XML 53 R11.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.19.1

Regulatory Matters | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2019
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 Hurricane Florence, Hurricane Michael and Winter Storm Diego Deferral Filings On December 21, 2018, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed with the NCUC petitions for approval to defer the incremental costs incurred in connection with the response to Hurricane Florence, Hurricane Michael and Winter Storm Diego to a regulatory asset for recovery in the next base rate case. The NCUC issued an order requesting comments on the deferral positions. On March 5, 2019, the North Carolina Public Staff (Public Staff) filed comments. On April 2, 2019, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed reply comments, which included revised estimates of approximately $553 million in incremental operation and maintenance expenses ($171 million and $382 million for Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress, respectively,) and approximately $96 million in capital costs ($20 million and $76 million for Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress, respectively). Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter. Duke Energy Progress filed a similar request with the PSCSC on January 11, 2019, which also included a request for the continuation of prior deferrals requested for ice storms and Hurricane Matthew, and on January 30, 2019, the PSCSC issued a directive approving the deferral request. 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 W.S. Lee CC, grid improvement projects, AMI, investments in customer service technologies, costs of complying with CCR regulations and the Coal Ash Act and recovery of costs related to licensing and development of the Lee Nuclear Station. On February 28, 2018, Duke Energy Carolinas and the 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 in the first quarter of 2018 to Operation, maintenance and other on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. On June 22, 2018, the NCUC issued an order approving the Stipulation of Partial Settlement and requiring a revenue reduction. As a result, revised customer rates were 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 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. On August 8, 2018, the Public Staff filed a Notice of Cross 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 Public Staff contends the commission’s order should be reversed and remanded, as it is affected by errors of law, and is unsupported by substantial evidence with regard to the commission’s failure to consider substantial evidence of coal ash related environmental violations. On November 29, 2018, the North Carolina Attorney General's Office filed a motion with the North Carolina Supreme Court requesting the court consolidate the Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress appeals and enter an order adopting the parties’ proposed briefing schedule as set out in the filing. On November 29, 2018, the North Carolina Supreme Court adopted a schedule for briefing set forth in the motion to consolidate the Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress appeals. On March 14, 2019, the North Carolina Attorney General’s Office filed a motion for extension of time to file its brief. On March 18, 2019, the North Carolina Supreme Court granted the North Carolina Attorney General’s motion, and the Appellant’s brief was filed on April 26, 2019. The Appellee response briefs are due on August 24, 2019. Duke Energy Carolinas cannot predict the outcome of this matter. 2018 South Carolina Rate Case On November 8, 2018, Duke Energy Carolinas filed an application with the PSCSC for a rate increase for retail customers of approximately $168 million, which represents an approximate 10.0 percent increase in retail revenues. The rate increase is driven by capital investments and environmental compliance progress made by Duke Energy Carolinas since its previous rate case, including the further implementation of Duke Energy Carolinas’ generation modernization program, which consists of retiring, replacing and upgrading generation plants, investments in customer service technologies and continued investments in base work to maintain its transmission and distribution systems. The request included net tax benefits resulting from the Tax Act of $66 million to reflect the change in ongoing tax expense, primarily from the reduction in the federal income tax rate from 35 to 21 percent. The request also included $46 million to return EDIT resulting from the federal tax rate change and deferred revenues since January 2018 related to the change and benefits of $17 million from a reduction in North Carolina state income taxes allocable to South Carolina (EDIT Rider). Duke Energy Carolinas also requested approval of its proposed Grid Improvement Plan (GIP), adjustments to its Prepaid Advantage Program and a variety of accounting orders related to ongoing costs for environmental compliance, including recovery over a five-year period of $242 million of deferred coal ash related compliance costs, grid investments between rate changes, incremental depreciation expense, a result of new depreciation rates from the depreciation study approved in the 2017 North Carolina Rate Case above, and the balance of development costs associated with the cancellation of the Lee Nuclear Project. Finally, Duke Energy Carolinas sought approval to establish a reserve and accrual for end-of-life nuclear costs for nuclear fuel and materials and supplies. On March 8, 2019, the ORS moved to establish a new and separate hearing docket to review and consider the GIP proposed by Duke Energy Carolinas. Subsequently, on March 12, 2019, the ORS and Duke Energy Carolinas executed a Stipulation resolving the ORS’s motion. The Stipulation provides that costs incurred after January 1, 2019, for the GIP will be deferred with a return, subject to evaluation in a future rate proceeding, and that Duke Energy Carolinas will refile for consideration of the GIP in a new docket for resolution by January 1, 2020. The Stipulation was approved by the PSCSC’s hearing officer on March 13, 2019. An evidentiary hearing began on March 21, 2019, and concluded March 27, 2019. On May 1, 2019, the PSCSC issued a Commission Directive on Duke Energy Carolinas’ application for a retail rate increase. The Directive granted, among other things: a retail rate increase of $107 million, excluding the EDIT Rider; a return on equity of 9.5 percent; and a capital structure of 53 percent equity and 47 percent debt. The Directive denied the recovery of coal ash costs of approximately $115 million. Based upon legal analysis and Duke Energy Carolinas' intention to file a Petition for Rehearing with the PSCSC, Duke Energy Carolinas has not recorded an adjustment for its deferred coal ash costs. The Directive also denied recovery of a return on pre-construction costs associated with the canceled Lee Nuclear Project. Duke Energy Carolinas is evaluating the financial statement impacts of this Directive and will record associated one-time costs when the final order is issued. Except for the coal ash matter, the financial statement impacts of this Directive are not material. An order and revised customer rates are expected by mid-2019. Duke Energy Carolinas cannot predict the outcome of this matter. FERC Formula Rate Matter On July 31, 2017, PMPA filed a complaint with FERC 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 two claims are outside the scope of FERC's February order. The settlement agreements and revised formula rates for all parties to the proceeding were filed on December 28, 2018. On April 2, 2019, FERC issued an order approving the settlement agreement as filed. Duke Energy Carolinas is working with wholesale customers that did not intervene in this case to implement the same settlement terms. 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 for the four FERC-licensed plants, 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 with NCUC for approval of the sale of the five hydro plants to Northbrook, to transfer the CPCNs 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. On September 4, 2018, the Public Staff filed comments supporting the CPCN transfer with conditions. On September 18, 2018, Duke Energy Carolinas filed reply comments opposing the Public Staff’s proposed conditions. On November 29, 2018, the NCUC issued a procedural order and held an evidentiary hearing on this matter on February 5, 2019. On March 27, 2019, Duke Energy Carolinas and the Public Staff filed proposed orders with the NCUC. On August 28, 2018, Duke Energy Carolinas filed with PSCSC its Application for Approval of Transfer and Sale of Hydroelectric Generation Facilities, Acceptance for Filing of a Power Purchase Agreement and an Accounting Order to Establish a Regulatory Asset. On September 10, 2018, the ORS provided a letter to the commission stating its position on the application and on September 18, 2018, Duke Energy Carolinas requested this matter be carried over to allow Duke Energy Carolinas time to discuss certain accounting issues with the ORS. On August 9, 2018, Duke Energy Carolinas and Northbrook filed a joint Application for Transfer of Licenses with the FERC. On December 27, 2018, the FERC issued its Order Approving Transfer of Licenses (“Order”) for the four FERC-licensed hydro plants. On January 18, 2019, Duke Energy Carolinas and Northbrook Carolina Hydro II, LLC requested a six-month extension of time to comply with the requirement of the Order that Northbrook submit to FERC certified copies of all instruments of conveyance and signed acceptance sheets within 60 days of the date of the Order, given that compliance by the deadline set in the Order was not possible because the conveyance of the projects is contingent on the receipt of state regulatory approvals, which were not anticipated to be issued by February 25, 2019. On February 14, 2019, FERC issued an Order Granting Extensions of Time until August 26, 2019, to comply with the requirements of the Order. If commission approvals are not received, Duke Energy Carolinas can cancel the sales agreement and retain the hydro facilities. If commission approvals are received, the closing is expected to occur in 2019. After closing, Duke Energy Carolinas will purchase all 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 was driven by capital investments subsequent to the previous base rate case, costs of complying with CCR regulations and the Coal Ash Act, costs relating to storm recovery, investments in customer service technologies and recovery of costs associated with renewable purchased power. On November 22, 2017, Duke Energy Progress and the 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. On February 23, 2018, the NCUC issued an order approving the stipulation. 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. Revised customer rates became effective on March 16, 2018. On May 15, 2018, the Public Staff 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. The North Carolina Attorney General and Sierra Club 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. On November 29, 2018, the North Carolina Attorney General's Office filed a motion with the North Carolina Supreme Court requesting the court consolidate the Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Carolinas appeals and enter an order adopting the parties’ proposed briefing schedule as set out in the filing. On November 29, 2018, the North Carolina Supreme Court adopted a schedule for briefing set forth in the motion to consolidate the Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Carolinas appeals. On March 14, 2019, the North Carolina Attorney General’s Office filed a motion for extension of time to file its brief. On March 18, 2019, the North Carolina Supreme Court granted the North Carolina Attorney General’s motion, and the Appellant’s brief was filed on April 26, 2019. The Appellee response briefs are due on August 24, 2019. Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter. 2018 South Carolina Rate Case On November 8, 2018, Duke Energy Progress filed an application with the PSCSC for a rate increase for retail customers of approximately $59 million, which represents an approximate 10.3 percent increase in annual base revenues. The rate increase is driven by capital investments and environmental compliance progress made by Duke Energy Progress since its previous rate case, including the further implementation of Duke Energy Progress’ generation modernization program, which consists of retiring, replacing and upgrading generation plants, investments in customer service technologies and continued investments in base work to maintain its transmission and distribution systems. The request included a decrease resulting from the Tax Act of $17 million to reflect the change in ongoing tax expense, primarily the reduction in the federal income tax rate from 35 to 21 percent. The request also included $10 million to return EDIT resulting from the federal tax rate change and deferred revenues since January 2018 related to the change (EDIT Rider) and a $12 million increase due to the expiration of EDITs related to reductions in North Carolina state income taxes allocable to South Carolina. Duke Energy Progress also requested approval of its proposed GIP, approval of a Prepaid Advantage Program and a variety of accounting orders related to ongoing costs for environmental compliance, including recovery over a five-year period of $51 million of deferred coal ash related compliance costs, AMI deployment, grid investments between rate changes and regulatory asset treatment related to the retirement of a generating plant located in Asheville, North Carolina. Finally, Duke Energy Progress sought approval to establish a reserve and accrual for end-of-life nuclear costs for materials and supplies and nuclear fuel. On March 8, 2019, the ORS moved to establish a new and separate hearing docket to review and consider the GIP proposed by Duke Energy Progress. Subsequently, on March 12, 2019, the ORS and Duke Energy Carolinas executed a Stipulation resolving the ORS’s motion, and Duke Energy Progress agreed to the Stipulation, as did other parties in the rate case. The Stipulation provides that costs incurred after January 1, 2019, for the GIP will be deferred with a return, with all costs subject to evaluation in a future rate proceeding, and that Duke Energy Progress will refile for consideration of the GIP in a new docket for resolution by January 1, 2020. The Stipulation was approved by the PSCSC’s hearing officer on March 13, 2019. An evidentiary hearing began on April 11, 2019, and concluded on April 17, 2019. On May 8, 2019, the PSCSC issued a Commission Directive on Duke Energy Progress’ application for a retail rate increase. The Directive granted, among other things: a retail rate increase of $41 million, excluding the EDIT Rider; a return on equity of 9.5 percent and a capital structure of 53 percent equity and 47 percent debt. The Directive denied the recovery of coal ash costs of approximately $65 million. Based upon legal analysis and Duke Energy Progress' intention to file a Petition for Rehearing with the PSCSC, Duke Energy Progress has not recorded an adjustment for its deferred coal ash costs. Duke Energy Progress is evaluating the financial statement impacts of this Directive and will record associated one-time costs when the final order is issued. Except for the coal ash matter, the financial statement impacts of this Directive are not material. An order and revised customer rates are expected by mid-2019. Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter. Western Carolinas Modernization Plan On November 4, 2015, Duke Energy Progress announced a Western Carolinas Modernization Plan, which included retirement of the existing Asheville coal-fired plant, the construction of two 280‑MW combined-cycle natural gas plants having dual-fuel capability, with the option to build a third natural gas simple cycle unit in 2023 based upon the outcome of initiatives to reduce the region's power demand. The plan also included upgrades to existing transmission lines and substations, installation of solar generation and a pilot battery storage project. These investments will be made within the next seven years. Duke Energy Progress worked with the local natural gas distribution company to upgrade an existing natural gas pipeline to serve the natural gas plant. The lease became effective on March 2, 2019. On March 28, 2016, the NCUC issued an order approving a CPCN for the new combined-cycle natural gas plants, but denying the CPCN for the contingent simple cycle unit without prejudice to Duke Energy Progress to refile for approval in the future. On March 28, 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. On October 8, 2018, Duke Energy Progress filed an application with the NCUC for a CPCN to construct the Hot Springs Microgrid Solar and Battery Storage Facility. On November 30, 2018, the NCUC issued an order scheduling hearings, requiring filing of testimony, establishing discovery guidelines and requiring public notice. On February 7, 2019, Duke Energy Progress made a joint filing with the Public Staff, which accepted the Public Staff’s proposed conditions and requested that the NCUC cancel the evidentiary hearing. On February 19, 2019, the NCUC granted the request to cancel the hearing. On March 22, 2019, Duke Energy Progress and the Public Staff filed a Joint Proposed Order now pending before the NCUC. Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter. The carrying value of the 376-MW Asheville coal-fired plant, including associated ash basin closure costs, of $302 million and $327 million is included in Generation facilities to be retired, net on Duke Energy Progress' Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of March 31, 2019, and December 31, 2018, 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. 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 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 Hurricane Irma and Hurricane 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 Hurricane Irma and Hurricane Nate. The petition sought 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. On August 20, 2018, the FPSC approved Duke Energy Florida's unopposed Motion for Continuance filed August 17, 2018, to allow for an evidentiary hearing in this matter. On January 28, 2019, Duke Energy Florida made a supplemental filing to reduce the total storm cost recovery from $510 million to $508 million. On April 3, 2019, the FPSC issued an Order abating all remaining filing dates. On April 9, 2019, Duke Energy Florida filed an unopposed motion to approve a settlement agreement resolving all outstanding issues in this docket. The FPSC has scheduled the hearing to begin on May 21, 2019, to consider the Storm Cost Settlement Agreement filed with the FPSC. If approved, the Storm Cost Settlement Agreement would obligate Duke Energy Florida to capitalize $18 million of storm costs and remove $6 million of operating and maintenance expense, thereby reducing the requested storm cost recovery amount by $24 million. Duke Energy Florida will also implement process changes with respect to storm cost restoration. At March 31, 2019, and December 31, 2018, Duke Energy Florida's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets included approximately $157 million and $217 million, respectively, of recoverable costs under the FPSC's storm rule in Regulatory assets within Current Assets and Other Noncurrent Assets related to storm recovery for Hurricane Irma and Hurricane Nate. Duke Energy Florida cannot predict the outcome of this matter. In October 2018, Duke Energy Florida’s service territory suffered damage when Hurricane Michael made landfall as a strong Category 5 hurricane with maximum sustained winds of 160 mph. The storm caused catastrophic damage from wind and storm surge, particularly from Panama City Beach to Mexico Beach, resulting in widespread outages and significant damage to transmission and distribution facilities across the central Florida Panhandle. In response to Hurricane Michael, Duke Energy Florida restored service to approximately 72,000 customers. Total current estimated incremental operation and maintenance and capital costs are $360 million. Approximately $70 million and $35 million of the costs are included in Net property, plant and equipment on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of March 31, 2019, and December 31, 2018, respectively. Approximately $213 million and $165 million of costs represent recoverable costs under the FPSC’s storm rule and Duke Energy Florida's Open Access Transmission Tariff formula rates and are included in Regulatory assets within Other Noncurrent Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of March 31, 2019, and December 31, 2018, respectively. Additional costs could be incurred in 2019 related to this fourth quarter 2018 storm. Duke Energy Florida filed a petition with the FPSC on April 30, 2019, to recover incremental storm restoration costs for Hurricane Michael. The estimated recovery amount is approximately $221 million to be recovered over a 12-month period beginning in July 2019, subject to true up through the Storm Surcharge consistent with the provisions of the 2017 Settlement. Concurrently, Duke Energy Florida filed for approval a stipulation that would apply tax savings resulting from the Tax Act toward storm costs in lieu of implementing a storm surcharge. Storm costs are currently expected to be fully recovered by approximately year-end 2021. Duke Energy Florida cannot predict the outcome of this matter. Tax Act Pursuant to Duke Energy Florida's 2017 Settlement, on May 31, 2018, Duke Energy Florida filed a petition related to the Tax Act, which included revenue requirement impacts of annual tax savings of $134 million and estimated annual amortization of EDIT of $67 million for a total of $201 million. Of this amount, $50 million would be offset by accelerated depreciation of Crystal River 4 and 5 coal units and an estimated $151 million would be offset by Hurricane Irma storm cost recovery as explained in the Storm Restoration Cost Recovery section above. On December 27, 2018, Duke Energy Florida filed actual EDIT balances and amortization based on its 2017 filed tax return. This increased the revenue requirement impact of the amortization of EDIT by $4 million, from $67 million to $71 million, which increased the total storm amortization from $151 million to $155 million. On January 8, 2019, the FPSC approved a joint motion by Duke Energy Florida and the Office of Public Counsel resolving all stipulated positions. As part of that stipulation, Duke Energy Florida agreed to seek a Private Letter Ruling (PLR) from the IRS on its treatment of cost of removal (COR) as mostly protected by tax normalization rules. If the IRS rules that COR is not protected by tax normalization rules, then Duke Energy Florida will make a final adjustment to the amortization of EDIT and an adjustment to the storm recovery amount retroactive to January 2018. The IRS has communicated that it will not issue individual PLRs on the treatment of COR. Rather, the IRS is drafting a notice that will request comments on a number of issues, including COR, and the IRS plans to issue industrywide guidance on those issues. Duke Energy Florida cannot predict the outcome of this matter. Solar Base Rate Adjustment On July 31, 2018, Duke Energy Florida petitioned the FPSC to include in base rates the revenue requirements for its first two solar generation projects, the Hamilton Project and the Columbia Project, as authorized by the 2017 Settlement. The Hamilton Project, which was placed into service on December 22, 2018, has an annual retail revenue requirement of $15 million and the increase was effective in January 2019. The Columbia Project has a projected annual revenue requirement of $14 million and a projected in-service date in early 2020; the associated rate increase would take place with the first month’s billing cycle after the Columbia Project goes into service. At its October 30, 2018, Agenda Conference, the FPSC approved the rate increase related to the Hamilton Project to go into effect beginning with the first billing cycle in January 2019 under its file and suspend authority. On April 2, 2019, the commission approved both solar projects as filed. On March 25, 2019, Duke Energy Florida petitioned the FPSC to include in base rates the revenue requirements for its next wave of solar generation projects, the Trenton, Lake Placid and DeBary Solar Projects, as authorized by the 2017 Settlement. The annual retail revenue requirement for the Trenton and Lake Placid Projects is $13 million and $8 million, respectively, with projected in-service dates in the fourth quarter of 2019. The DeBary Project has a projected annual revenue requirement of $11 million and a projected in-service date in the first quarter of 2020. The associated rate increase would take place with the first month’s billing cycle after each solar generation project goes into service. Duke Energy Florida cannot predict the outcome of this matter. Duke Energy Ohio Tax Act – Ohio 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. 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. Duke Energy Ohio's transmission rates reflect lower federal income tax but guidance from FERC on amortization of both protected and unprotected transmission-related EDITs is still pending. On October 24, 2018, the PUCO issued a Finding and Order that, among other things, directed all utilities over which the commission has rate-making authority to file an application to pass the benefits of the Tax Act to customers by January 1, 2019, unless otherwise exempted or directed by the PUCO. Duke Energy Ohio's July 25, 2018, filing for electric distribution operations is consistent with the commission's October 24, 2018, Finding and Order and no further action is needed. On February 20, 2019, the PUCO approved the application without material modification. Rates became effective March 1, 2019. On December 21, 2018, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application to change its base rates and establish a new rider to implement the benefits of the Tax Act for natural gas customers. Duke Energy Ohio requested commission approval to implement the changes and rider effective April 1, 2019. 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. The PUCO has not yet ruled on the application for changes for natural gas customers. 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. On April 10, 2019, the PUCO issued an Entry on Rehearing denying the rehearing applications. 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 for 2017 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; however, a decision on Duke Energy Ohio's application for rehearing remains pending. 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 (Rider DCI) 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 March 9, 2018, Duke Energy Ohio filed a motion to extend its then-current ESP, including all terms and conditions thereof, pending approval of a new ESP. On May 30, 2018, the PUCO granted the request, with modification. Specifically, the PUCO did not extend the cap applicable to Rider DCI beyond July 31, 2018. Duke Energy Ohio sought rehearing of this finding. On July 25, 2018, the PUCO granted the request and allowed a continuing cap on recovery under Rider DCI. On August 24, 2018, the Ohio Manufacturers' Association (OMA) and the Office of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel (OCC) filed an Application for Rehearing of the commission's decision. Duke Energy Ohio filed a Memorandum Contra OCC's request for rehearing of the commission's continuation of Rider DCI on September 4, 2018. On September 19, 2018, the PUCO issued an Order granting rehearing on the matter for further consideration. On April 3, 2019, the PUCO issued its Fourth Entry on Rehearing denying the rehearing of OCC and OMA and upholding its decision to continue Rider DCI. Further applications for rehearing or notices of appeal are due in 60 days. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter. On May 21, 2018, the OMA filed a notice of appeal of PUCO's approval of Duke Energy Ohio’s ESP with the Ohio Supreme Court, challenging PUCO's approval of Duke Energy Ohio’s Price Stability Rider as a placeholder and its Rider DCI to recover incremental revenue requirement for distribution capital since Duke Energy Ohio’s last base rate case. On July 16, 2018, the OCC 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 filed a Motion to Intervene in the two Ohio Supreme Court appeals. OMA's Supreme Court brief was filed on August 20, 2018. PUCO submitted its brief on October 26, 2018, and Duke Energy Ohio filed its brief on October 29, 2018. The OCC’s Supreme Court brief was filed on October 15, 2018. Duke Energy Ohio filed its brief on December 20, 2018. The PUCO submitted its brief on December 21, 2018. The Ohio Supreme Court issued an order on March 13, 2019, for the appellants to show cause why the appeals should not be dismissed as moot in light of the commission’s approval of Duke Energy Ohio’s current ESP. OCC and OMA made the requested filings on March 20, 2019, and Duke Energy Ohio filed its response on March 27, 2019. On May 8, 2019, the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed the appeals as moot. 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. Duke Energy Ohio currently estimates the pipeline development costs and construction activities will range from $163 million to $245 million in direct costs (excluding overheads and 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. In April 2018, Duke Energy Ohio filed a motion with OPSB to establish a procedural schedule and filed supplemental information supporting its application. On December 18, 2018, the OPSB established a procedural schedule that included a local public hearing on March 21, 2019. An evidentiary hearing began on April 9, 2019, and concluded on April 11, 2019. Briefs are due May 13, 2019, with reply briefs due June 10, 2019. If approved, construction of the pipeline extension is expected to be completed before the 2021/2022 winter season. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter. 2012 Natural Gas Rate Case/MGP Cost Recovery As part of its 2012 natural gas base rate case, Duke Energy Ohio has approval to defer and recover costs related to environmental remediation at two sites (East End and West End) that housed former MGP operations. Duke Energy Ohio has made annual applications for recovery of these deferred costs. Duke Energy Ohio is currently recovering approximately $55 million in environmental remediation costs between 2009 through 2012 through a separate rider, Rider MGP. Duke Energy Ohio has made annual applications with the PUCO to recover its incremental remediation costs consistent with the PUCO’s directive in Duke Energy Ohio’s 2012 natural gas rate case. To date, the PUCO has not ruled on Duke Energy Ohio’s annual applications for the calendar years 2013 through 2017. On September 28, 2018, the staff of the PUCO issued a report recommending a disallowance of approximately $12 million of the $26 million in MGP remediation costs incurred between 2013 through 2017 that staff believes are not eligible for recovery. Staff interprets the PUCO’s 2012 Order granting Duke Energy Ohio recovery of MGP remediation as limiting the recovery to work directly on the East End and West End sites. On October 30, 2018, Duke Energy Ohio filed reply comments objecting to the staff’s recommendations and explaining, among other things, the obligation Duke Energy Ohio has under Ohio law to remediate all areas impacted by the former MGPs and not just physical property that housed the former plants and equipment. To date, the PUCO has not issued a procedural schedule and has not ruled on Duke Energy Ohio’s applications. On March 29, 2019, Duke Energy Ohio filed its annual application to recover incremental remediation expense for the calendar year 2018. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter. Duke Energy Kentucky Natural Gas Base Rate Case On August 31, 2018, Duke Energy Kentucky filed an application with the KPSC requesting an increase in natural gas base rates of approximately $11 million, an approximate 11.1 percent average increase across all customer classes. The increase was net of approximately $5 million in annual savings as a result of the Tax Act. The drivers for this case are capital invested since Duke Energy Kentucky’s last rate case in 2009. Duke Energy Kentucky also sought implementation of a Weather Normalization Adjustment Mechanism, amortization of regulatory assets and to implement the impacts of the Tax Act, prospectively. On January 30, 2019, Duke Energy Kentucky entered into a settlement agreement with the Attorney General of Kentucky, the only intervenor in the case. The settlement provided for an approximate $7 million increase in natural gas base revenue and approval of the proposed Weather Normalization Mechanism. A hearing was held on February 5, 2019. The commission issued its Order approving the settlement without material modification on March 27, 2019. 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 D.C. Circuit Court, in Emera Maine v. FERC, reversed and remanded certain aspects of the methodology employed by FERC to establish rates of return on equity. On October 16, 2018, FERC issued an order in response to the Emera remand proceeding proposing a new method for determining whether an existing return on equity is unjust and unreasonable, and a new process for determining a just and reasonable return on equity. On November 14, 2018, FERC directed parties to the MISO complaints to file briefs on how the new process for determining return on equity proposed in the Emera proceeding should be applied to the complaints involving the MISO transmission owners’ return on equity. Initial briefs were filed on February 13, 2019, and reply briefs were filed April 10, 2019. Duke Energy Indiana currently believes these matters will not have a material impact on its results of operations, cash flows and financial position. Edwardsport Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Plant On September 20, 2018, Duke Energy Indiana, the Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor, the Duke Industrial Group and Nucor Steel – Indiana entered into a settlement agreement to resolve IGCC ratemaking issues for calendar years 2018 and 2019. The agreement will remain in effect until new rates are established in Duke Energy Indiana's next base rate case, which is expected to be filed in mid-2019 with rates effective in mid-2020. It addressed the pending Edwardsport filing at the commission and eliminated the need for future filings until the overall rate case. The settlement is subject to IURC approval. An evidentiary hearing was held in December 2018, and an IURC Order is expected in May 2019. Duke Energy Indiana cannot predict the outcome of this matter. Piedmont Tennessee Integrity Management Rider Filing In November 2018, Piedmont filed a petition with the TPUC under the IMR mechanism to collect an additional $3 million in annual revenues, effective January 2019, based on the eligible capital investments closed to integrity and safety projects over the 12-month period ending October 31, 2018. A hearing on the matter was held on March 11, 2019, and a decision is expected in May 2019. 2019 North Carolina Rate Case On April 1, 2019, Piedmont filed an application with the NCUC, its first general rate case in North Carolina in six years, for a rate increase for retail customers of approximately $83 million, which represents an approximate 9 percent increase in retail revenues. The rate increase is driven by significant infrastructure upgrade investments (plant additions) since the last general rate case, offset by savings that customers will begin receiving due to federal and state tax reform. Approximately half of the plant additions being rolled into rate base are categories of plant investment not covered under the IMR mechanism, which was originally approved as part of the 2013 North Carolina Rate Case. Piedmont anticipates the NCUC will schedule the evidentiary hearing for late summer/early fall 2019, which would enable the rate change arising from this proceeding to take effect by the end of 2019. Piedmont cannot predict the outcome of this matter. OTHER REGULATORY MATTERS Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC On September 2, 2014, Duke Energy, Dominion Resources (Dominion), Piedmont and Southern Company Gas announced the formation of Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC (ACP) to build and own the proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP pipeline), an approximately 600-mile interstate natural gas pipeline running from West Virginia to North Carolina. The ACP pipeline is designed to meet, in part, the needs identified by Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Piedmont. Dominion will be responsible for building and operating 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 13 for additional information related to Duke Energy's ownership interest. Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Piedmont, among others, will be customers of the pipeline. Purchases will be made under several 20-year supply contracts, subject to state regulatory approval. 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, and October 19, 2018, FERC issued Notices to Proceed allowing full construction activities in all areas of West Virginia except in the Monongahela National Forest. On July 24, 2018, FERC issued a Notice to Proceed allowing full construction activities along the project route in North Carolina. On October 19, 2018, the conditions to effectiveness of the Virginia 401 water quality certification were satisfied. Immediately following receipt of the Virginia 401 certification, ACP filed a request for FERC to issue a Notice to Proceed with full construction activities in Virginia. We appreciate the professional and collaborative process by the permitting agencies designed to ensure that this critical energy infrastructure project will meet the stringent environmental standards required by law and regulation. ACP is the subject of 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. Since December 2018, notable developments in these challenges include a stay issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Fourth Circuit) of the project's biological opinion and ITS (which stay has halted most project construction activity), a Fourth Circuit decision vacating the project's permits to cross the Monongahela and George Washington National Forests and the Appalachian Trail, the Fourth Circuit's remand to USACE of ACP's Huntington District 404 verification and the Fourth Circuit’s remand to the National Park Service of the ACP’s Blue Ridge Parkway right-of-way. ACP is vigorously defending these challenges and coordinating with the federal and state authorities which are the direct parties to the challenges. ACP and federal agencies are coordinating on a potential appeal of the Fourth Circuit’s recent ruling vacating the project’s permit to cross the Appalachian Trail. ACP is also evaluating possible legislative and administrative remedies. On May 9, 2019, ACP, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Justice will present arguments before the Fourth Circuit supporting the project’s stayed biological opinion and ITS. The delays resulting from the legal challenges described above have impacted the cost and schedule for the project. As a result, project cost estimates have increased to $7.0 billion to $7.8 billion, excluding financing costs. ACP expects to achieve a late 2020 in-service date for key segments of the project, while it expects the remainder to extend into 2021. Abnormal weather, work delays (including delays due to judicial or regulatory action) and other conditions may result in cost or schedule modifications in the future. 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 a series of legal actions challenging the legality and appropriateness of the NYSDEC’s decision, culminating in an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, which appeal was denied on April 30, 2018. In addition, 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, which petition was denied on January 11, 2018. On January 25, 2019, the D.C. Circuit Court rendered a decision in Hoopa Valley Tribe v. FERC that withdrawal and resubmission of an application for a Section 401 water quality certification constituted a waiver by the relevant state agency when such withdrawals and resubmissions were intended to extend the one-year limit on accepting or rejecting such an application. As Constitution had made similar arguments in its 2018 petition to FERC for a declaratory order, on April 1, 2019, Constitution filed a new petition for declaratory order requesting FERC find a waiver on the part of NYSDEC in accordance with the D.C. Circuit Court’s newly established precedent. On May 1, 2019, Constitution filed its response to supplemental pleadings filed by NYSDEC and others in this proceeding. A FERC response is expected later this year. 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. On November 5, 2018, FERC issued an Order Granting Extension of Time. During the three months ended March 31, 2018, Duke Energy recorded an OTTI of $55 million within Equity in (losses) earnings of unconsolidated affiliates on Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income. The charge represented 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 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 13 for additional information related to ownership interest and carrying value of the investment. Potential Coal Plant Retirements The Subsidiary Registrants periodically file IRPs 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. IRPs filed by the Subsidiary Registrants included planning assumptions to potentially retire certain coal-fired generating facilities in North Carolina and Indiana earlier than their current estimated useful lives primarily because facilities do not have the requisite emission control equipment to meet regulatory requirements expected to apply in the near future. 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. 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 March 31, 2019, 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 |  |  | $ | 159 |
Duke Energy Indiana |  |  |
Gallagher Units 2 and 4(b) | 280 |  |  | 120 |
Total Duke Energy | 865 |  |  | $ | 279 |
(a) | Duke Energy Carolinas will retire Allen Steam Station Units 1 through 3 by December 31, 2024, as part of the resolution of a lawsuit involving alleged New Source Review violations.
(b) | Duke Energy Indiana committed to either retire or stop burning coal at Gallagher Units 2 and 4 by December 31, 2022, as part of the 2016 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