v2.4.0.8

Regulatory Matters | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2014
Regulated Operations [Abstract] |
Regulatory Matters | REGULATORY MATTERS RATE RELATED INFORMATION The NCUC, PSCSC, FPSC, IURC, PUCO and KPSC approve rates for retail electric and natural gas services within their states. The FERC approves rates for electric sales to wholesale customers served under cost-based rates (excluding Ohio and Indiana), as well as sales of transmission service. Duke Energy Carolinas 2013 North Carolina Rate Case On September 24, 2013, the NCUC approved a settlement agreement related to Duke Energy Carolinas’ request for a rate increase with minor modifications. The parties agreed to a three-year step-in rate increase, with the first two years providing for $204 million, or a 4.5 percent average increase in rates, and the third year providing for rates to be increased by an additional $30 million, or 0.6 percent. The agreement is based upon a return on equity of 10.2 percent and an equity component of the capital structure of 53 percent. New rates went into effect on September 25, 2013. On October 23, 2013, the North Carolina Attorney General (NCAG) appealed the rate of return and capital structure approved in the agreement. On October 24, 2013, the NC Waste Awareness and Reduction Network (NC WARN) also appealed various matters in the settlement. The North Carolina Supreme Court (NCSC) denied a motion to consolidate these appeals with other North Carolina rate case appeals involving Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress on March 13, 2014. Briefing has concluded in this matter and oral argument occurred on September 8, 2014. Duke Energy Carolinas cannot predict the outcome of this matter. 2011 North Carolina Rate Case On January 27, 2012, the NCUC approved a settlement agreement related to Duke Energy Carolinas’ request for a rate increase. The NCUC Public Staff (Public Staff) was a party to the settlement. On October 23, 2013, the NCUC reaffirmed the rate of return approved in the settlement agreement, in response to an appeal by the NCAG. On November 21, 2013, the NCAG appealed the reaffirmed order. The NCSC denied a motion to consolidate this appeal with other North Carolina rate case appeals involving Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress on March 13, 2014. Briefing has concluded in this matter and oral argument occurred on September 8, 2014. Duke Energy Carolinas cannot predict the outcome of this matter. William States Lee Combined Cycle Facility On April 9, 2014, the PSCSC granted Duke Energy Carolinas and North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation (NCEMC) a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Convenience and Necessity (CECPCN) for the construction and operation of a 750 MW combined cycle natural gas-fired generating plant at its existing William States Lee Generating Station in Anderson, South Carolina. On May 16, 2014, Duke Energy Carolinas announced its intention to begin construction in summer 2015 and estimates a cost to build of $600 million for its share of the facility, including allowance for funds used during construction (AFUDC). The project is expected to be commercially available in late 2017. NCEMC will own approximately 13 percent of the project. On July 3, 2014, the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League (SCCCL) and Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) jointly filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeals of South Carolina seeking the court's review of the PSCSC's decision. Duke Energy Carolinas cannot predict the outcome of this matter. Duke Energy Progress 2012 North Carolina Rate Case On May 30, 2013, the NCUC approved a settlement agreement related to Duke Energy Progress’ request for a rate increase. The Public Staff was a party to the settlement agreement. The parties agreed to a two-year step-in rate increase, with the first year providing for a $147 million, or a 4.5 percent average increase in rates, and the second year providing for rates to be increased by an additional $31 million, or a 1.0 percent average increase in rates. The agreement is based upon a return on equity of 10.2 percent and an equity component of the capital structure of 53 percent. The initial rate increase went into effect on June 1, 2013 and the step-in rate increase went into effect in June 2014. On July 1, 2013, the NCAG appealed the NCUC’s approval of the rate of return and capital structure included in the agreement. NC WARN also appealed various matters in the settlement. The NCSC denied a motion to consolidate these appeals with other North Carolina rate case appeals involving Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress on March 13, 2014. Briefing has concluded in this matter and oral argument was held on May 5, 2014. On August 20, 2014, the NCSC affirmed the NCUC's order approving Duke Energy Progress' rate of return and capital structure. Shearon Harris Nuclear Station Expansion In 2006, Duke Energy Progress selected a site at Harris to evaluate for possible future nuclear expansion. On February 19, 2008, Duke Energy Progress filed its COL application with the NRC for two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors at Harris, which the NRC docketed for review. On May 2, 2013, Duke Energy Progress filed a letter with the NRC requesting the NRC to suspend its review activities associated with the COL at the Harris site. As a result of the decision to suspend the COL applications, during the second quarter of 2013, Duke Energy Progress recorded a pretax impairment charge of $22 million, which represented costs associated with the COL, which were not probable of recovery. As of September 30, 2014, approximately $48 million is recorded in Regulatory assets on Duke Energy Progress' Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. Wholesale Depreciation Rates On April 19, 2013, Duke Energy Progress filed an application with FERC for acceptance of changes to generation depreciation rates and in August 2013 filed for acceptance of additional changes. These changes will affect the rates of Duke Energy Progress wholesale power customers that purchase or will purchase power under formula rates. Certain Duke Energy Progress wholesale customers filed interventions and protests. FERC accepted the depreciation rate changes, subject to refund, and set the matter for settlement and hearing in a consolidated proceeding. FERC further initiated an action with respect to the justness and reasonableness of the proposed rate changes. Settlement was reached in October 2014, subject to FERC approval, for changes to the depreciation rates and conforming changes to the wholesale formula rates. The agreement will have no material or adverse impact to the rates originally proposed by Duke Energy Progress, and Duke Energy Progress will receive cost recovery for early retired plants previously included in the depreciation rates. Duke Energy Florida FPSC Settlement Agreements On February 22, 2012, the FPSC approved a settlement agreement (the 2012 Settlement) among Duke Energy Florida, the Florida Office of Public Counsel (OPC) and other customer advocates. The 2012 Settlement was to continue through the last billing cycle of December 2016. On October 17, 2013, the FPSC approved a settlement agreement (the 2013 Settlement) between Duke Energy Florida, OPC, and other customer advocates. The 2013 Settlement replaces and supplants the 2012 Settlement and substantially resolves issues related to (i) Crystal River Unit 3, (ii) Levy, (iii) Crystal River 1 and 2 coal units, and (iv) future generation needs in Florida. Refer to the remaining sections below and the 2013 Annual Report on Form 10-K for further discussion of these settlement agreements. Crystal River Unit 3 On February 5, 2013, Duke Energy Florida announced the retirement of Crystal River Unit 3. On February 20, 2013, Duke Energy Florida filed with the NRC a certification of permanent cessation of power operations and permanent removal of fuel from the reactor vessel. In December 2013, and March 2014, Duke Energy Florida filed an updated site-specific decommissioning plan with the NRC and FPSC, respectively. The plan included a decommissioning cost estimate of $1,180 million, including amounts applicable to joint owners, under the safe storage (SAFSTOR) option. Duke Energy Florida’s decommissioning study assumes Crystal River Unit 3 will be in SAFSTOR configuration, requiring limited staffing to monitor plant conditions, until the eventual dismantling and decontamination activities to be completed by 2073. This decommissioning approach is currently utilized at a number of retired domestic nuclear power plants and is one of three accepted approaches to decommissioning approved by the NRC. Duke Energy Florida has reclassified all Crystal River Unit 3 investments, including property, plant and equipment, nuclear fuel, inventory, and other assets, to a regulatory asset. Duke Energy agreed to forgo recovery of $295 million of regulatory assets and an impairment charge was recorded in the second quarter of 2013 for this matter. Duke Energy Florida is allowed to accelerate cash recovery of approximately $130 million of the Crystal River Unit 3 regulatory asset from retail customers from 2014 through 2016 through its fuel clause. Duke Energy Florida will begin recovery of the remaining Crystal River Unit 3 regulatory asset, up to a cap of $1,466 million from retail customers upon the earlier of (i) full recovery of the uncollected Levy investment or (ii) the first billing period of January 2017. Recovery will continue 240 months from inception of collection of the regulatory asset in base rates. The Crystal River Unit 3 base rate component will be adjusted at least every four years. Included in this recovery, but not subject to the cap, are costs of building an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI). The return rate will be based on the currently approved AFUDC rate with a return on equity of 7.35 percent, or 70 percent of the currently approved 10.5 percent. The return rate is subject to change if the return on equity changes in the future. In May 2014, Duke Energy Florida petitioned the FPSC for approval of the decision to construct the ISFSI and approval of an accounting order to defer amortization of the ISFSI pending resolution of its litigation against the federal government as a result of the Department of Energy's breach of its obligation to accept spent nuclear fuel. The regulatory asset associated with the original power uprate project to increase generating capacity will continue to be recovered through the Nuclear Cost Recovery Clause (NCRC) over an estimated seven year period that began in 2013. Through September 30, 2014, Duke Energy Florida deferred $1,373 million for rate recovery related to Crystal River Unit 3, which is subject to the rate recovery cap in the 2013 Settlement. In addition, Duke Energy Florida deferred $268 million for recovery associated with building an ISFSI and the original uprate project, which is not subject to the rate recovery cap discussed above. Duke Energy Florida does not expect the Crystal River Unit 3 costs to exceed the cap. The following table includes a summary of retail customer refunds agreed to in the 2012 Settlement and the 2013 Settlement. Refer to the 2013 Annual Report on Form 10-K for additional information on each of these refunds.
| September 30, 2014
|  |  |  |  | Remaining Amount to be Refunded
(in millions) | Total |  |  | Refunded to date |  |  | 2014 |  |  | 2015 |  |  | 2016 |
2012 Settlement refund | $ | 288 |  |  | $ | 233 |  |  | $ | 35 |  |  | $ | 10 |  |  | $ | 10 |
Retirement decision refund | 100 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 40 |  |  | 60 |
NEIL proceeds | 490 |  |  | 449 |  |  | 41 |  |  | — |  |  | — |
Total customer refunds | $ | 878 |  |  | 682 |  |  | 76 |  |  | 50 |  |  | 70 |
Accelerated regulatory asset recovery | (130 | ) |  | (28 | ) |  | (9 | ) |  | (37 | ) |  | (56 | )
Net customer refunds | $ | 748 |  |  | $ | 654 |  |  | $ | 67 |  |  | $ | 13 |  |  | $ | 14 |
Levy On July 28, 2008, Duke Energy Florida applied to the NRC for a COL for two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors at Levy. In 2008, the FPSC granted Duke Energy Florida’s petition for an affirmative Determination of Need and related orders requesting cost recovery under Florida’s nuclear cost-recovery rule, together with the associated facilities, including transmission lines and substation facilities. On January 28, 2014, Duke Energy Florida terminated the Levy engineering, procurement and construction agreement (EPC). Duke Energy Florida may be required to pay for work performed under the EPC and to bring existing work to an orderly conclusion, including but not limited to costs to demobilize and cancel certain equipment and material orders placed. Duke Energy Florida recorded an exit obligation of $25 million upon termination of the EPC. This liability was recorded within Other in Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities with an offset primarily to Regulatory assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Duke Energy Florida is allowed to recover reasonable and prudent EPC cancellation costs from its retail customers. The 2012 Settlement provided that Duke Energy Florida include the allocated wholesale cost of Levy as a retail regulatory asset and include this asset as a component of rate base and amortization expense for regulatory reporting. In accordance with the 2013 Settlement, Duke Energy Florida ceased amortization of the wholesale allocation of Levy investments against retail rates. In the second quarter of 2013, Duke Energy Florida recorded a pretax charge of $65 million to write off the wholesale portion of Levy investments. This amount is included in Impairment charges on Duke Energy Florida's Condensed Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income. On October 27, 2014, the FPSC approved Duke Energy Florida rates for 2015 for Levy as filed and consistent with those established in the 2013 Revised and Restated Settlement Agreement. Recovery of the remaining retail portion of the project costs will occur over five years from 2013 through 2017. Duke Energy Florida has an ongoing responsibility to demonstrate prudency related to the wind down of the Levy investment and the potential for salvage of Levy assets. As of September 30, 2014, Duke Energy Florida has a net uncollected investment in Levy of approximately $207 million, including AFUDC. Of this amount, $54 million is included in Regulatory assets, $120 million related to land and the COL is included in Net, property, plant and equipment, and $33 million is included in Regulatory assets within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. New Generation The 2013 Settlement establishes a recovery mechanism for additional generation needs. This recovery mechanism, the Generation Base Rate Adjustment (GBRA), allows recovery of prudent costs of these items through an increase in base rates, upon the in-service date of such assets, without a general rate case at a 10.5 percent return on equity. On May 27, 2014, Duke Energy Florida petitioned the FPSC for a Determination of Need to (i) construct a 1,640 MW combined cycle natural gas plant in Citrus County, Florida to be in service in 2018 with an estimated cost of $1.5 billion, (ii) construct a 320 MW combustion turbine plant at its existing Suwannee generating facility with an estimated cost of $197 million, and (iii) add inlet chilling to its existing Hines Energy Complex (Hines) combined cycle units which will increase the output of those units by 220 MW at an estimated cost of $160 million. These cost estimates include AFUDC. On August 26, 2014, Duke Energy Florida requested the FPSC withdraw consideration for the Suwannee project so that Duke Energy Florida could pursue further negotiations on an alternative power plant acquisition. On October 2, 2014, the FPSC approved the requests for the Citrus County plant and the uprate project at the Hines facility. Additional environmental and governmental approvals will be sought for the Citrus County project. The Hines uprate project is expected to be completed no later than 2017. Cost of Removal Reserve The 2012 Settlement and the 2013 Settlement provided Duke Energy Florida the discretion to reduce cost of removal amortization expense up to the balance in the cost of removal reserve until the earlier of its applicable cost of removal reserve reaching zero or the expiration of the 2013 Settlement. Duke Energy Florida was not allowed to reduce amortization expense if the reduction would cause it to exceed the appropriate high point of the return on equity range. Duke Energy Florida recognized a reduction in amortization expense of $22 million for the three months ended September 30, 2013 and $95 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2013. Duke Energy Florida had no cost of removal reserves eligible for amortization to income remaining after December 31, 2013. Duke Energy Ohio Ohio River Fuel Spill On August 18, 2014, approximately 9,000 gallons of fuel oil was inadvertently discharged into the Ohio River during a fuel oil transfer at the W.C. Beckjord generating plant. The total costs to be incurred related to the clean-up of the oil spill are not expected to be material. 2014 Electric Security Plan On May 29, 2014, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application for approval of an SSO in the form of an ESP, effective June 1, 2015. The proposed ESP includes a competitive procurement process for SSO load, a distribution capital investment rider, a tracking mechanism for incremental distribution costs caused by major storms, and a cost-based recovery of Duke Energy Ohio’s contractual entitlement in OVEC. The proposed plan also seeks rate design modifications and continuance, revision, or termination of existing riders. An evidentiary hearing for this case commenced on October 22, 2014. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter. 2012 Natural Gas Rate Case On November 13, 2013, the PUCO issued an order approving a settlement among Duke Energy Ohio, the PUCO Staff and intervening parties (the Gas Settlement). The Gas Settlement provided for (i) no increase in base rates for natural gas distribution service, (ii) a return on equity of 9.84 percent, and (iii) rider recovery of $56 million, excluding carrying costs, of environmental remediation costs associated with former manufactured gas plants (MGP) incurred through 2012. The MGP rider became effective in April 2014 for a five-year period. On March 31, 2014, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application with the PUCO to adjust the MGP rider for investigation and remediation costs incurred in 2013. On May 14, 2014, the Ohio Supreme Court granted certain consumer groups' motion to stay the MGP rider pending their appeals of the PUCO approval of the Gas Settlement. The appellants, the PUCO and Duke Energy Ohio have all filed briefs addressing the merits of this matter with the Ohio Supreme Court. On July 29, 2014, the Ohio Supreme Court denied Duke Energy Ohio's motion to lift the stay, but did require appellants to post a bond. Briefs have been submitted in the case. No bond amount or date for oral argument has been set. Duke Energy Ohio suspended billing of the MGP rider in June 2014. Amounts collected under the rider prior to suspension are immaterial. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter. Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) Realignment Duke Energy Ohio, including Duke Energy Kentucky, transferred control of its transmission assets from Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO) to PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM), effective December 31, 2011. On December 22, 2010, the KPSC approved Duke Energy Kentucky’s request to effect the RTO realignment, subject to a commitment not to seek double-recovery in a future rate case of the transmission expansion fees that may be charged by MISO and PJM in the same period or overlapping periods. On May 25, 2011, the PUCO approved a settlement between Duke Energy Ohio, Ohio Energy Group, the Office of Ohio Consumers’ Counsel and the PUCO Staff related to Duke Energy Ohio’s recovery of certain costs of the RTO realignment via a non-bypassable rider. Duke Energy Ohio is allowed to recover all MISO Transmission Expansion Planning (MTEP) costs, including but not limited to Multi-Value Project (MVP) costs, directly or indirectly charged to Ohio customers. Duke Energy Ohio also agreed to vigorously defend against any charges for MVP projects from MISO. Upon its exit from MISO on December 31, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio recorded a liability for its exit obligation and share of MTEP costs, excluding MVP. This liability was recorded within Other in Current liabilities and Other in Deferred credits and other liabilities on Duke Energy Ohio’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. The following table provides a reconciliation of the beginning and ending balance of Duke Energy Ohio’s recorded obligations related to its withdrawal from MISO. As of September 30, 2014, $74 million is recorded as a Regulatory asset on Duke Energy Ohio's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.
(in millions) | December 31, 2013 |  |  | Provision / Adjustments |  |  | Cash Reductions |  |  | September 30, 2014 |
Duke Energy Ohio | $ | 95 |  |  | $ | 3 |  |  | $ | (3 | ) |  | $ | 95 |
MVP. MISO approved 17 MVP proposals prior to Duke Energy Ohio’s exit from MISO on December 31, 2011. Construction of these projects is expected to continue through 2020. Costs of these projects, including operating and maintenance costs, property and income taxes, depreciation and an allowed return, are allocated and billed to MISO transmission owners. On December 29, 2011, MISO filed a tariff with the FERC providing for the allocation of MVP costs to a withdrawing owner based on monthly energy usage. The FERC set for hearing (i) whether MISO’s proposed cost allocation methodology to transmission owners who withdrew from MISO prior to January 1, 2012 is consistent with the tariff at the time of their withdrawal from MISO, and, (ii) if not, what the amount of and methodology for calculating any MVP cost responsibility should be. On July 16, 2013, a FERC Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an initial decision. Under this initial decision, Duke Energy Ohio would be liable for MVP costs. Duke Energy Ohio filed exceptions to the initial decision, requesting the FERC overturn the ALJ’s decision. After reviewing the initial decision, along with all exceptions and responses filed by the parties, the FERC will issue a final decision. Duke Energy Ohio fully intends to appeal to the federal court of appeals if the FERC affirms the ALJ’s decision. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of these proceedings. In 2012, MISO estimated Duke Energy Ohio’s MVP obligation over the period from 2012 to 2071 at $2.7 billion, on an undiscounted basis. The estimated obligation is subject to great uncertainty including the ultimate cost of the projects, the annual costs of operations and maintenance, taxes and return over the project lives, the number of years in service for the projects and the allocation to Duke Energy Ohio. Any liability related to the MISO MVP matter attributable to the Disposal Group will not be transferred to Dynegy upon closing of the disposal of the Midwest generation business. Duke Energy Indiana Edwardsport Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) Plant On November 20, 2007, the IURC granted Duke Energy Indiana a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) for the construction of a 618M W IGCC power plant at Duke Energy Indiana’s existing Edwardsport Generating Station in Knox County, Indiana with a cost estimate of $1.985 billion assuming timely recovery of financing costs related to the project. The Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc., Sierra Club, Inc., Save the Valley, Inc., and Valley Watch, Inc. (collectively, the Joint Intervenors) were intervenors in several matters related to the Edwardsport IGCC Plant. On December 27, 2012, the IURC approved a settlement agreement (2012 Edwardsport settlement) related to the cost increase for the construction of the project, including subdockets before the IURC related to the project. The Office of Utility Consumer Counselor (OUCC), the Duke Energy Indiana Industrial Group and Nucor Steel-Indiana were parties to the settlement. The settlement agreement, as approved, capped costs to be reflected in customer rates at $2.595 billion, including estimated AFUDC through June 30, 2012. Duke Energy Indiana is allowed to recover AFUDC after June 30, 2012, until customer rates are revised, with such recovery decreasing to 85 percent on AFUDC accrued after November 30, 2012. The project was placed in commercial operation in June 2013. Costs for the Edwardsport IGCC plant are recovered from retail electric customers via a tracking mechanism, the IGCC rider. Updates to the IGCC rider are filed semi-annually. An order on the eleventh semi-annual IGCC rider is currently pending. The twelfth and thirteenth semi-annual IGGC riders have been combined and are scheduled for hearings in February 2015. On March 18, 2014, the Indiana Court of Appeals denied an appeal filed by the Joint Intervenors and affirmed the IURC order approving the 2012 Edwardsport settlement and other related regulatory orders. On June 5, 2014, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the decision on rehearing. The Joint Intervenors requested to seek transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court. On November 7, 2014, the Indiana Supreme Court denied the Joint Intervenors' request to transfer the appeal of these proceedings. The ninth and tenth semi-annual IGCC rider orders have also been appealed. On August 21, 2014, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the IURC order in the tenth IGCC rider proceeding, and on October 29, 2014, denied Joint Intervenors' request for rehearing. On September 8, 2014, the Indiana Court of Appeals remanded the IURC order in the ninth IGCC rider proceeding back to the IURC for further findings concerning approximately $61 million of financing charges Joint Intervenors claimed were caused by construction delay and a ratemaking issue concerning the in-service date determination for tax purposes. On April 2, 2014, the IURC established a subdocket to Duke Energy Indiana’s current fuel adjustment clause proceeding. In this fuel adjustment subdocket, the IURC intends to review underlying causes for net negative generation amounts at the Edwardsport IGCC plant during the period September through November 2013. Duke Energy Indiana contends the net negative generation is related to the consumption of fuel and auxiliary power when the plant was in start-up or off line. In addition to the OUCC, the Duke Energy Indiana Industrial Group, Nucor Steel-Indiana, Steel Dynamics, Inc., and the Joint Intervenors are parties to the subdocket. The IURC has deferred the fuel adjustment subdocket until resolution of the twelfth and thirteenth semi-annual IGCC rider proceedings. In addition, although the IURC approved fuel adjustment clause recovery for the period December 2013 through March 2014, it determined such fuel costs reasonably related to the operational performance of the Edwardsport IGCC plant shall be subject to refund pending the outcome of the twelfth and thirteenth semi-annual IGCC riders. Duke Energy Indiana cannot predict the outcome of the fuel adjustment clause proceedings or pending and future IGCC Rider proceedings. Grid Infrastructure Improvement Plan On August 29, 2014, Duke Energy Indiana filed a seven-year grid infrastructure improvement plan with the IURC with an estimated cost of $1.9 billion, focusing on the reliability, integrity and modernization of the transmission and distribution system. If approved, eighty percent of the costs will be recovered through a rate tracker. The remaining twenty percent are subject to recovery through future rate case proceedings. Hearings are set for December 2014 and Duke Energy Indiana expects a decision in the second quarter of 2015. OTHER REGULATORY MATTERS Atlantic Coast Pipeline On September 2, 2014, Duke Energy, Dominion Resources (Dominion), Piedmont Natural Gas and AGL Resources announced the formation of a joint venture, Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC, to build and own the proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP), a 550-mile interstate natural gas pipeline. The ACP is designed to meet the needs identified in requests for proposals by Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Piedmont Natural Gas. Dominion will build and operate the ACP and will own 45 percent. Duke Energy will have a 40 percent ownership of the pipeline through its Commercial Power segment. The remaining share will be owned by Piedmont Natural Gas and AGL Resources. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress, 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. The project will require FERC approval, which the joint venture will seek to secure by summer 2016. The estimated in-service date of the pipeline is late 2018. Merger Appeals On January 9, 2013, the City of Orangeburg and NC WARN appealed the NCUC’s approval of the merger between Duke Energy and Progress Energy. On April 29, 2013, the NCUC granted Duke Energy’s motion to dismiss certain exceptions contained in NC WARN’s appeal. On November 6, 2013, the North Carolina Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on the appeals. On March 4, 2014, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion affirming the NCUC’s approval of the merger. On April 8, 2014, NC WARN filed a petition for discretionary review by the North Carolina Supreme Court. On April 21, 2014, Duke Energy and the Public Staff jointly filed their response opposing NC WARN’s petition. The City of Orangeburg did not file a petition for discretionary review. Duke Energy cannot predict the outcome of these matters. Progress Energy Merger FERC Mitigation In June 2012, the FERC approved the merger with Progress Energy, including Duke Energy and Progress Energy’s revised market power mitigation plan, the Joint Dispatch Agreement (JDA) and the joint Open Access Transmission Tariff. Several intervenors filed requests for rehearing challenging various aspects of the FERC approval. On October 29, 2014, FERC denied all of the requests for rehearing. The revised market power mitigation plan provided for the acceleration of one transmission project and the completion of seven other transmission projects (Long-Term FERC Mitigation) and interim firm power sale agreements during the completion of the transmission projects (Interim FERC Mitigation). The Long-Term FERC Mitigation was expected to increase power imported into the Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress service areas and enhance competitive power supply options in the service areas. All of these projects were completed in or before 2014. On May 30, 2014, the Independent Monitor filed with FERC a final report stating that the Long-Term FERC Mitigation is complete. Therefore, Duke Energy Carolinas' and Duke Energy Progress' obligations associated with the Interim FERC Mitigation have terminated. In the second quarter of 2014, Duke Energy Progress recorded an $18 million partial reversal of an impairment recorded in the third quarter of 2012. This reversal adjusts the initial disallowance from the Long-Term FERC mitigation and reflects updated information on the construction costs and in-service dates of the transmission projects. Following the closing of the merger, outside counsel reviewed Duke Energy’s mitigation plan and discovered a technical error in the calculations. On December 6, 2013, Duke Energy submitted a filing to the FERC disclosing the error and arguing that no additional mitigation is necessary. The City of New Bern filed a protest and requested that FERC order additional mitigation. On October 29, 2014, FERC ordered that the amount of the stub mitigation be increased from 25 MW to 129 MW. The stub mitigation is Duke’s commitment to set aside for third parties a certain quantity of firm transmission capacity from Duke Energy Carolinas to Duke Energy Progress during summer off-peak hours. FERC also ordered that Duke Energy operate certain phase shifters to create additional import capability and that such operation be monitored by an independent monitor. Duke Energy does not expect the costs to comply with this order to be material. Planned and 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 10 to 20-year period, 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 South Carolina, Florida, Indiana and Ohio earlier than their current estimated useful lives. The facilities do not have the requisite emission control equipment, primarily to meet United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations recently approved or proposed. The table below contains the net carrying value of generating facilities planned for early retirement or being evaluated for potential retirement included in Property, plant and equipment, net on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
| September 30, 2014
| Duke Energy |  |  | Duke Energy Carolinas(b) |  |  | Progress Energy |  |  | Duke Energy Florida(c) |  |  | Duke Energy Ohio(d) |  |  | Duke Energy Indiana(e) |
Capacity (in MW) | 2,297 |  |  | 200 |  |  | 873 |  |  | 873 |  |  | 556 |  |  | 668 |
Remaining net book value (in millions)(a) | $ | 256 |  |  | $ | 19 |  |  | $ | 109 |  |  | $ | 109 |  |  | $ | 9 |  |  | $ | 119 |
(a) | Included in Property, plant and equipment, net as of September 30, 2014, on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.
(b) | Includes Lee Units 1 and 2. Excludes 170 MW Lee Unit 3 that is expected to be converted to gas in 2014. Duke Energy Carolinas expects to retire or convert these units by December 2020 in conjunction with a settlement agreement associated with the Cliffside Unit 6 air permit.
(c) | Includes Crystal River Units 1 and 2.
(d) | Includes Beckjord Units 5 and 6 and Miami Fort Unit 6. Beckjord units have no remaining book value and were retired October 1, 2014.
(e) | Includes Wabash River Units 2 through 6. Wabash River Unit 6 is being evaluated for potential conversion to gas. Duke Energy Indiana committed to retire or convert these units by June 2018 in conjunction with a settlement agreement associated with the Edwardsport air permit.
Duke Energy continues to evaluate the potential need to retire these coal-fired generating facilities earlier than the current estimated useful lives, and plans to seek regulatory recovery for amounts that would not be otherwise recovered when any of these assets are retired. However, such recovery, including recovery of carrying costs on remaining book values, could be subject to future regulatory approvals and therefore cannot be assured.

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for public utilities. + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_PublicUtilitiesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Details
Name: | us-gaap_RegulatedOperationsAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration