XML 52 R10.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.10.0.1

Regulatory Matters | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2018
Regulated Operations [Abstract] |
Regulatory Matters | REGULATORY MATTERS RATE-RELATED INFORMATION The NCUC, PSCSC, FPSC, IURC, PUCO, TPUC and KPSC approve rates for retail electric and natural gas services within their states. The FERC approves rates for electric sales to wholesale customers served under cost-based rates (excluding Ohio and Indiana), as well as sales of transmission service. The FERC also regulates certification and siting of new interstate natural gas pipeline projects. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress Ash Basin Closure Costs Deferral – North 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. 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. Power/Forward Deferral – South Carolina On June 22, 2018, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a joint petition with the PSCSC seeking an accounting order authorizing deferral of certain costs incurred in connection with grid reliability, resiliency and modernization work that is being performed under the companies’ Power/Forward initiative. On July 25, 2018, the PSCSC ordered that the matter be set for filed comments and oral argument upon request of the Office of Regulatory Staff. A procedural schedule has not yet been issued. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter. Duke Energy Carolinas 2017 North Carolina Rate Case On August 25, 2017, Duke Energy Carolinas filed an application with the NCUC for a rate increase for retail customers of approximately $647 million, which represented an approximate 13.6 percent increase in annual base revenues. The rate increase was driven by capital investments subsequent to the previous base rate case, including the William States Lee Combined Cycle Facility discussed below, grid improvement projects, advanced metering infrastructure (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 February 28, 2018, Duke Energy Carolinas and the North Carolina Public Staff filed an Agreement and Stipulation of Partial Settlement resolving certain portions of the proceeding. Terms of the settlement included 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, Duke Energy Carolinas recorded a pretax charge of approximately $4 million to Operation, maintenance and other on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. On June 1, 2018, Duke Energy Carolinas and certain intervenors filed a Pilot Grid Rider Agreement and Stipulation (Grid Rider Stipulation) in which the parties agreed to the proposal Duke Energy Carolinas introduced in a post-hearing brief on April 27, 2018, along with additional commitments by Duke Energy Carolinas. Also on June 1, 2018, Duke Energy Carolinas and the Commercial Group filed a Partial Stipulation and Settlement Agreement to be considered in conjunction with the Stipulation. Components of the Grid Rider Stipulation included:
• | Duke Energy Carolinas would recover Power/Forward costs through a pilot, three-year Grid Rider except for costs related to targeted undergrounding of power lines, cable and conduit replacement, and power pole replacement;
• | Excluded costs were to be deferred with a return until Duke Energy Carolinas’ next base rate case proceeding; and
• | Costs incurred during the three-year pilot, both rider recoverable and deferred, were subject to a 4.5 percent cumulative cap of total annual electric service revenue.
On June 22, 2018, the NCUC issued an order approving the Stipulation of Partial Settlement and requiring a revenue reduction. The order also included the following material components not covered in the Stipulation:
• | Recovery of $554 million of deferred coal ash basin closure costs over a five-year period with a return at Duke Energy Carolinas' weighted average cost of capital (WACC);
• | Assessment of a $70 million management penalty ratably over a five-year period by reducing the annual recovery of the deferred coal ash costs;
• | Denial of Duke Energy Carolinas' request for recovery of future estimated ongoing annual coal ash costs of $201 million with approval to defer such costs with a return at Duke Energy Carolinas' WACC, to be considered for recovery in the next rate case;
• | Inclusion in rates of costs related to the Lee Combined Cycle Facility, two new solar facilities, and AMI deployment as requested;
• | Recovery of Lee Nuclear Station licensing and development cost of $347 million over a 12-year period, but denial of a return on the deferred balance of costs;
• | Reduction in revenue related to lower income tax expense resulting from the Federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (Tax Act), and a requirement to maintain all excess deferred income tax resulting from the Tax Act in a regulatory liability account pending flowback to customers as approved by the commission at the earlier of three years or Duke Energy Carolinas’ next general rate case proceeding; and
• | Denial of the proposed Grid Rider Stipulation related to Power/Forward costs and denial of deferral accounting treatment of the costs at this time. Duke Energy Carolinas may petition for deferral of grid modernization costs outside of a general rate case proceeding if it can show financial hardship or a stipulation that includes greater consensus among intervening parties on costs being classified as grid modernization.
As a result of the Order, Duke Energy Carolinas recorded a pretax charge of approximately $150 million to Impairment charges and Operation, maintenance and other on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. The charge is primarily related to the denial of a return on the Lee Nuclear Project and for previously recognized return impacted by the coal ash management penalty described above. On July 27, 2018, NCUC approved Duke Energy Carolinas' compliance filing. As a result, revised customer rates will become effective on August 1, 2018. On July 20, 2018, the North Carolina Attorney General filed a Notice of Appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court from the June 22, 2018, Order Accepting Stipulation, Deciding Contested Issues and Requiring Revenue Reduction issued by the NCUC. The Attorney General contends the commission’s order should be reversed and remanded, as it is in excess of the commission’s statutory authority; affected by errors of law; unsupported by competent, material and substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted; and arbitrary or capricious. The Sierra Club, North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association, North Carolina Justice Center, North Carolina Housing Coalition, Natural Resource Defense Council and Southern Alliance for Clean Energy have also filed Notices of Appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court from the June 22, 2018, Order Accepting Stipulation, Deciding Contested Issues and Requiring Revenue Reduction. 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 PPA between the parties by including in its rates amortization expense associated with regulatory assets and recorded in a certain account without FERC approval. 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. Duke Energy Carolinas has issued to PMPA and similarly situated wholesale customers refunds of approximately $25 million. FERC also set the matter for settlement and hearing. PMPA and other customers filed a protest to Duke Energy Carolinas' refund report claiming that the refunds are inadequate in that (1) Duke Energy Carolinas invoked the limitations periods in the contracts to limit the time period for which the refunds were paid and the customers disagree that this limitation applies, and (2) Duke Energy Carolinas refunded only amounts recovered through a certain account and the customers have asserted that the order applies to all regulatory assets. On July 3, 2018, FERC issued an order accepting Duke Energy Carolinas' refund report and ruling that these claims are outside the scope of FERC's February order. 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 for the construction and operation of a 750-megawatt (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 its share of the cost to build the facility was approximately $650 million, including allowance for funds used during construction (AFUDC). Approximately $600 million is being recovered through base rate or deferral filings in North Carolina and South Carolina. The remaining amount will be included in future rate filings. The project commenced commercial operation on April 5, 2018. NCEMC will own approximately 13 percent of the project. Lee Nuclear Station In December 2007, Duke Energy Carolinas applied to the NRC for combined operating licenses (COLs) for two Westinghouse Electric Company (Westinghouse) AP1000 reactors for the proposed 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 a result of the COLs being issued. The Duke Energy Carolinas rate case filing discussed above included a request to cancel the development of the Lee Nuclear Station project, recover incurred licensing and development costs and maintain the license issued by the NRC as an option for potential future development. The cancellation request was due to the Westinghouse bankruptcy filing and other market activity. The NCUC Order issued on June 22, 2018, approved the cancellation of the Lee Nuclear Project, allowed Duke Energy Carolinas to continue to maintain the COLs, provided for recovery of the North Carolina retail allocation of project development costs, including AFUDC accrued through December 31, 2017, over 12 years and disallowed any return on the unamortized balance during the 12-year recovery period. Given the recent repeal of certain sections of the Base Load Review Act in South Carolina combined with the cancellation of the project, Duke Energy Carolinas determined that it was no longer probable it would be allowed a return on its share of project development costs attributable to South Carolina. As a result, Duke Energy Carolinas recorded a pretax impairment of $29 million within Impairment charges on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income. South Carolina Petition On June 22, 2018, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a petition with the PSCSC requesting an accounting order to defer certain costs incurred in connection with the addition of the William States Lee Combined Cycle Facility, the ongoing deployment of Duke Energy Carolinas new billing and Customer Information System and the addition of the Carolinas West Primary Distribution Control Center. This request totaling approximately $33 million was approved on July 25, 2018. Sale of Hydroelectric (Hydro) Plants In May 2018, Duke Energy Carolinas entered an agreement for the sale of five hydro plants with a combined 18.7-MW generation capacity in the Western Carolinas region to Northbrook Energy. The completion of the transaction is subject to approval from FERC, as well as other state regulatory agencies and is contingent upon regulatory approval from the NCUC and PSCSC to defer the total estimated loss on the sale of approximately $40 million. On July 5, 2018, Duke Energy Carolinas filed for approval of the sale of the five hydro plants to Northbrook, to transfer the Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity for the four North Carolina hydro plants and to establish a regulatory asset for the North Carolina retail portion of the difference between sales proceeds and net book value. Duke Energy Carolinas will also file with PSCSC requesting recovery for the total estimated loss. If commission approval is not received, Duke Energy Carolinas can cancel the sales agreement and retain the hydro facilities. If commission approval is received, the closing is expected to occur during the first quarter of 2019. After closing, Duke Energy Carolinas will purchase all of the capacity and energy generated by these facilities at the avoided cost for five years through power purchase agreements. Duke Energy Carolinas cannot predict the outcome of this matter. Duke Energy Progress 2017 North Carolina Rate Case On June 1, 2017, Duke Energy Progress filed an application with the NCUC for a rate increase for retail customers of approximately $477 million, which 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 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 July 10, 2017, the NCUC consolidated Duke Energy Progress' storm deferral request into the Duke Energy Progress rate case docket for decision. 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. Terms of the settlement included 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 Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations, principally related to disallowances from rate base of certain projects at the Mayo and Sutton plants. On February 23, 2018, the NCUC issued an order approving the stipulation. The order also included the following material components not covered in the stipulation:
• | Recovery of the remaining $234 million of deferred coal ash basin closure costs over a five-year period with a return at Duke Energy Progress' WACC, excluding $9.5 million of retail deferred coal ash basin costs related to ash hauling at Duke Energy Progress' Asheville Plant;
• | Assessment of a $30 million management penalty ratably over a five-year period by reducing the annual recovery of the deferred coal ash costs;
• | Denial of Duke Energy Progress' request for recovery of future estimated ongoing annual coal ash costs of $129 million with approval to defer such costs with a return at Duke Energy Progress' WACC, to be considered for recovery in the next rate case; and
• | Approval to recover $51 million of the approximately $80 million deferred storm costs over a five-year period with amortization beginning in October 2016. The order did not allow the deferral of the associated capital costs or a return on the deferred balance during the deferral period.
The order also impacted certain amounts that were similarly recorded on Duke Energy Carolinas' Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. As a result of the order, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Carolinas recorded pretax charges of $68 million and $14 million, respectively, in the first quarter of 2018 to Impairment charges, Operation, maintenance and other and Interest Expense on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. These charges primarily related to the coal ash basin disallowance and previously recognized return impacted by the coal ash management penalty and deferred storm cost adjustments. Revised customer rates became effective on March 16, 2018. On May 15, 2018, the Public Staff of the NCUC filed a Notice of Cross Appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court from the February 23, 2018, Order Accepting Stipulation, Deciding Contested Issues and Granting Partial Rate Increase issued by the NCUC. The Public Staff contend the commission’s order should be reversed and remanded, as it is affected by errors of law, and is unsupported by competent, material and substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted. Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter. The North Carolina Attorney General and Sierra Club have also filed Notices of Appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court from the February 23, 2018, Order Accepting Stipulation, Deciding Contested Issues and Granting partial Rate Increase. South Carolina Rate Case In December 2016, the PSCSC approved a rate case settlement agreement among the 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 280‑MW combined-cycle natural gas plants having dual-fuel capability, with the option to build a third natural gas simple cycle unit in 2023 based upon the outcome of initiatives to reduce the region's power demand. The plan also included upgrades to existing transmission lines and substations, installation of solar generation and a pilot battery storage project. These investments will be made within the next seven years. Duke Energy Progress is also working with the local natural gas distribution company to upgrade an existing natural gas pipeline to serve the natural gas plant. On March 28, 2016, the NCUC issued an order approving a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) for the new combined-cycle natural gas plants, but denying the CPCN for the contingent simple cycle unit without prejudice to Duke Energy Progress to refile for approval in the future. On March 28, 2018, 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 complete 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 $344 million and $385 million is included in Generation facilities to be retired, net on Duke Energy Progress' Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of June 30, 2018, and December 31, 2017, respectively. Duke Energy Progress' request for a regulatory asset at the time of retirement with amortization over a 10-year period was approved by the NCUC on February 23, 2018. 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’ Condensed 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. NCUC approved the settlement on February 23, 2018. South Carolina Petitions On June 22, 2018, Duke Energy Progress filed a petition with the PSCSC seeking an accounting order authorizing Duke Energy Progress to adopt new depreciation rates, effective March 16, 2018, that reflect the results of Duke Energy Progress’ most recent depreciation study. Also on June 22, 2018, Duke Energy Progress filed a petition with the PSCSC requesting an accounting order to defer certain costs incurred in connection with the deployment of AMI, the ongoing deployment of Duke Energy Progress' new billing and Customer Information System, new depreciation rates and costs incurred in connection with the excess return of certain state taxes from North Carolina. These requests totaling approximately $20 million were approved on July 25, 2018. FERC Form 1 Reporting Matter On October 18, 2017, Fayetteville Public Works Commission (FPWC) filed with FERC a complaint against Duke Energy Progress. In the complaint, FPWC alleges that Duke Energy Progress’ change in its method of reporting materials and supplies inventory on FERC Form 1 for 2015 constituted a change in accounting practice that Duke Energy Progress was not permitted to implement without first obtaining FERC approval. On April 23, 2018, FERC issued an order finding that Duke Energy Progress’ new reporting methodology was not proper and required Duke Energy Progress to revise its FERC Form 1s beginning in 2014 and to issue refunds to formula rate customers. Duke Energy Progress estimates that these refunds will total approximately $14 million. On May 23, 2018, Duke Energy Progress filed a request for rehearing alleging that FERC’s order is incorrect. Duke Energy Progress revised its FERC Form 1 filings in June 2018. Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter. Duke Energy Florida 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. On February 6, 2018, the FPSC approved a stipulation that would apply tax savings resulting from the Tax Act toward storm costs effective January 2018 in lieu of implementing a storm surcharge. Storm costs are currently expected to be fully recovered by approximately mid-2021. On May 31, 2018, Duke Energy Florida filed a petition for approval of actual storm restoration costs and associated recovery process related to Hurricanes Irma and Nate. The petition is seeking the approval for the recovery in the amount of $510 million in actual recoverable storm restoration costs, including the replenishment of Duke Energy Florida’s storm reserve of $132 million, and the process for recovering these recoverable storm costs. The evidentiary hearing in this matter is scheduled for the week of October 15, 2018. At June 30, 2018, Duke Energy Florida's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets included approximately $295 million of recoverable costs under the FPSC's storm rule in Regulatory assets within Current Assets and Other Noncurrent Assets related to storm recovery. Duke Energy Florida cannot predict the outcome of this matter. Tax Act Pursuant to Duke Energy Florida's 2017 Revised and Restated Settlement Agreement, on May 31, 2018, Duke Energy Florida filed a petition related to the Tax Act, which included annual tax savings of $84 million and annual amortization of excess deferred taxes of $67 million for a total of $151 million. The pretax revenue requirement impact is $201 million, of which $50 million will be offset with accelerated depreciation of Crystal River 4 and 5 coal units and $151 million will be offset by Hurricane Irma storm cost recovery as explained in the Storm Restoration Cost Recovery section above. The petition is subject to review and approval by the FPSC. The hearing is scheduled to begin on January 8, 2019. 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-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 by the end of 2018 at an estimated cost of $1.5 billion, including AFUDC. Actual costs in excess of the estimated amount may not be collected from customers absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances. On April 2, 2018, Duke Energy Florida filed a petition seeking approval to include in base rates the revenue requirements associated with the new facility. The annual retail revenue requirement is approximately $200 million. On July 10, 2018, the FPSC voted to approve Duke Energy Florida's request to include the revenue requirements for the new Citrus County combined-cycle units in base rates. The rate increase for the first unit is expected to take place in November 2018 and the rate increase for the second unit is expected to take place in January 2019. The plant will receive natural gas from the Sabal Trail pipeline discussed below. Duke Energy Ohio 2017 Electric Security Plan Filing On June 1, 2017, Duke Energy Ohio filed with the PUCO a request for a standard service offer in the form of an electric security plan (ESP). If approved by the PUCO, the term of the ESP would be from June 1, 2018, to May 31, 2025. 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. On April 13, 2018, Duke Energy Ohio filed a Motion to consolidate this proceeding with several other cases currently pending before the PUCO, including, but not limited to, its Electric Base Rate Case. Additionally, on April 13, 2018, Duke Energy Ohio, along with certain intervenors, filed a Stipulation and Recommendation (Stipulation) with the PUCO resolving certain issues in this proceeding. The Stipulation establishes a regulatory model for the next seven years via the approval of the ESP and continues the current model for procuring supply for non-shopping customers, including recovery mechanisms. The Stipulation is subject to the review and approval of PUCO. An evidentiary hearing to review the Stipulation and other issues in the cases will conclude on August 6, 2018. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter. 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 has requested an estimated annual increase of approximately $15 million and a return on equity of 10.4 percent. The application also includes requests to continue certain current riders and establish new riders. 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. On April 13, 2018, Duke Energy Ohio filed a Motion to consolidate this proceeding with several other cases currently pending before the PUCO. On April 13, 2018, Duke Energy Ohio, along with certain intervenors, filed the Stipulation with the PUCO resolving certain issues in this proceeding. Major components of the Stipulation include a $19 million annual base distribution rate decrease with a return on equity of 9.84 percent based upon a capital structure of 50.75 percent equity and 49.25 percent debt. Upon approval of new rates, Duke Energy Ohio's rider for recovering its initial SmartGrid implementation ends as the costs will be recovered through base rates. The Stipulation also renews 14 existing riders, some of which were included in the Company's ESP, and two new riders including the Enhanced Service Reliability Rider to recover vegetation management costs not included in base rates, up to $10 million per year (operation and maintenance only) and the Power Forward Rider to recover costs incurred to enhance the customer experience and further transform the grid (operation and maintenance and capital). The Stipulation is subject to the review and approval of the PUCO. An evidentiary hearing to review the Stipulation and other issues in the cases will conclude on August 6, 2018. In addition to the changes in revenue attributable to the Stipulation, Duke Energy Ohio’s capital-related riders, including the Distribution Capital Investments Rider, began to reflect the lower federal income tax rate associated with the Tax Act with updates to customers’ bills beginning April 1, 2018. This change reduces electric revenue by approximately $20 million on an annualized basis. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter. Ohio Valley Electric Corporation On March 31, 2017, Duke Energy Ohio filed for approval to adjust its existing price stabilization rider (Rider PSR), which is currently set at zero dollars, to pass through net costs related to its contractual entitlement to capacity and energy from the generating assets owned by OVEC. 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. On April 13, 2018, Duke Energy Ohio filed a Motion to consolidate this proceeding with several other cases currently pending before the PUCO. Also on April 13, 2018, Duke Energy Ohio, along with certain intervenors, filed a Stipulation with the PUCO resolving certain issues in this proceeding. The Stipulation, if approved, would activate Rider PSR for recovery of net costs incurred since January 1, 2018. The Stipulation is subject to the review and approval of PUCO. An evidentiary hearing to review the Stipulation and other issues in the cases will conclude on August 6, 2018. See Note 12 for additional discussion of Duke Energy Ohio's ownership interest in OVEC. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter. Tax Act On July 25, 2018, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application to establish a new rider to implement the benefits of the Tax Act for electric distribution customers. Duke Energy Ohio requested commission approval to implement the rider effective October 1, 2018, as a credit to all distribution customers based upon a percent reduction to Duke Energy Ohio’s distribution rates. The new rider will flow through to customers the benefit of the lower statutory federal tax rate from 35 to 21 percent since January 1, 2018, all future benefits of the lower tax rates and a full refund of deferred income taxes collected at the higher tax rates in prior years. Deferred income taxes subject to normalization rules will be refunded consistent with federal law and deferred income taxes not subject to normalization rules will be refunded over a 10-year period. An order is expected before the fourth quarter of 2018 but Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter. Energy Efficiency Cost Recovery On March 28, 2014, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application for recovery of program costs, lost distribution revenue and performance incentives related to its energy efficiency and peak demand reduction programs. These programs are undertaken to comply with environmental mandates set forth in Ohio law. The PUCO approved Duke Energy Ohio’s application but found that Duke Energy Ohio was not permitted to use banked energy savings from previous years in order to calculate the amount of allowed incentive. This conclusion represented a change to the cost recovery mechanism that had been agreed upon by intervenors and approved by the PUCO in previous cases. The PUCO granted the applications for rehearing filed by Duke Energy Ohio and an intervenor. On January 6, 2016, Duke Energy Ohio and the PUCO Staff entered into a stipulation, pending the PUCO's approval, to resolve issues related to performance incentives and the PUCO Staff audit of 2013 costs, among other issues. In December 2015, based upon the stipulation, Duke Energy Ohio re-established approximately $20 million of the revenues that had been previously reversed. On October 26, 2016, the PUCO issued an order approving the stipulation without modification. 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 has offered its energy efficiency and peak demand reduction programs throughout 2017. On February 3, 2017, Duke Energy Ohio filed for deferral authority of its costs incurred in 2017 in respect of its proposed energy efficiency and peak demand reduction portfolio. 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 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. On March 21, 2018, the PUCO issued an order denying Duke Energy Ohio's issues on rehearing. On April 20, 2018, Duke Energy Ohio filed a second application for rehearing based upon the Commission’s March 21, 2018, Order. On May 16, 2018, the commission issued its third Entry on Rehearing granting in part, and denying in part, Duke Energy Ohio’s rehearing request. On May 21, 2018, the Ohio Manufacturing Association (OMA) filed a notice of appeal of PUCO's approval of Duke Energy Ohio’s ESP, challenging PUCO's approval of Duke Energy Ohio’s Price Stability Rider as a placeholder and its Distribution Capital Investment Rider (DCI) to recover incremental revenue requirement for distribution capital since Duke Energy Ohio’s last base rate case. On July 16, 2018, the Office of Consumers' Counsel filed its own appeal of Duke Energy Ohio’s ESP with the Ohio Supreme Court raising similar issues to that of the OMA. 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 (the Central Corridor Project) in its Ohio service territory to increase system reliability and enable the retirement of older infrastructure. The pipeline is expected to cost approximately $112 million, excluding AFUDC. On January 20, 2017, Duke Energy Ohio filed an amended application with the Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) 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. In April 2018, Duke Energy Ohio filed a motion with OPSB to establish a procedural schedule and filed supplemental information supporting its application. If approved, construction of the pipeline extension is expected to be completed before the 2020/2021 winter season. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter. Duke Energy Kentucky Electric 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. Subsequent to the filing, Duke Energy Kentucky adjusted the requested amount to $30.1 million, in part to reflect the benefits of the Tax Act, representing an approximate 9 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 requests to implement an Environmental Surcharge Mechanism to recover environmental costs not recovered in base rates, to establish a Distribution Capital Investment Rider to recover incremental costs of specific programs, to establish a FERC Transmission Cost Reconciliation Rider to recover escalating transmission costs and to modify existing 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 concluded on March 8, 2018, and the KPSC issued an order on April 13, 2018. Major components of the Order include approval of an $8.4 million increase in base rates with a return on equity at 9.725 percent based upon a capital structure of 49 percent equity on a total allocable capitalization of approximately $650 million. The Order approved the Environmental Surcharge Mechanism Rider to begin recovery in June 2018 of capital-related environmental costs, including costs related to ash and ash disposal, and environmental operation and maintenance expenses formerly recovered in base rates, including expenses for environmental reagents and emission allowances. The incremental revenue from this rider will be approximately $13 million on an annualized basis. The order settles all issues associated with the Tax Act as it relates to the electric business by lowering the income tax component of the revenue requirement and refunding protected excess deferred income taxes (EDIT) under allowable normalization rules and unprotected EDIT over 10 years. The Order denied requests to implement riders for certain transmission costs and distribution capital investments. Duke Energy Kentucky implemented new base rates on May 1, 2018. On May 3, 2018, Duke Energy Kentucky filed an application for rehearing on certain aspects of the order; on May 23, 2018, the KPSC granted a rehearing. Duke Energy Kentucky cannot predict the outcome of this matter. Duke Energy Indiana 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 complaints 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. On January 5, 2015, the FERC issued an order accepting the MISO transmission owners' adder of 0.50 percent to the base rate of return on equity based on participation in an RTO subject to it being applied to a return on equity that is shown to be just and reasonable in the pending return on equity complaints. On December 22, 2015, the presiding FERC ALJ in the first complaint issued an Initial Decision in which the base rate of return on equity was set at 10.32 percent. On September 28, 2016, the Initial Decision in the first complaint was affirmed by FERC, but is subject to rehearing requests. On June 30, 2016, the presiding FERC ALJ in the second complaint issued an Initial Decision setting the base rate of return on equity at 9.70 percent. The Initial Decision in the second complaint is pending FERC review. On April 14, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in Emera Maine v. FERC, reversed and remanded certain aspects of the methodology employed by FERC to establish rates of return on equity. This decision may affect the outcome of the complaints against Duke Energy Indiana. Duke Energy Indiana currently believes these matters will not have a material impact on its results of operations, cash flows and financial position. 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 the Indiana Court of Appeals. On May 21, 2018, the Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the commission's decision. The appellants have requested rehearing at the Indiana Court of Appeals. Tax Act On June 27, 2018, Duke Energy Indiana, the Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor, the Indiana Industrial Group and Nucor Steel – Indiana filed testimony consistent with their Stipulation and Settlement Agreement (Settlement Agreement) in the federal tax act proceeding with the IURC. The Settlement Agreement outlines how Duke Energy Indiana will implement the impacts of the Tax Act. Material components of the Settlement Agreement are as follows:
• | Riders to reflect the change in the statutory federal tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent as they are filed in 2018;
• | Base rates to reflect the change in the statutory federal tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent upon IURC approval, but no later than September 1, 2018;
• | Duke Energy Indiana to continue to defer protected federal excess deferred income taxes (Federal EDIT) until January 1, 2020, at which time it will be returned to customers according to the Average Rate Assumption Method (ARAM) required by the Internal Revenue Service over approximately 26 years; and
• | Duke Energy Indiana to begin returning unprotected Federal EDIT upon IURC approval, expected by September 1, 2018, over 10 years. In order to mitigate the negative impacts to cash flow and credit metrics, the Settlement Agreement allows Duke Energy Indiana to return $7 million per year over the first five years, with a step up to $35 million per year in the following five years.
The settlement is subject to the review and approval of the IURC. An evidentiary hearing was held on July 13, 2018. Duke Energy Indiana cannot predict the outcome of this matter. Piedmont South Carolina Rate Stabilization Adjustment Filing In June 2018, Piedmont filed with the PSCSC under the South Carolina Rate Stabilization Act its quarterly monitoring report for the 12-month period ending March 31, 2018. The filing includes a revenue deficiency calculation and tariff rates in order to permit Piedmont the opportunity to earn the rate of return on common equity established in its last general rate case. The filing also incorporates the impacts of the Tax Act by lowering the income tax component of the revenue requirement, refunding protected EDIT under allowable normalization rules, unprotected EDIT and amounts over collected from the customers from January 1, 2018, through the end of the review period for this proceeding. This filing is currently under review and audit by the South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff. Piedmont cannot predict the outcome of this matter. North Carolina Integrity Management Rider Filing In May 2018, Piedmont filed, and the NCUC approved, a petition under the Integrity Management Rider (IMR) mechanism to update rates, effective June 2018, based on the eligible capital investments closed to integrity and safety projects over the six-month period ending March 31, 2018, and the decrease in the corporate federal income tax rate effective January 1, 2018. The combined effect of the update was a reduction to annual revenues of approximately $5.7 million. 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 for integrity and safety projects through 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 was held on April 9, 2018. In May 2018, the TPUC approved Piedmont's request as proposed for the IMR effective January 1, 2018. OTHER REGULATORY MATTERS Progress Energy Merger FERC Mitigation Since December 2014, the FERC Office of Enforcement has conducted an investigation of Duke Energy’s market power filings in its application for approval of the Progress Energy merger submitted in 2012. On June 8, 2018, the FERC issued an order approving a settlement agreement under which Duke Energy paid a penalty of $3.5 million. The FERC Office of Enforcement stated in its conclusion that Duke Energy violated FERC regulations by failing to fully and accurately describe certain specific matters in its market power filings. Duke neither admitted nor denied the alleged violations. Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC On September 2, 2014, Duke Energy, Dominion Resources (Dominion), Piedmont and Southern Company Gas announced the formation of Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC (ACP) to build and own the proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP pipeline), an approximately 600-mile interstate natural gas pipeline running from West Virginia to North Carolina. The ACP pipeline is designed to meet, 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, which is accounted for as an equity method investment through its Gas Utilities and Infrastructure segment. Southern Company Gas maintains a 5 percent interest. See Note 12 for additional information related to Duke Energy's ownership interest. Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Piedmont, among others, will be customers of the pipeline. Purchases will be made under several 20-year supply contracts, subject to state regulatory approval. In 2018, the FERC issued a series of Notices to Proceed, which authorized the project to begin certain construction-related activities along the pipeline route, including supply header and compressors. On May 11, 2018, FERC issued a Notice to Proceed allowing full construction activities in specified areas of West Virginia, and on July 24, 2018, FERC issued a Notice to Proceed allowing full construction activities along the project route in North Carolina. A conditional 401 water quality certification has been issued by the Virginia Water Control Board, and ACP continues working with the Virginia Water Control Board’s staff to fulfill the outstanding conditions. Until these conditions have been satisfied, full construction activity in Virginia is not permitted. ACP is the subject of numerous challenges in state and federal courts and agencies, including, among others, challenges of the project’s incidental take statement (ITS), crossings of the Blue Ridge Parkway, the Appalachian Trail, and the Monongahela and George Washington National Forests, the project’s U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 404 permit, the Virginia conditional 401 water quality certification, the FERC Environmental Impact Statement order and the FERC order approving the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. Each of these challenges alleges non-compliance on the part of federal and state permitting authorities and adverse ecological consequences if the project is permitted to proceed. ACP is vigorously defending these challenges and coordinating with the federal and state authorities which are the direct parties to the challenges. On May 15, 2018, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the Fish and Wildlife Services’ ITS for the project, stating that the ITS failed to meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act; on May 22, 2018, ACP informed FERC that it would not proceed with construction in any areas covered by the ITS until the issue is resolved, even though construction elsewhere will continue as scheduled; on June 11, 2018, petitioners requested a rehearing of FERC’s West Virginia Notice to Proceed; on July 5, 2018, petitioners filed a motion for injunction of all construction activity along the project route, and ACP and Fish and Wildlife Services filed responses on July 11, 2018. In response to challenges of the certification of ACP’s reliance on USACE Nation Wide Permit 12 (which challenges allege that ACP cannot meet the requirements of the permit in respect of certain water crossings in West Virginia), on July 27, 2018, ACP voluntarily requested an administrative suspension of the USACE authorization in the Huntington District for water crossings in West Virginia to ensure adequate review by USACE of ACP’s crossing methodology. This request for a stay followed a July 20, 2018, motion for injunction by certain project opponents. ACP's project manager estimates the project's pipeline development costs will range from $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, which could result in potential higher project costs and a potential delay in the targeted in-service date, which is late 2019. Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC On May 4, 2015, Duke Energy acquired a 7.5 percent ownership interest in Sabal Trail, which is accounted for as an equity method investment, from Spectra Energy Partners, LP, a master limited partnership, formed by Enbridge Inc. (formerly Spectra Energy Corp.). Spectra Energy Partners, LP holds a 50 percent ownership interest in Sabal Trail and NextEra Energy has a 42.5 percent ownership interest. Sabal Trail is a joint venture to construct a 515-mile natural gas pipeline (Sabal Trail pipeline) to transport natural gas to Florida. Total estimated project costs are approximately $3.2 billion. The Sabal Trail pipeline traverses Alabama, Georgia and Florida. The primary customers of the Sabal Trail pipeline, Duke Energy Florida and Florida Power & Light Company (FP&L), have each contracted to buy pipeline capacity for 25-year initial terms. See Note 12 for additional information related to Duke Energy's ownership interest. On February 3, 2016, the FERC issued an order granting the request for a CPCN to construct and operate the pipeline. The Sabal Trail pipeline received other required regulatory approvals and the Phase 1 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. This request is required to support commissioning and testing activities at the facility. On March 16, 2018, FERC approved the Citrus lateral and it was placed in service. 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. 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. On March 7, 2018, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted FERC and Sabal Trail’s stay request. On March 14, 2018, FERC issued its final order on remand, which recertified the project. Requests for rehearing of the FERC order on remand are still pending. Constitution Pipeline Company, LLC Duke Energy owns a 24 percent ownership interest in Constitution, which is accounted for as an equity method investment. 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. Since April 2016, with the actions of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), Constitution stopped construction and discontinued capitalization of future development costs until the project's uncertainty is resolved. In December 2014, Constitution received approval from the FERC to construct and operate the proposed pipeline. However, on April 22, 2016, the 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, and on April 30, 2018, the Supreme Court denied Constitution's petition. 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. On July 19, 2018, FERC denied Constitution's rehearing request. Constitution is currently unable to approximate an in-service date for the project due to the NYSDEC'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. On June 25, 2018, Constitution filed with FERC a Request for Extension of Time until December 2, 2020, for construction of the project. Duke Energy cannot predict the outcome of this matter. During the six months ended June 30, 2018, Duke Energy recorded an other-than-temporary impairment (OTTI) of $55 million within Equity in earnings of unconsolidated affiliates on Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. 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 recent actions taken by the courts and regulators to uphold the NYSDEC's denial of the certification and uncertainty associated with the remaining legal and regulatory challenges. See Note 12 for additional information related to ownership interest and carrying value of the investment. Potential Coal Plant Retirements The Subsidiary Registrants periodically file Integrated Resource Plans (IRP) with their state regulatory commissions. The IRPs provide a view of forecasted energy needs over a long term (10 to 20 years) and options being considered to meet those needs. Recent IRPs filed by the Subsidiary Registrants included planning assumptions to potentially retire certain coal-fired generating facilities in Florida and Indiana earlier than their current estimated useful lives primarily because facilities do not have the requisite emission control equipment to meet EPA regulations recently approved or proposed. The table below contains the net carrying value of generating facilities planned for retirement or included in recent IRPs as evaluated for potential retirement 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 Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of June 30, 2018, 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 |  |  | $ | 160 |
Progress Energy and Duke Energy Florida |  |  |
Crystal River Units 1 and 2(b) | 873 |  |  | 102 |
Duke Energy Indiana |  |  |
Gallagher Units 2 and 4(c) | 280 |  |  | 125 |
Total Duke Energy | 1,738 |  |  | $ | 387 |
(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.

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for public utilities. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 980 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2156578 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_PublicUtilitiesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_RegulatedOperationsAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration