DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC. files 10-Q

DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC. revealed 10-Q form on May 09.

The Commercial Renewables segment is primarily comprised of nonregulated utility-scale wind and solar generation assets located throughout the U.S. On April 24, 2019, Duke Energy executed an agreement to sell a minority interest in a portion of certain renewable assets. The portion of Duke Energy’s commercial renewables energy portfolio to be sold includes 49 percent of 37 operating wind, solar and battery storage assets and 33 percent of 11 operating solar assets across the U.S. The sale will result in pretax proceeds to Duke Energy of $415 million. Duke Energy will retain control of these assets, and, therefore, no gain or loss is expected to be recognized in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations upon closing of the transaction. The sale is subject to customary closing conditions, including approvals from the FERC, the Public Utility Commission of Texas and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. The transaction is expected to close in the second half of 2019.

In February 2018, Duke Energy sold Beckjord, a nonregulated facility retired during 2014, and recorded a pretax loss of $106 million within Losses on Sales of Other Assets and Other, net and $1 million within Operation, maintenance and other on Duke Energy’s Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations for the three months ended March 31, 2018. The sale included the transfer of coal ash basins and other real property and indemnification from any and all potential future claims related to the property, whether arising under environmental laws or otherwise.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced numerous claims for indemnification and medical cost reimbursement related to asbestos exposure. These claims relate to damages for bodily injuries alleged to have arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos in connection with construction and maintenance activities conducted on its electric generation plants prior to 1985. As of March 31, 2019, there were 139 asserted claims for non-malignant cases with cumulative relief sought of up to $34 million, and 57 asserted claims for malignant cases with cumulative relief sought of up to $18 million. Based on Duke Energy Carolinas’ experience, it is expected that the ultimate resolution of most of these claims likely will be less than the amount claimed.

Duke Energy Carolinas has recognized asbestos-related reserves of $617 million at March 31, 2019, and $630 million at December 31, 2018. These reserves are classified in Other within Other Noncurrent Liabilities and Other within Current Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. These reserves are based upon Duke Energy Carolinas’ best estimate for current and future asbestos claims through 2038 and are recorded on an undiscounted basis. In light of the uncertainties inherent in a longer-term forecast, management does not believe they can reasonably estimate the indemnity and medical costs that might be incurred after 2038 related to such potential claims. It is possible Duke Energy Carolinas may incur asbestos liabilities in excess of the recorded reserves.

Duke Energy Carolinas has third-party insurance to cover certain losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages above an aggregate self-insured retention. Duke Energy Carolinas’ cumulative payments began to exceed the self-insured retention in 2008. Future payments up to the policy limit will be reimbursed by the third-party insurance carrier. The insurance policy limit for potential future insurance recoveries indemnification and medical cost claim payments is $764 million in excess of the self-insured retention. Receivables for insurance recoveries were $739 million at March 31, 2019, and December 31, 2018. These amounts are classified in Other within Other Noncurrent Assets and Receivables within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Duke Energy Carolinas is not aware of any uncertainties regarding the legal sufficiency of insurance claims. Duke Energy Carolinas believes the insurance recovery asset is probable of recovery as the insurance carrier continues to have a strong financial strength rating.

On January 29, 2019, Fluor filed a breach of contract lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida against Duke Energy Florida related to an EPC agreement for the combined-cycle natural gas plant in Citrus County, Florida. Fluor filed an amended complaint on February 13, 2019. Fluor’s multicount complaint seeks civil, statutory and contractual remedies related to Duke Energy Florida’s $67 million draw in early 2019, on Fluor’s letter of credit and offset of invoiced amounts. Duke Energy Florida moved to dismiss all counts of Fluor’s amended complaint, and on April 16, 2019, the court dismissed Fluor’s complaint without prejudice. On April 26, 2019, Fluor filed a second amended complaint. Duke Energy Florida is attempting to recover from Fluor $110 million in additional costs incurred by Duke Energy Florida. Duke Energy Florida cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Duke Energy operates various renewable energy projects and sells the generated output to utilities, electric cooperatives, municipalities and commercial and industrial customers through long-term PPAs. In certain situations, these PPAs and the associated renewable energy projects qualify as operating leases. Rental income from these leases is accounted for as Nonregulated electric and other revenues in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. There are no minimum lease payments as all payments are contingent based on actual electricity generated by the renewable energy projects. Contingent lease payments were $64 million for the three months ended March 31, 2019. As of March 31, 2019, renewable energy projects owned by Duke Energy and accounted for as operating leases had a cost basis of $3,345 million and accumulated depreciation of $631 million. These assets are principally classified as nonregulated electric generation and transmission assets.

(c)Debt issued to repay at maturity $450 million first mortgage bonds due April 2019, pay down short-term debt and for general corporate purposes.

Debt issued to repay at maturity $450 million first mortgage bonds due April 2019, pay down short-term debt and for general corporate purposes.

In March 2019, Duke Energy amended its existing $8 billion Master Credit Facility to extend the termination date to March 2024. The Duke Energy Registrants, excluding Progress Energy (Parent), have borrowing capacity under the Master Credit Facility up to a specified sublimit for each borrower. Duke Energy has the unilateral ability at any time to increase or decrease the borrowing sublimits of each borrower, subject to a maximum sublimit for each borrower. The amount available under the Master Credit Facility has been reduced to backstop issuances of commercial paper, certain letters of credit and variable-rate demand tax-exempt bonds that may be put to the Duke Energy Registrants at the option of the holder. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress are also required to each maintain $250 million of available capacity under the Master Credit Facility as security to meet obligations under plea agreements reached with the U.S. Department of Justice in 2015 related to violations at North Carolina facilities with ash basins. The table below includes the current borrowing sublimits and available capacity under the Master Credit Facility.

(b)Duke Energy issued $625 million of commercial paper and loaned the proceeds through the money pool to Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana. The balances are classified as Long-Term Debt Payable to Affiliated Companies on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Duke Energy issued $625 million of commercial paper and loaned the proceeds through the money pool to Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana. The balances are classified as Long-Term Debt Payable to Affiliated Companies on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(a)$650 million was drawn under the term loan in January and February 2019.

$650 million was drawn under the term loan in January and February 2019.

Duke Energy Ohio’s Goodwill balance of $920 million, allocated $596 million to Electric Utilities and Infrastructure and $324 million to Gas Utilities and Infrastructure, is presented net of accumulated impairment charges of $216 million on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at March 31, 2019, and December 31, 2018.

(a)Duke Energy includes amounts related to consolidated VIEs of $422 million in cash flow hedges and $194 million in undesignated contracts as of March 31, 2019, and December 31, 2018.

Duke Energy includes amounts related to consolidated VIEs of $422 million in cash flow hedges and $194 million in undesignated contracts as of March 31, 2019, and December 31, 2018.

(a)Book value of long-term debt includes $1.5 billion as of March 31, 2019, and $1.6 billion as of December 31, 2018, of unamortized debt discount and premium, net in purchase accounting adjustments related to the mergers with Progress Energy and Piedmont that are excluded from fair value of long-term debt.

Book value of long-term debt includes $1.5 billion as of March 31, 2019, and $1.6 billion as of December 31, 2018, of unamortized debt discount and premium, net in purchase accounting adjustments related to the mergers with Progress Energy and Piedmont that are excluded from fair value of long-term debt.

The proceeds Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana receive from the sale of receivables to CRC are approximately 75 percent cash and 25 percent in the form of a subordinated note from CRC. The subordinated note is a retained interest in the receivables sold. Depending on collection experience, additional equity infusions to CRC may be required by Duke Energy to maintain a minimum equity balance of $3 million.

The Duke Energy Registrants are not aware of any situations where the maximum exposure to loss significantly exceeds the carrying values shown above except for the power purchase agreement with OVEC, which is discussed below, and various guarantees, including Duke Energy’s guarantee agreement to support its share of the ACP revolving credit facility. Duke Energy’s maximum exposure to loss under the terms of the guarantee is $737 million, which represents 47 percent of the outstanding borrowings under the credit facility as of March 31, 2019. For more information on various guarantees, refer to Note 4.

On February 20, 2018, Duke Energy filed a prospectus supplement and executed an EDA under which it may sell up to $1 billion of its common stock through an ATM offering program, including an equity forward sales component. The EDA was entered into with the Agents. Under the terms of the EDA, Duke Energy may issue and sell, through any of the Agents, shares of common stock through September 23, 2019.

In June 2018, Duke Energy marketed two separate tranches, each for 1.3 million shares, of common stock through equity forward transactions under the ATM program. In December 2018, Duke Energy physically settled these equity forwards by delivering 2.6 million shares of common stock in exchange for net proceeds of approximately $195 million.

Separately, in March 2018, Duke Energy marketed an equity offering of 21.3 million shares of common stock through an Underwriting Agreement. In connection with the offering, Duke Energy entered into equity forward sale agreements. The equity forwards required Duke Energy to either physically settle the transactions by issuing 21.3 million shares in exchange for net proceeds at the then-applicable forward sale price specified by the agreements, or net settle in whole or in part through the delivery or receipt of cash or shares. In June 2018, Duke Energy physically settled one-half of the equity forwards by delivering approximately 10.6 million shares of common stock in exchange for net cash proceeds of approximately $781 million. In December 2018, Duke Energy physically settled the remaining equity forward by delivering 10.6 million shares of common stock in exchange for net cash proceeds of approximately $766 million.

In 2018, Duke Energy also issued 2.2 million shares through its DRIP with an increase in additional paid-in capital of approximately $174 million.

In March and April 2019, Duke Energy marketed two separate tranches, each for 1.1 million shares, of common stock through equity forward transactions under the ATM program. The first tranche had an initial forward price of $89.83 per share and the second tranche had an initial forward price of $88.82 per share. The equity forwards require Duke Energy to either physically settle the transaction by issuing shares in exchange for net proceeds at the then-applicable forward sale price specified by the agreements or net settle in whole or in part through the delivery or receipt of cash or shares. The settlement alternative is at Duke Energy’s election. No amounts have or will be recorded in Duke Energy’s Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements with respect to these ATM offerings until settlements of the equity forwards occur, which is expected by December 31, 2019. The initial forward sale price will be subject to adjustment on a daily basis based on a floating interest rate factor and will decrease by other fixed amounts specified in the relevant forward sale agreements. Until settlement of the equity forwards, earnings per share dilution resulting from the agreements, if any, will be determined under the treasury stock method.

On March 29, 2019, Duke Energy completed the issuance of 40 million depositary shares, each representing 1/1,000th share of its Series A Cumulative Redeemable Perpetual Preferred Stock, at a price of $25 per depositary share. The transaction resulted in net proceeds of $974 million after issuance costs and the proceeds are being used for general corporate purposes and to reduce short-term debt. The preferred stock has a $25 liquidation preference per depositary share and earns dividends on a cumulative basis at a rate of 5.75 percent per annum. Dividends are payable quarterly in arrears on the 16th day of March, June, September and December, beginning on June 16, 2019. Dividends issued on its preferred stock are subject to approval by the Duke Energy Board of Directors. However, the deferral of dividend payments on the preferred stock prohibits the declaration of common stock dividends. Dividends declared on preferred stock will be recorded on the income statement as a reduction of net income to arrive at net income attributable to Duke Energy common stockholders. Dividends accumulated on preferred stock will be a reduction to net income used in the calculation of basic and diluted EPS.

The preferred stock has no maturity or mandatory redemption date, is not redeemable at the option of the holders and includes separate call options. The first call option allows Duke Energy to call the preferred stock at a redemption price of $25.50 per depositary share prior to June 15, 2024, in whole but not in part, at any time within 120 days after a ratings event where a rating agency amends, clarifies or changes the criteria it uses to assign equity credit for securities such as the preferred stock. The second call option allows Duke Energy to call the preferred stock, in whole or in part, at any time, on or after June 15, 2024, at a redemption price of $25 per depositary share. Duke Energy is also required to redeem all accumulated and unpaid dividends if either call option is exercised.

Duke Energy estimates the undiscounted, unadjusted cost to close the remaining impoundments by excavation, as outlined in the NCDEQ closure determination, will be approximately $4 billion to $5 billion more than the prior project cost estimate of $5.6 billion in the aggregate for the closure for all Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress impoundments. Excavation would likely extend beyond the required federal and state deadlines for impoundment closure. Duke Energy intends to seek recovery of all costs through the ratemaking process consistent with previous proceedings. For more information, see Note 4, “Commitments and Contingencies,” to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

•On January 30, 2019, Duke Energy Kentucky entered into a settlement agreement with the Attorney General of Kentucky related to the Natural Gas Base Rate Case. The settlement provides for an approximate $7 million increase in natural gas base revenue and approval of the proposed Weather Normalization Mechanism. The KPSC issued its Order approving the settlement without material modification on March 27, 2019.

On January 30, 2019, Duke Energy Kentucky entered into a settlement agreement with the Attorney General of Kentucky related to the Natural Gas Base Rate Case. The settlement provides for an approximate $7 million increase in natural gas base revenue and approval of the proposed Weather Normalization Mechanism. The KPSC issued its Order approving the settlement without material modification on March 27, 2019.

GAAP Reported EPS was $1.24 for the first quarter of 2019 compared to $0.88 for the first quarter of 2018. The increase in GAAP Reported EPS was primarily due to prior year regulatory settlements, impairments charges, an AMT valuation allowance and a loss on sale of a retired plant.

As discussed above, management also evaluates financial performance based on adjusted diluted EPS. Duke Energy’s first quarter 2019 adjusted diluted EPS was $1.24 compared to $1.28 for the first quarter of 2018. The decrease in adjusted earnings was primarily due to unfavorable weather and volumes, higher depreciation and interest expenses and share dilution from equity issuances, partially offset by positive rate case impacts and an adjustment related to the income tax recognition for equity method investments. This adjustment was immaterial and relates to prior years.

•a $177 million increase in retail pricing primarily due to the prior year Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress North Carolina rate cases and Duke Energy Florida’s base rate adjustments related to generation assets being placed into service.

a $177 million increase in retail pricing primarily due to the prior year Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress North Carolina rate cases and Duke Energy Florida’s base rate adjustments related to generation assets being placed into service.

•a $43 million decrease in impairment charges primarily due to prior year impacts associated with the Duke Energy Progress North Carolina rate case.

a $43 million decrease in impairment charges primarily due to prior year impacts associated with the Duke Energy Progress North Carolina rate case.

•a $27 million increase in property and other taxes primarily due to higher property taxes for additional plant in service in the current year and a favorable sales and use tax credit in the prior year at Duke Energy Progress.

a $27 million increase in property and other taxes primarily due to higher property taxes for additional plant in service in the current year and a favorable sales and use tax credit in the prior year at Duke Energy Progress.

•a $4 million increase in depreciation and amortization expense primarily due to additional plant in service.

a $4 million increase in depreciation and amortization expense primarily due to additional plant in service.

Gas Utilities and Infrastructure has a 47 percent ownership interest in ACP, which is building an approximately 600-mile interstate natural gas pipeline intended to transport diverse natural gas supplies into southeastern markets. Affected states (West Virginia, Virginia and North Carolina) have issued certain necessary permits; the project remains subject to other pending federal and state approvals, which will allow full construction activities to begin. In 2018, FERC issued a series of Notices to Proceed, which authorized the project to begin certain construction-related activities along the pipeline route. Project cost estimates are a range of $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 a remainder to extend into 2021. Project construction activities, schedule and final costs are subject to uncertainty due to abnormal weather, work delays (including delays due to judicial or regulatory action) and other conditions and risks that could result in potential higher project costs, a potential delay in the targeted in-service dates, permanent or temporary suspension of AFUDC and potential impairment charges. ACP and Duke Energy will continue to consider their options with respect to the foregoing in light of their existing contractual and legal obligations. See Notes 3 and 13 to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters” and “Variable Interest Entities,” respectively, for additional information.

On April 24, 2019, Duke Energy executed an agreement to sell a minority interest in a portion of certain renewable assets. The portion of Duke Energy’s commercial renewables energy portfolio to be sold includes 49 percent of 37 operating wind, solar and battery storage assets and 33 percent of 11 operating solar assets across the U.S. Duke Energy Renewable Services, an operations and maintenance business for third-party customers, and REC Solar are not included in the potential transaction. The sale will result in pretax proceeds to Duke Energy of $415 million. Duke Energy will retain control of these assets, and, therefore, no gain or loss is expected to be recognized in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations upon closing of the transaction. Duke Energy will also retain the majority of the remaining tax benefits from the projects. Duke Energy will continue to develop projects, grow its portfolio and manage its renewables assets. The sale is subject to customary closing conditions, including approvals from the FERC, the Public Utility Commission of Texas and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. The transaction is expected to close in the second half of 2019.

•a $51 million increase in retail pricing due to the impacts of the prior year North Carolina rate case.

a $51 million increase in retail pricing due to the impacts of the prior year North Carolina rate case.

•a $45 million increase in depreciation and amortization expense primarily due to additional plant in service, new depreciation rates associated with the prior year North Carolina rate case and higher amortization of deferred coal ash costs associated with the prior year North Carolina rate case.

a $45 million increase in depreciation and amortization expense primarily due to additional plant in service, new depreciation rates associated with the prior year North Carolina rate case and higher amortization of deferred coal ash costs associated with the prior year North Carolina rate case.

•a $13 million decrease in impairment charges related to prior year coal ash costs in South Carolina.

a $13 million decrease in impairment charges related to prior year coal ash costs in South Carolina.

•a $111 million increase in retail pricing primarily due to the impacts of the prior year Duke Energy Progress North Carolina rate case, Duke Energy Florida’s base rate adjustments related to the Citrus County CC being placed into service and annual increases from the 2017 Settlement Agreement.

a $111 million increase in retail pricing primarily due to the impacts of the prior year Duke Energy Progress North Carolina rate case, Duke Energy Florida’s base rate adjustments related to the Citrus County CC being placed into service and annual increases from the 2017 Settlement Agreement.

•a $29 million decrease in impairment charges primarily due to prior year impacts associated with the Duke Energy Progress North Carolina rate case.

a $29 million decrease in impairment charges primarily due to prior year impacts associated with the Duke Energy Progress North Carolina rate case.

•a $14 million increase in property and other taxes primarily due to higher property taxes due to additional plant in service at Duke Energy Florida in the current year and a favorable sales and use tax credit in the prior year at Duke Energy Progress.

a $14 million increase in property and other taxes primarily due to higher property taxes due to additional plant in service at Duke Energy Florida in the current year and a favorable sales and use tax credit in the prior year at Duke Energy Progress.

•a $15 million increase in JAAR revenues in conjunction with implementation of new base rates.

a $15 million increase in JAAR revenues in conjunction with implementation of new base rates.

•a $32 million decrease in impairment charges due to prior year impacts associated with the North Carolina rate case.

a $32 million decrease in impairment charges due to prior year impacts associated with the North Carolina rate case.

•a $9 million increase in property and other taxes primarily due to a favorable sales and use tax credit in the prior year.

a $9 million increase in property and other taxes primarily due to a favorable sales and use tax credit in the prior year.

•a $12 million decrease in retail rider revenues primarily related to decreased revenue requirements in the current year.

a $12 million decrease in retail rider revenues primarily related to decreased revenue requirements in the current year.

•a $57 million increase in retail pricing due to base rate adjustments related to the Citrus County CC being placed in service and annual increases from the 2017 Settlement Agreement.

a $57 million increase in retail pricing due to base rate adjustments related to the Citrus County CC being placed in service and annual increases from the 2017 Settlement Agreement.

•a $7 million decrease in operations, maintenance and other expense primarily due to lower employee benefit costs.

a $7 million decrease in operations, maintenance and other expense primarily due to lower employee benefit costs.

•a $5 million increase in property and other taxes primarily due to higher property taxes due to additional plant in service.

a $5 million increase in property and other taxes primarily due to higher property taxes due to additional plant in service.

•a $6 million decrease in depreciation and amortization expense primarily due to the ending of smart grid amortizations.

a $6 million decrease in depreciation and amortization expense primarily due to the ending of smart grid amortizations.

•a $7 million increase in property and other taxes primarily due to higher property tax expense.

a $7 million increase in property and other taxes primarily due to higher property tax expense.

•a $19 million increase in rate rider revenues primarily related to higher rates for the Edwardsport IGCC plant, the TDSIC rider and MISO rider revenues.

a $19 million increase in rate rider revenues primarily related to higher rates for the Edwardsport IGCC plant, the TDSIC rider and MISO rider revenues.

•an $8 million increase in operation, maintenance and other expense primarily due to higher transmission costs and customer related costs related to energy efficiency programs.

an $8 million increase in operation, maintenance and other expense primarily due to higher transmission costs and customer related costs related to energy efficiency programs.

•a $5 million decrease due to a reduction of rates in South Carolina.

a $5 million decrease due to a reduction of rates in South Carolina.

•a $14 million increase in cost of natural gas primarily due to the impact of higher natural gas prices on off-system sales and unbilled revenue.

a $14 million increase in cost of natural gas primarily due to the impact of higher natural gas prices on off-system sales and unbilled revenue.

•Duke Energy issued $2 billion of debt and drew $650 million under the Duke Energy Progress Term Loan Facility during the three months ended March 31, 2019. Refer to Note 6 to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, “Debt and Credit Facilities,” for information regarding Duke Energy’s debt issuances, debt maturities and available credit facilities including the Master Credit Facility.

Duke Energy issued $2 billion of debt and drew $650 million under the Duke Energy Progress Term Loan Facility during the three months ended March 31, 2019. Refer to Note 6 to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, “Debt and Credit Facilities,” for information regarding Duke Energy’s debt issuances, debt maturities and available credit facilities including the Master Credit Facility.

•In March 2019, Duke Energy issued preferred stock for net proceeds of $974 million. Refer to Note 15 to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, “Stockholders’ Equity,” for information regarding Duke Energy’s equity issuances.

In March 2019, Duke Energy issued preferred stock for net proceeds of $974 million. Refer to Note 15 to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, “Stockholders’ Equity,” for information regarding Duke Energy’s equity issuances.

•a $330 million increase in cash outflows from working capital primarily due to fluctuations in coal stock inventory and timing of payment of accruals, partially offset by current year decreases in accounts receivable due to higher miscellaneous and trade receivables at December 31, 2018.

a $330 million increase in cash outflows from working capital primarily due to fluctuations in coal stock inventory and timing of payment of accruals, partially offset by current year decreases in accounts receivable due to higher miscellaneous and trade receivables at December 31, 2018.

•a $105 million payment for disposal of Beckjord in the prior year.

a $105 million payment for disposal of Beckjord in the prior year.

•a $783 million increase in proceeds from net issuances of long-term debt primarily due to the timing of issuances and redemptions of long-term debt.

a $783 million increase in proceeds from net issuances of long-term debt primarily due to the timing of issuances and redemptions of long-term debt.

•a $1,199 million decrease in net proceeds from issuances of notes payable and commercial paper primarily due to the use of proceeds from the preferred stock issuance and increased long-term debt issuances to pay down outstanding commercial paper.

a $1,199 million decrease in net proceeds from issuances of notes payable and commercial paper primarily due to the use of proceeds from the preferred stock issuance and increased long-term debt issuances to pay down outstanding commercial paper.

Receive News & Ratings Via Email - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings with our FREE daily email newsletter.