Current Report on Form 8-K filed on August 28, 1997, File No. 1-3382; 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. 1-3382).X
4.5.2Seventy-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. 1-3382).X
4.5.3Seventy-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. 1-3382).X
4.5.4Seventy-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. 1-3382).X
4.5.5Seventy-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. 1-3382).X
4.5.6Seventy-sixth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of January 1, 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. 1-3382).X
4.5.7Seventy-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. 1-3382).X
4.5.8Seventy-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. 1-3382).X
4.5.9Seventy-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. 1-3382).X
4.5.10Eightieth 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. 1-3382).X
4.5.11Eighty-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. 1-3382).X
4.5.12Eighty-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. 1-3382).X
4.5.13Eighty-fifth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of August 1, 2015 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Duke Energy Progress, LLC's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on August 13, 2015, File No. 1-3382).X
4.5.14Eighty-sixth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of September 1, 2016 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on September 16, 2016, File No. 1-15929).X
4.6Indenture (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. 1-3382).X
4.7Indenture (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
4.8Indenture (for First Mortgage Bonds) between Duke Energy Florida, Inc. (formerly Florida Power Corporation) and The Bank of New York Mellon (as successor to Guaranty Trust Company of New York and The Florida National Bank of Jacksonville), as Trustee, dated as of January 1, 1944 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit B-18 to registrant's Form A-2, File No. 2-5293).X
4.8.1Seventh Supplemental Indenture (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(b) to Duke Energy Florida, Inc.'s (formerly Florida Power Corporation) Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed on September 27, 1991, File No. 33-16788).X
4.8.2Eighth Supplemental Indenture (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(c) to Duke Energy Florida, Inc.'s (formerly Florida Power Corporation) Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed on September 27, 1991, File No. 33-16788).X
4.8.3Sixteenth Supplemental Indenture (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(d) to Duke Energy Florida, Inc.'s (formerly Florida Power Corporation) Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed on September 27, 1991, File No. 33-16788).X
4.8.4Twenty-ninth Supplemental Indenture (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(c) to Duke Energy Florida, Inc.'s (formerly Florida Power Corporation) Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed on September 17, 1982, File No. 2-79832).X
4.8.5Thirty-eighth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of July 25, 1994 (incorporated by reference to exhibit 4(f) to Duke Energy Florida, Inc.'s (formerly Florida Power Corporation) Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed on August 29, 1994, File No. 33-55273).X
4.8.6Forty-first Supplemental Indenture, dated 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 on February 21, 2003, File No. 1-3274).X
4.8.7Forty-second Supplemental Indenture, dated as of April 1, 2003 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4 to Duke 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 on August 11, 2003, File No. 1-3274).X
4.8.8Forty-third Supplemental Indenture, dated as of November 1, 2003 (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 on November 21, 2003, File No. 1-3274).X
4.8.9Forty-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, File No. 1-3274).X
4.8.10Forty-sixth Supplemental Indenture, dated 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 on September 19, 2007, File No. 1-3274).X
4.8.11Forty-seventh Supplemental Indenture, dated 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 on December 13, 2007, File No. 1-3274).X
4.8.12Forty-eighth Supplemental Indenture, dated 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 on June 18, 2008, File No. 1-3274).X
4.8.13Forty-ninth Supplemental Indenture, dated 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 on March 25, 2010, File No. 1-3274).X
4.8.14Fiftieth Supplemental Indenture, dated 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 on August 18, 2011, File No. 1-3274).X
4.8.15Fifty-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. 1-3274).X
4.8.16Fifty-third Supplemental Indenture, dated as of September 1, 2016 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on September 9, 2016, File No. 1-03274).X
4.9Indenture (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. 1-3274).X
4.10Indenture (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
4.11Original 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. 1-1232).X
4.11.1First 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. 1-1232).X
4.11.2Seventh 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. 1-1232).X
4.12Original 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
4.12.1Fortieth 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. 1-1232).X
4.12.2Forty-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. 1-1232).X
4.12.3Forty-fourth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of June 23, 2016 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on June 23, 2016, File No. 1-1232).X
4.13Indenture between Duke Energy Indiana, LLC (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. 1-3543).X
4.13.1Third Supplemental Indenture, dated as of March 15, 1998 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4 to Duke Energy Indiana, LLC'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. 1-3543).X
4.13.2Eighth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of September 23, 2003 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.2 to Duke Energy Indiana, LLC'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. 1-3543).X
4.13.3Ninth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of October 21, 2005 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.7.3 to Duke Energy Indiana, LLC's (formerly PSI Energy, Inc.) Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed on September 29, 2010, File No. 333-169633).X
4.13.4Tenth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of June 9, 2006 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Duke Energy Indiana, LLC’s (formerly PSI Energy, Inc.) Current Report on Form 8-K filed on June 15, 2006, File No. 1-3543).X
4.14Original Indenture (First Mortgage Bonds) between Duke Energy Indiana, LLC (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
4.14.1Tenth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of July 1, 1952 (filed as an exhibit in File No. 2-9687).X
4.14.2Twenty-third Supplemental Indenture, dated as of January 1, 1977 (filed as an exhibit in File No. 2-57828).X
4.14.3Twenty-fifth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of September 1, 1978 (filed as an exhibit in File No. 2-62543).X
4.14.4Twenty-sixth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of September 1, 1978 (filed as an exhibit in File No. 2-62543).X
4.14.5Thirtieth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of August 1, 1980 (filed as an exhibit in File No. 2-68562).X
4.14.6Thirty-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. 1-3543).X
4.14.7Forty-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. 1-3543).X
4.14.8Forty-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. 1-3543).X
4.14.9Forty-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. 1-3543).X
4.14.10Fifty-second Supplemental Indenture, dated as of April 30, 1999 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4 to Duke Energy Indiana, LLC’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. 1-3543).X
4.14.11Fifty-seventh Supplemental Indenture, dated as of August 21, 2008 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Duke Energy Indiana, LLC’s (formerly PSI Energy, Inc.) Current Report Form 8-K filed on August 21, 2008, File No. 1-3543).X
4.14.12Fifty-eighth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of December 19, 2008 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.8.12 to Duke Energy Indiana, LLC’s (formerly PSI Energy, Inc.) Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed on September 29, 2010, File No. 333-169633-02).X
4.14.13Fifty-ninth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of March 23, 2009 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Duke Energy Indiana, LLC’s (formerly PSI Energy, Inc.) Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 24, 2009, File No. 1-3543).X
4.14.14Sixtieth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of June 1, 2009 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.8.14 to Duke Energy Indiana, LLC’s (formerly PSI Energy, Inc.) Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed on September 29, 2010, File No. 333-169633-02).X
4.14.15Sixty-first Supplemental Indenture, dated as of October 1, 2009 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.8.15 to Duke Energy Indiana, LLC’s (formerly PSI Energy, Inc.) Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed on September 29, 2010, File No. 333-169633-02).X
4.14.16Sixty-second Supplemental Indenture, dated as of July 9, 2010 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Duke Energy Indiana, LLC’s (formerly PSI Energy, Inc.) Current Report on Form 8-K filed on July 9, 2010, File No. 1-3543). X
4.14.17Sixty-third Supplemental Indenture, dated as of September 23, 2010 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.8.17 to Duke Energy Indiana, LLC’s (formerly PSI Energy, Inc.) Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed on September 29, 2010, File No. 333-169633-02).X
4.14.18Sixty-fourth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of December 1, 2011 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(d)(2)(xviii) to Duke Energy Indiana, LLC’s (formerly PSI Energy, Inc.) Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed on September 30, 2013, File No. 333-191462-03).X
4.14.19Sixty-fifth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of March 15, 2012 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Duke Energy Indiana, LLC’s (formerly PSI Energy, Inc.) Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 15, 2012, File No. 1-3543).X
4.14.20Sixty-sixth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of July 11, 2013 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Duke Energy Indiana, LLC’s (formerly PSI Energy, Inc.) Current Report on Form 8-K filed on July 11, 2013, File No. 1-3543).X
4.14.21Sixty-seventh Supplemental Indenture, dated as of January 1, 2016, between Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee, supplementing and amending the Indenture of Mortgage or Deed of Trust, dated September 1, 1939, between Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.2 to Duke Energy Indiana, LLC's (formerly PSI Energy, Inc.) Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2016 filed on May 5, 2016, File No. 1-3543).X
4.14.22Sixty-eighth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of May 12, 2016 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on May 12, 2016, File No. 1-3543).X
4.15Repayment 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. 1-1232).X
4.16Unsecured Promissory Note between Duke Energy Indiana, LLC (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. 1-3543).X
4.176.302% Subordinated Note between Duke Energy Indiana, LLC (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. 1-3543).X
4.186.403% Subordinated Note between Duke Energy Indiana, LLC (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. 1-3543).X
4.19Form 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
4.20Form of Duke Energy InterNote (Floating Rate), dated as of November 13, 2012 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.2 to Duke Energy Corporation's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on November 14, 2012, File No. 1-32853).X
4.21Contingent Value Obligation Agreement between Progress Energy, Inc. (formerly CP&L Energy, Inc.) and The Chase Manhattan Bank, as Trustee, dated as of November 30, 2000 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on December 1, 2000, File No. 1-3382).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
10.1.1Amendment 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 May 4, 2006 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2.1 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
10.2**Directors’ Charitable Giving Program (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10-P to Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1992, File No. 1-4928).X
10.2.1**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. 1-4928).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. 1-4928).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. 1-4928).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. 1-4928).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. 1-4928).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. 1-4928). (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. 1-4928). (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, LLC (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. 1-3543).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. 1-4928).X
10.10Asset Purchase Agreement between Capital & Trading, CinCap VII, LLC and Duke Energy Indiana, LLC (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. 1-3543).X
10.11Asset Purchase Agreement between Duke Energy Indiana, LLC (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. 1-1232).X
10.12Asset Purchase Agreement between Duke Energy Indiana, LLC (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. 1-3543).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. 1-1232).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, LLC, (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. 1-3543).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, LLC (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. 1-3543). (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, LLC (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 1-3543). (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 1-4928).XX
10.27**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
10.28$6,000,000,000 Five-Year Credit Agreement between Duke Energy Corporation, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., Duke Energy Indiana, LLC, 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, 1-4928, 1-1232 and 1-3543).XXXX
10.28.1Amendment No. 1 and Consent between Duke Energy Corporation, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., Duke Energy Indiana, LLC, 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, 1-4928, 1-3382, 1-3274, 1-1232 and 1-3543).XXXXXX
10.28.2Amendment No. 2 and Consent between Duke Energy Corporation, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., Duke Energy Indiana, LLC, Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc., Duke Energy Progress, Inc., and Duke Energy Florida, Inc., the Lenders party hereto, the issuing Lenders party hereto, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Administrative Agent and Swingline Lender, dated as of January 30, 2015 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on February 5, 2015, File Nos. 1-32853, 1-4928, 1-1232, 1-3543, 1-3382 and 1-3274).XXXXXX
10.29**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
10.29.1**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
10.30**Duke Energy Corporation 2015 Long-Term Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to Appendix A to registrant's DEF 14A filed on March 26, 2015, File No. 1-32853).X
10.31**Form of Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement of Duke Energy Corporation under the Duke Energy Corporation 2015 Long-Term Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on May 12, 2015, File No. 1-32853).X
10.32**Form of Performance Award Agreement of Duke Energy Corporation under the Duke Energy Corporation 2015 Long-Term Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on May 12, 2015, File No. 1-32853).X
10.33**Form of Performance Award Agreement of Duke Energy Corporation under the Duke Energy Corporation 2015 Long-Term Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on February 18, 2016, File No. 1-32853).X
10.34**Form of Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement of Duke Energy Corporation under the Duke Energy Corporation 2015 Long-Term Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on February 18, 2016, File No. 1-32853).X
10.35Settlement 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
10.36Settlement 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
10.37**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**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
10.39Purchase, Construction and Ownership Agreement, dated as of July 30, 1981, between Duke Energy Progress, Inc. (formerly Carolina Power & Light Company) 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 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(a) to registrant's File No. 33-25560).X
10.40Operating and Fuel Agreement, dated as of July 30, 1981, between Duke Energy Progress, Inc. (formerly Carolina Power & Light Company) 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 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(b) to registrant's File No. 33-25560).X
10.41Power Coordination Agreement, dated as of July 30, 1981, between Duke Energy Progress, Inc. (formerly Carolina Power & Light Company) 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 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(c) to registrant's File No. 33-25560).X
10.42Amendment, 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 Company) and North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(d) to registrant's File No. 33-25560).X
10.43**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
10.44**Form of Letter Agreement 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, dated as of January 8, 2011 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on January 8, 2011, File No. 1-15929).X
10.45**Progress Energy, Inc. Management Change-in-Control Plan, Amended and Restated, effective July 13, 2011 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(d) to registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2011 filed on November 8, 2011, File Nos. 1-15929, 1-3382 and 1-3274).XXX
10.46
Precedent and Related Agreements between 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 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 as of December 2, 2004 and
Firm Transportation Service Agreement 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 (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.1 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K/A filed on March 15, 2005, File
Nos. 1-15929 and 1-3274). (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
10.47Engineering, Procurement and Construction Agreement 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, dated 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, File Nos. 1-15929 and 1-3274). (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
10.48**Employment Agreement between Duke Energy Corporation and Lynn J. Good, dated as of June 17, 2013 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Duke Energy Corporation's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on June 18, 2013, File No. 1-32853).X
10.48.1**Amendment to Employment Agreement between Duke Energy Corporation and Lynn J. Good, dated as of June 25, 2015 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Duke Energy Corporation's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on June 29, 2015, File No. 1-32853).X
10.49**Duke Energy Corporation Executive Short-Term Incentive Plan, effective February 25, 2013 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Duke Energy Corporation's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on May 7, 2013, File No. 1-32853).X
10.50**Duke Energy Corporation 2016 Director Compensation Program Summary (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.55 to Duke Energy Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015 filed on February 25, 2016, File No. 1-32853).X
10.51**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
10.52Agreement 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 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.61 to Duke Energy Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014 filed on March 2, 2015, File No. 1-32853).XX
10.53Asset Purchase Agreement between Duke Energy Progress, Inc. and North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency, dated as of September 5, 2014 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.62 to Duke Energy Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014 filed on March 2, 2015, File No. 1-32853).XX
10.54Change 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
10.55Accelerated Stock Repurchase Program executed by Goldman, Sachs & Co., and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. on April 6, 2015, under an agreement with Duke Energy Corporation (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Duke Energy Corporation's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on April 6, 2015, File No. 1-32853).X
10.56Plea Agreement between Duke Energy Corporation and the Court of the Eastern District of North Carolina in connection with the May 14, 2015, Dan River Grand Jury Settlement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to Duke Energy Corporation's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2015, filed on August 7, 2015, File No. 1-32853).X
10.57Plea Agreement between Duke Energy Corporation and the Court of the Eastern District of North Carolina in connection with the May 14, 2015, Dan River Grand Jury Settlement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to Duke Energy Corporation's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2015 filed on August 7, 2015, File No. 1-32853).X
10.58$1,500,000,000 Amended and Restated Term Loan Agreement among Duke Energy Corporation, as Borrower, the Lenders listed therein, The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd., as Administrative Agent, and The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd., Santander Bank, N.A. and TD Bank, N.A., as Joint Lead Arrangers and Bookrunners, dated as of August 1, 2016 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Duke Energy Corporation's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,2016 filed on August 4, 2016, File No. 1-32853).X
10.59
Purchase and Sale Agreement by and among Duke Energy International Group S.à.r.l., Duke Energy International Brazil Holdings S.à.r.l. and China Three Gorges (Luxembourg) Energy S.à.r.l., dated as of October 10, 2016 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.1 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on October 13, 2016, File No. 1-32853).
X
10.60Purchase and Sale Agreement by and among Duke Energy Brazil Holdings II, C.V., Duke Energy International Uruguay Investments SRL, Duke Energy International Group S.à.r.l., Duke Energy International España Holdings SL, Duke Energy International Investments No. 2 Ltd., ISQ Enerlam Aggregator, L.P., and Enerlam (UK) Holdings Ltd., dated as of October 10, 2016 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.2. to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on October 13, 2016, File No. 1-32853).X
10.61**Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, dated May 25, 2012, between Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc. and Franklin H. Yoho (incorporated by reference to Exhibits 10.12 and 10.13 to registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended October 31, 2015 filed on December 23, 2015, File No. 1-06196).X
10.62**Severance Agreements with Thomas E. Skains and Franklin H. Yoho, dated September 4, 2007 (incorporate by reference to Exhibits 10.2 and 10.3, respectively, to registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended October 31, 2015 filed on December 23, 2015, File No. 1-06196).X
10.63**Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc. Defined Contribution Restoration Plan, dated as of December 8, 2008, effective January 1, 2009 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2009 filed on March 9, 2009, File No. 1-06196).X
10.63.1**Instrument of Amendment for Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc. Defined Contribution Restoration Plan, dated as of January 23, 2012, by Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2012 filed on March 9, 2012, File No. 1-06196).X
*10.63.2**Instrument of Second Amendment for Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc. Defined Contribution Restoration Plan, dated September 15, 2016.X
*10.64**Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc. Incentive Compensation Plan.X
10.64.1**First Amendment to Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc. Incentive Compensation Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.2 to registrant's Registration Statement on Form S-8 filed on October 3, 2016, File No. 1-32853).X
10.65**Form of Performance Unit Award Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2016 filed on March 9, 2016, File No. 1-06196).X
*10.66**Waiver of Certain Rights to Terminate for Good Reason between Duke Energy Corporation and Franklin H. Yoho.X
*10.67**Notice of Non-Renewal of Employment Agreement between Duke Energy Corporation and Franklin H. Yoho.X
*10.68**Retention Award Agreement, dated as of October 24, 2015, between Duke Energy Corporation and Franklin H. Yoho.X
10.69Confirmation of Forward Sale Transaction, dated as of March 1, 2016, between Duke Energy Corporation and Barclays Capital Inc. (incorporated by referenced to Exhibit 10.1 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 7, 2016, File No. 1-32853).X
10.69.1Additional Confirmation of Forward Sale Transaction, dated as of March 2, 2016, between Duke Energy Corporation and Barclays Capital Inc. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 7, 2016, File No. 1-32853).X
*12.1Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges – DUKE ENERGY CORPORATIONX
*12.2Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges – DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLCX
*12.3Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges – PROGRESS ENERGY, INC.X
*12.4Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges – DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLCX
*12.5Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges – DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, LLCX
*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, LLCX
*21List of SubsidiariesX
*23.1.1Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm.X
*23.1.2Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm.X
*23.1.3Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm.X
*23.1.4Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm.X
*23.1.5Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm.X
*23.1.6Consent 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
*24.2Certified copy of resolution of the Board of Directors of the registrant authorizing power of attorney.X
*31.1.1Certification of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.X
*31.1.2Certification of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.X
*31.1.3Certification of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.X
*31.1.4Certification of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.X
*31.1.5Certification 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
*31.2.2Certification of the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.X
*31.2.3Certification of the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.X
*31.2.4Certification of the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.X
*31.2.5Certification 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
*32.1.2Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.X
*32.1.3Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.X
*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
The total amount of securities of the registrant or its subsidiaries authorized under any instrument with respect to long-term debt not filed as an exhibit does not exceed 10 percent of the total assets of the registrant and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis. The registrant agrees, upon request of the SEC, to furnish copies of any or all of such instruments to it.Date: February 21, 2018


E-1E-9