| | | | | |
(a) | Electric Utilities and Infrastructure includes $19 million recorded within Impairment charges and $8 million recorded within Operations, maintenance and other on the Duke Energy Carolinas' Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations related to a partial settlement in the Duke Energy Carolinas' 2019 North Carolina rate case and $8 million recorded within Operations, maintenance and other on Duke Energy Progress' Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operation related to a partial settlement in the Duke Energy Progress' 2019 North Carolina rate case. See Note 3 for more information. Additionally, Electric Utilities and Infrastructure includes $5 million of Impairment charges related to gas pipeline assets recorded on Duke Energy Progress' Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. |
| |
(b) | Gas Utilities and Infrastructure includes $78 million recorded within Equity in (losses) earnings of unconsolidated affiliates on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and $7 million in Impairment charges recorded on the Piedmont Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations related to gas pipeline investments. |
| |
(c) | Electric Utilities and Infrastructure includes a $25 million reduction of a prior year impairment recorded at Citrus County CC related to the plant's cost cap and is recorded within Impairment charges on Duke Energy Florida's Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Nine Months Ended September 30, 2020 |
| Electric |
| | Gas |
| | | | Total |
| | | | | | |
| Utilities and |
| | Utilities and |
| | Commercial |
| | Reportable |
| | | | | | |
(in millions) | Infrastructure |
| | Infrastructure |
| | Renewables |
| | Segments |
| | Other |
| | Eliminations |
| | Total |
|
Unaffiliated revenues | $ | 16,571 |
| | $ | 1,122 |
| | $ | 378 |
| | $ | 18,071 |
| | $ | 20 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 18,091 |
|
Intersegment revenues | 25 |
| | 72 |
| | — |
| | 97 |
| | 53 |
| | (150 | ) | | — |
|
Total revenues | $ | 16,596 |
| | $ | 1,194 |
| | $ | 378 |
| | $ | 18,168 |
| | $ | 73 |
| | $ | (150 | ) | | $ | 18,091 |
|
Segment income (loss)(a)(b)(c) | $ | 2,839 |
| | $ | (1,400 | ) | | $ | 207 |
| | $ | 1,646 |
| | $ | (299 | ) | | $ | — |
| | $ | 1,347 |
|
Less: Noncontrolling interests | | | | | | | | | | | | | 208 |
|
Add: Preferred stock dividend | | | | | | | | | | | | | 93 |
|
Net Income | | | | | | | | | | | | | $ | 1,232 |
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Nine Months Ended September 30, 2019 |
| Electric |
| | Gas |
| | | | Total |
| | | | | | |
| Utilities and |
| | Utilities and |
| | Commercial |
| | Reportable |
| | | | | | |
(in millions) | Infrastructure |
| | Infrastructure |
| | Renewables |
| | Segments |
| | Other |
| | Eliminations |
| | Total |
|
Unaffiliated revenues | $ | 17,357 |
| | $ | 1,239 |
| | $ | 362 |
| | $ | 18,958 |
| | $ | 18 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 18,976 |
|
Intersegment revenues | 24 |
| | 72 |
| | — |
| | 96 |
| | 53 |
| | (149 | ) | | — |
|
Total revenues | $ | 17,381 |
| | $ | 1,311 |
| | $ | 362 |
| | $ | 19,054 |
| | $ | 71 |
| | $ | (149 | ) | | $ | 18,976 |
|
Segment income (loss)(d) | $ | 2,944 |
| | $ | 292 |
| | $ | 139 |
| | $ | 3,375 |
| | $ | (328 | ) | | $ | — |
| | $ | 3,047 |
|
Less: Noncontrolling interests | | | | | | | | | | | | | 110 |
|
Add: Preferred stock dividend | | | | | | | | | | | | | 27 |
|
Net Income | | | | | | | | | | | | | $ | 2,964 |
|
| |
(a) | Electric Utilities and Infrastructure includes $19 million recorded within Impairment charges and $8 million recorded within Operations, maintenance and other on the Duke Energy Carolinas' Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations related to a partial settlement in the Duke Energy Carolinas' 2019 North Carolina rate case and $8 million recorded within Operations, maintenance and other on Duke Energy Progress' Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operation related to a partial settlement in the Duke Energy Progress' 2019 North Carolina rate case. See Note 3 for more information. Additionally, Electric Utilities and Infrastructure includes $5 million of Impairment charges related to gas pipeline assets recorded on Duke Energy Progress' Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. |
| |
(b) | Gas Utilities and Infrastructure includes $2.1 billion recorded within Equity in (losses) earnings of unconsolidated affiliates on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and $7 million of Impairment charges recorded on the Piedmont Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations related to gas pipeline investments. See Notes 3 and 12 for additional information. |
| |
(c) | Other includes a $98 million reversal, included in Operations, maintenance and other on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations, of 2018 severance costs due to a partial settlement in the Duke Energy Carolinas' 2019 North Carolina rate case. See Note 3 for additional information. |
| |
(d) | Electric Utilities and Infrastructure includes a $25 million reduction of a prior year impairment recorded at Citrus County CC related to the plant's costs cap and is recorded within Impairment charges on Duke Energy Florida's Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. |
|
| |
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS | BUSINESS SEGMENTS |
(a)Gas Utilities and Infrastructure includes $19 million, recorded within Equity in earnings (losses) of unconsolidated affiliates on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations, related to gas pipeline investments. See Note 3 for additional information. Commercial Renewables includes a $35 million loss related to Texas Storm Uri, of which ($8 million) is recorded within Nonregulated electric and other revenues, $2 million within Operations, maintenance and other, $29 million within Equity in earnings (losses) of unconsolidated affiliates and $12 million within Loss Attributable to Noncontrolling Interests on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. See Note 4 for additional information. Other includes $139 million recorded within Impairment of assets and other charges, $28 million within Operations, maintenance and other, and $17 million within Depreciation and amortization on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations, related to the workplace and workplace realignment. See Note 1 for additional information. Electric Utilities and Infrastructure includes $160 million recorded within Impairment of assets and other charges, $77 million within Other Income and expenses, $5 million within Operations, maintenance and other, $13 million within regulated operating revenues and $3 million within interest expense on the Duke Energy Carolinas' Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations related to the 2018 South Carolina rate cases and the CCR settlement and insurance proceeds distributed in accordance with that agreement; it also includes $42 million recorded within Impairment of assets and other charges, $34 million within Other Income and expenses, $7 million within Operations, maintenance, and other, $15 million within Regulated electric operating revenues and $5 million within interest expense on the Duke Energy Progress' Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations. See Notes 3 and 4 for more information.
(b)Gas Utilities and Infrastructure includes $2 billion recorded within Equity in earnings (losses) of unconsolidated affiliates on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations, related to gas pipeline investments. See Note 3 for additional information. Other includes a $98 million reversal, included in Operations, maintenance and other on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations, of 2018 severance costs due to a partial settlement in the Duke Energy Carolinas' 2019 North Carolina rate case. See Note 3 for additional information. Electric Utilities and Infrastructure includes $19 million recorded within Impairment charges and $8 million recorded within Operations, maintenance and other on the Duke Energy Carolinas' Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations related to a partial settlement in the Duke Energy Carolinas' 2019 North Carolina rate case and $8 million recorded within Operations, maintenance and other on Duke Energy Progress' Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operation related to a partial settlement in the Duke Energy Progress' 2019 North Carolina rate case. See Note 3 for more information. Additionally, Electric Utilities and Infrastructure includes $5 million of Impairment charges related to gas pipeline assets recorded on Duke Energy Progress' Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations in the prior year.
Duke Energy Ohio
Duke Energy Ohio has 2 reportable segments, Electric Utilities and Infrastructure and Gas Utilities and Infrastructure. The remainder of Duke Energy Ohio's operations is presented as Other.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Three Months Ended September 30, 2021 |
| Electric | | Gas | | Total | | | | | | |
| Utilities and | | Utilities and | | Reportable | | | | | | |
(in millions) | Infrastructure | | Infrastructure | | Segments | | Other | | Eliminations | | Total |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Total revenues | $ | 413 | | | $ | 93 | | | $ | 506 | | | $ | — | | | $ | — | | | $ | 506 | |
Segment income/Net (loss) income | $ | 48 | | | $ | 11 | | | $ | 59 | | | $ | (1) | | | $ | — | | | $ | 58 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Segment assets | $ | 6,716 | | | $ | 3,783 | | | $ | 10,499 | | | $ | 27 | | | $ | (21) | | | $ | 10,505 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Three Months Ended September 30, 2020 |
| Electric | | Gas | | Total | | | | | | |
| Utilities and | | Utilities and | | Reportable | | | | | | |
(in millions) | Infrastructure | | Infrastructure | | Segments | | Other | | | | Total |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Total revenues | $ | 394 | | | $ | 79 | | | $ | 473 | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 473 | |
Segment income/Net (loss) income | $ | 63 | | | $ | 9 | | | $ | 72 | | | $ | (2) | | | | | $ | 70 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Nine Months Ended September 30, 2021 |
| Electric | | Gas | | Total | | | | | | |
| Utilities and | | Utilities and | | Reportable | | | | | | |
(in millions) | Infrastructure | | Infrastructure | | Segments | | Other | | | | Total |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Total revenues | $ | 1,119 | | | $ | 375 | | | $ | 1,494 | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 1,494 | |
Segment income/Net (loss) income | $ | 122 | | | $ | 77 | | | $ | 199 | | | $ | (11) | | | | | $ | 188 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Nine Months Ended September 30, 2020 |
| Electric | | Gas | | Total | | | | | | |
| Utilities and | | Utilities and | | Reportable | | | | | | |
(in millions) | Infrastructure | | Infrastructure | | Segments | | Other | | | | Total |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Total revenues | $ | 1,070 | | | $ | 324 | | | $ | 1,394 | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 1,394 | |
Segment income/Net (loss) income | $ | 137 | | | $ | 68 | | | $ | 205 | | | $ | (4) | | | | | $ | 201 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Three Months Ended September 30, 2020 |
| Electric |
| | Gas |
| | Total |
| | | | | | |
| Utilities and |
| | Utilities and |
| | Reportable |
| | | | | | |
(in millions) | Infrastructure |
| | Infrastructure |
| | Segments |
| | Other |
| | Eliminations |
| | Total |
|
Total revenues | $ | 394 |
| | $ | 79 |
| | $ | 473 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 473 |
|
Segment income/Net income | $ | 63 |
| | $ | 9 |
| | $ | 72 |
| | $ | (2 | ) | | $ | — |
| | $ | 70 |
|
Segment assets | $ | 6,448 |
| | $ | 3,297 |
| | $ | 9,745 |
| | $ | 27 |
| | $ | (23 | ) | | $ | 9,749 |
|
| | | | | |
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS | REGULATORY MATTERS |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Three Months Ended September 30, 2019 |
| Electric |
| | Gas |
| | Total |
| | | | |
| Utilities and |
| | Utilities and |
| | Reportable |
| | | | |
(in millions) | Infrastructure |
| | Infrastructure |
| | Segments |
| | Other |
| | Total |
|
Total revenues | $ | 408 |
| | $ | 81 |
| | $ | 489 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 489 |
|
Segment income/Net income | $ | 62 |
| | $ | 13 |
| | $ | 75 |
| | $ | (1 | ) | | $ | 74 |
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Nine Months Ended September 30, 2020 |
| Electric |
| | Gas |
| | Total |
| | | | |
| Utilities and |
| | Utilities and |
| | Reportable |
| | | | |
(in millions) | Infrastructure |
| | Infrastructure |
| | Segments |
| | Other |
| | Total |
|
Total revenues | $ | 1,070 |
| | $ | 324 |
| | $ | 1,394 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 1,394 |
|
Segment income/Net (loss) income | $ | 137 |
| | $ | 68 |
| | $ | 205 |
| | $ | (4 | ) | | $ | 201 |
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Nine Months Ended September 30, 2019 |
| Electric |
| | Gas |
| | Total |
| | | | |
| Utilities and |
| | Utilities and |
| | Reportable |
| | | | |
(in millions) | Infrastructure |
| | Infrastructure |
| | Segments |
| | Other |
| | Total |
|
Total revenues | $ | 1,099 |
| | $ | 354 |
| | $ | 1,453 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 1,453 |
|
Segment income/Net (loss) income | $ | 129 |
| | $ | 65 |
| | $ | 194 |
| | $ | (4 | ) | | $ | 190 |
|
3. 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
COVID-19 Filings2021 Coal Ash Settlement
On January 22, 2021, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress entered into the Coal Combustion Residuals Settlement Agreement (the “CCR Settlement Agreement”) with the North Carolina Public Staff (Public Staff), the North Carolina Attorney General’s Office and the Sierra Club (collectively, the "Settling Parties"), which was filed with the NCUC on January 25, 2021. The CCR Settlement Agreement resolves all coal ash prudence and cost recovery issues in connection with 2019 rate cases filed by Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress with the NCUC, as well as the equitable sharing issue on remand from the 2017 Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress North Carolina rate cases as a result of the December 11, 2020 North Carolina Supreme Court opinion. The settlement also provides clarity on coal ash cost recovery in North Carolina for Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress through January 2030 and February 2030 (the "Term"), respectively.
OnDuke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress agreed not to seek recovery of approximately $1 billion of systemwide deferred coal ash expenditures, but will retain the ability to earn a debt and equity return during the amortization period, which shall be five years under the 2019 North Carolina rate cases and will be set by the NCUC in future rate case proceedings. The equity return and the amortization period on deferred coal ash costs under the 2017 Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress North Carolina rate cases will remain unaffected. The equity return on deferred coal ash costs under the 2019 North Carolina rate cases and future rate cases in North Carolina will be set at 150 basis points lower than the authorized return on equity (ROE) then in effect, with a capital structure composed of 48% debt and 52% equity. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress retain the ability to earn a full WACC return during the deferral period, which is the period from when costs are incurred until they are recovered in rates.
The Settling Parties agreed that execution by Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress of a settlement agreement between themselves and the NCDEQ dated December 31, 2019, (the “DEQ Settlement”) and the coal ash management plans included therein or subsequently approved by DEQ are reasonable and prudent. The Settling Parties retain the right to challenge the reasonableness and prudence of actions taken by Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress and costs incurred to implement the scope of work agreed upon in the DEQ Settlement, after February 1, 2020, and March 10,1, 2020, Governor Roy Cooper declared a statefor Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress, respectively. The Settling Parties further agreed to waive rights through the Term to challenge the reasonableness or prudence of emergencyDuke Energy Carolinas’ and Duke Energy Progress’ historical coal ash management practices, and to waive the right to assert any arguments that future coal ash costs, including financing costs, shall be shared between either company and customers through equitable sharing or any other rate base or return adjustment that shares the revenue requirement burden of coal ash costs not otherwise disallowed due to imprudence.
The Settling Parties agreed to a sharing arrangement for future coal ash insurance litigation proceeds between Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress and North Carolina customers. For more information, see Note 4 "Commitments and Contingencies."
As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. OnCCR Settlement Agreement, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress recorded a pretax charge of approximately $454 million and $494 million, respectively, in the fourth quarter of 2020 to Impairment charges and a reversal of approximately $50 million and $102 million, respectively, to Regulated electric operating revenues on the respective Consolidated Statements of Operations.
The Coal Ash Settlement was approved without modification in the NCUC Orders in the 2019 rate cases on March 19, 2020, the31, 2021, and April 16, 2021, for Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress, respectively. The NCUC issued an order directing that utilities under its jurisdiction suspend disconnections for nonpayment of utility bills duringOrder on Remand Accepting CCR Settlement and Affirming Previous Orders Setting Rates and Imposing Penalties in the state of emergency and allow for customers to enter into payment arrangements to pay off arrearages accumulated during the state of emergency after the end of the state of emergency. Additionally, to help mitigate the financial impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic2017 rate cases on their customers, on March 19,June 25, 2021.
2020 North Carolina Storm Securitization Filings
On October 26, 2020, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a requestjoint petition with the NCUC, seeking authorizationas agreed to waive: (1) any late payment charges incurred by a residential or nonresidential customer, effective March 21, 2020; (2)in partial settlements reached in the application of fees2019 North Carolina Rate Cases for checks returned for insufficient funds for residential and nonresidential customers; (3) the reconnection charge when a residential or nonresidential customer seeks to have service restored for those customers whose service was recently disconnected for nonpayment and to work with customers regarding the other requirements to restore service, including re-establishment of credit; and (4) the fees and charges associated with the use of credit cards or debit cards to pay residential electric utility bills, effective March 21, 2020. The NCUC granted the companies’ request on March 20, 2020.
|
| |
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS | REGULATORY MATTERS |
On July 29, 2020, the NCUC issued its Order Lifting Disconnection Moratorium and Allowing Collection of Arrearages Pursuant to Special Repayment Plans. The order contained the following: (1) public utilities may resume customer disconnections due to nonpayment for bills first rendered on or after September 1, 2020, after appropriate notice; (2) the late fee moratorium will continue through the end of the state of emergency or until further order of the commission; (3) Duke Energy utilities may reinstate fees for checks returned for insufficient funds as well as transaction fees for use of credit cards or debit cards for bills first rendered on or after September 1, 2020; and (4) no sooner than September 1, 2020, the collection of past-due or delinquent accounts accrued up to and including August 31, 2020, may proceed subject to conditions. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress, resumed normal billing practices as of October 1, 2020, withseeking authorization for the exceptionfinancing of the billingcosts of late payment charges. Customers were notifiedeach utility's storm recovery activities required as a result of Hurricane Florence, Hurricane Michael, Hurricane Dorian and Winter Storm Diego. Specifically, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress requested that the NCUC find that their storm recovery costs and related financing costs are appropriately financed by debt secured by storm recovery property, and that the commission issue financing orders by which each utility may accomplish such financing using a securitization structure. On January 27, 2021, Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and the Public Staff filed an Agreement and Stipulation of Partial Settlement, subject to review and approval of the resumptionNCUC, resolving certain accounting issues, including agreement to support an 18- to 20-year bond period. The total revenue requirement over a proposed 20-year bond period for the storm recovery charges is approximately $287 million for Duke Energy Carolinas and $920 million for Duke Energy Progress and will be finalized upon issuance of normal billing practices, the optionbonds. A remote evidentiary hearing ended on January 29, 2021. In the NCUC Orders in the 2019 rate cases issued on March 31, 2021, and April 16, 2021, for Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress, respectively, the reasonableness and prudence of the deferred payment arrangementsstorm costs was approved. On May 10, 2021, the NCUC issued financing orders authorizing the companies to issue storm recovery bonds, subject to the terms of the financing orders, and whereapproving the Agreement and Stipulation of Partial Settlement in its entirety. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress are currently in the process of structuring and marketing the bonds that will be presented to find assistance, if necessary. Service disconnections for nonpayment for residential customers resumed on November 2, 2020.the market. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
| | | | | |
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS | REGULATORY MATTERS |
COVID-19 Filings
North Carolina
Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a joint petition on August 7, 2020, with the NCUC for deferral treatment of incremental costs and the cost of waived customer fees due to the COVID-19 pandemic. On October 30, 2020, the NCUC issued an order extending deadlines to file commentsComments on the joint petition towere filed on November 5, 2020, and reply comments towere filed on November 30, 2020. A summary of incremental COVID-19 costs incurred as of June 30, 2021, was filed with the NCUC by Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress on August 6, 2021. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
South Carolina
On March 13, 2020, Governor Henry McMaster declared a state of emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The governor also issued a letter on March 14, 2020, to the ORS Executive Director regarding the suspension of disconnection of essential utility services for nonpayment. On March 18, 2020, the PSCSC issued an order approving such waivers, and also approved waivers for regulations related to late fees and reconnect fees. The PSCSC's order also required utilities to track the financial impacts of actions taken pursuant to such waivers for possible reporting to the PSCSC.
On May 13, 2020, the ORS filed a letter with the PSCSC that included a request from Governor McMaster that utilities proceed with developing and implementing plans for phasing in normal business operations. On May 14, 2020, the PSCSC conditionally vacated the regulation waivers regarding termination of service and suspension of disconnect fees. Prior to termination, utilities are to refer past-due customers to local organizations for assistance and/or deferred payment arrangements. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a report on June 30, 2020, as required by PSCSC order, reporting revenue impact, costs and savings related to COVID-19 to date. On August 14, 2020, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a joint petition with the PSCSC for approval of an accounting order to defer incremental COVID-19 related costs incurred through June 30, 2020, and for the ongoing months during the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic. The deferral request did not include lost revenues. Updates on cost impacts were filed on September 30, 2020, and included financial impacts through the end of August 2020. On October 16, 2020, the ORS requested the PSCSC delay taking formal action on the deferral request until the ORS and any intervenors complete discovery. The PSCSC issued an order on October 21, 2020, to grant additional time to complete discovery until January 20, 2021, and to establish a procedural schedule.
On August 17, 2020, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed an update onwithdrew their planned return to normal operations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Normal billing practices resumed in South Carolina as of October 1, 2020, and service disconnections for nonpayment resumed on October 12, 2020. Customers were notified of the resumption of normal billing practices, the option of payment arrangements and where to find assistance, if necessary. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
2020 North Carolina Storm Securitization Filings
On October 26, 2020, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a joint petition with the NCUC, as agreed to in partial settlements reached in the 2019 North Carolina Rate Cases for Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress, seeking authorization for the financing of each utilities’ storm recovery activities required as a result of Hurricane Florence, Hurricane Michael, Hurricane Dorian and Winter Storm Diego. Specifically, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress requested that the NCUC find that their storm recovery costs and related financing costs are appropriately financed by debt secured by storm recovery property, and that the commission issue financing orders by which each utility may accomplish such financing using a securitization structure. The total revenue requirement over the proposed 15-year bond period for the storm recovery charges is approximately $262 million for Duke Energy Carolinas and $842 million for Duke Energy Progress. The NCUC has until March 10, 2021, to issue financing orders. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.on May 17, 2021.
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. On February 28, 2018, Duke Energy Carolinas and the North Carolina Public Staff (Public Staff) filed an Agreement and Stipulation of Partial Settlement resolving certain portions of the proceeding. Terms of the settlement included a return on equityan ROE of 9.9% and a capital structure of 52% equity and 48% debt. On June 22, 2018, the NCUC issued an order approving the Stipulation of Partial Settlement and requiring a revenue reduction.
The North Carolina Attorney General and other parties separately filed Notices of Appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court. On August 8, 2018, the Public Staff filed a Notice of Cross Appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court. On November 29, 2018, the North Carolina Attorney General's Office filed a motion with theThe 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 consolidateconsolidated the Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress appeals. Appellant briefs were filed on April 26, 2019. The Appellee response briefs were filed on September 25, 2019. Oral arguments beforeOn December 11, 2020, the North Carolina Supreme Court were heldissued an opinion, which affirmed, in part, and reversed and remanded, in part, the NCUC’s decisions. In the Opinion, the court upheld the NCUC's decision to include coal ash costs in the cost of service, as well as the NCUC’s discretion to allow a return on March 11, 2020.the unamortized balance of coal ash costs. The court also remanded to the NCUC a single issue to consider the assessment of support for the Public Staff’s equitable sharing argument. On January 22, 2021, Duke Energy Carolinas cannot predictand Duke Energy Progress entered into the outcome of this matter.
|
| |
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS | REGULATORY MATTERS |
CCR Settlement Agreement with the Settling Parties, which was filed with the NCUC on January 25, 2021, and approved by the NCUC on March 31, 2021. The NCUC issued an Order on Remand Accepting CCR Settlement and Affirming Previous Orders Setting Rates and Imposing Penalties on June 25, 2021.
2019 North Carolina Rate Case
On September 30, 2019, Duke Energy Carolinas filed an application with the NCUC for a net rate increase for retail customers of approximately $291 million, which represented an approximate 6% increase in annual base revenues. The gross rate case revenue increase request was $445 million, which was offset by an EDIT rider of $154 million to return to customers North Carolina and federal EDIT resulting from recent reductions in corporate tax rates. The request for a rate increase was driven by major capital investments subsequent to the previous base rate case, coal ash pond closure costs, accelerated coal plant depreciation and deferred 2018 storm costs. Duke Energy Carolinas requested rates be effective no later than August 1, 2020. The NCUC established a procedural schedule with an evidentiary hearing to begin on March 23, 2020. On March 16, 2020, in consideration of public health and safety as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a motion with the NCUC seeking a suspension of the procedural schedule in the rate case, including issuing discovery requests, and postponement of the evidentiary hearing for 60 days. Also on March 16, 2020, the NCUC issued an Order Postponing Hearing and Addressing Procedural Matters, which postponed the evidentiary hearing until further order by the commission.
On March 25, 2020, Duke Energy Carolinas and the Public Staff filed an Agreement and Stipulation of Partial Settlement, which is subject to review and approval of the NCUC, resolving certain issues in the base rate proceeding. Major components of the settlement included:
Removal of deferred storm costs from the rate case;
Filing a petition seeking to securitize the deferred storm costs within 120 days of a commission order in this rate case regarding the reasonableness and prudency of the storm costs;
Agreement of certain assumptions to demonstrate the quantifiable benefits to customers of a securitization financing; and
Agreement on certain accounting matters, including recovery of employee incentives, severance, aviation costs and executive compensation.
On May 6, 2020, Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and the Public Staff filed a joint motion requesting that the NCUC issue an order scheduling one consolidated evidentiary hearing to consider the companies’ applications for net rate increases. On June 17, 2020, the NCUC issued an order adopting procedures for the expert witness hearings to take place in three phases: (1) a hearing on issues common to both rate cases conducted remotely; (2) a hearing on Duke Energy Carolinas specific rate case issues, followed immediately by; (3) a hearing on Duke Energy Progress specific rate case issues. On July 24, 2020, Duke Energy Carolinas filed its request for approval of its notice to customers required to implement temporary rates. On July 27, 2020, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a joint motion with Duke Energy Progress and the Public Staff notifying the commission that the parties reached a joint partial settlement with the Public Staff. Also on July 27, 2020, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a letter stating that it intended to update its temporary rates calculation to reflect the terms of the partial settlement.
On July 31, 2020, Duke Energy Carolinas and the Public Staff filed a Second Agreement and Stipulation of Partial Settlement (Second Partial Settlement), which is subject to review and approval of the NCUC, resolving certain remaining issues in the base rate proceeding. Major components of the Second Partial Settlement included:
A return on equity of 9.6% and a capital structure of 52% equity and 48% debt;
Agreement on amortization over a five-year period for unprotected federal EDIT flowbacks to customers;
Agreement on the inclusion of plant in service and other revenue requirement updates through May 31, 2020, subject to Public Staff review. Annual revenue requirement associated with the May 31 update is estimated at $45 million; and
Settlement to allow the deferral of costs for certain grid projects placed in service between June 1, 2020, and December 31, 2022, totaling $0.8 billion.
The remaining items litigated at hearing included recovery of deferred coal ash compliance costs that are subject to asset retirement obligation accounting, implementation of new depreciation rates and the amortization period of the loss on the hydro station sale.
On August 4, 2020, Duke Energy Carolinas filed an amended motion for approval of its amended notice to customers, seeking to exercise its statutory right to implement temporary rates subject to refund on or after August 24, 2020. The revenue requirement to be recovered, subject to refund, through the temporary rates iswas based on and consistent with the base rate component of the Second Partial Settlement with the Public Staff and excludesexcluded the items to be litigated noted above. Duke Energy Carolinas will not begin the amortization or implementation of these items until a final order is issued in the rate case and new base rates are implemented. These items will also be excluded when determining whether a refund of amounts collected through these temporary rates is needed. In addition, Duke Energy Carolinas also seeks authorization to place a temporary decrement EDIT Rider into effect, concurrent with the temporary base rate change. The temporary rate changes are not final rates and remain subject to the NCUC's determination of the just and reasonable rates to be charged by Duke Energy Carolinas on a permanent basis. The NCUC approved the August 4, 2020 amended temporary rates motion on August 6, 2020, and temporary rates went into effect on August 24, 2020.
The Duke Energy Carolinas evidentiary hearing concluded on September 18, 2020, and post-hearing filings were filedmade with the NCUC from all parties by November 4, 2020. On January 22, 2021, Duke Energy Carolinas expectsand Duke Energy Progress entered into the CCR Settlement Agreement with the Settling Parties, which was filed with the NCUC to issueon January 25, 2021.
On March 31, 2021, the NCUC issued an order on its netapproving the March 25, 2020, and July 31, 2020, partial settlements. The order includes approval of 1) an ROE of 9.6% based upon a capital structure of 52% equity and 48% debt; 2) deferral treatment of approximately $800 million of grid improvement projects with a return; 3) a flow back period of five years for unprotected federal EDIT; and 4) the reasonableness and prudence of $213 million of deferred storm costs, which were removed from the rate increase before the end of the first quarter of 2021.case and for which Duke Energy Carolinas cannot predictfiled a petition seeking securitization in October 2020. Additionally, the outcomeorder approved without modification the CCR Settlement Agreement.
| | | | | |
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS | REGULATORY MATTERS |
The order denied Duke Energy Carolinas' proposal to shorten the remaining depreciable lives of this matter.certain Duke Energy Carolinas coal-fired generating units, indicating the NCUC has not had the chance to fully examine the issue within the context of an integrated resource planning (IRP) proceeding, and upon retirement the remaining net book value of these units should be placed in a regulatory asset account to be amortized over an appropriate period to be determined in a future rate case.
On May 21, 2021, the NCUC issued an Order Approving Rate Schedules, which resulted in a net increase of approximately $33 million. Revised customer rates became effective on June 1, 2021. The deadline to appeal has passed and no parties appealed the NCUC's order.
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.
|
| |
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS | REGULATORY MATTERS |
After hearings in March 2019, the PSCSC issued an order on May 21, 2019, which included a return on equityan ROE of 9.5% and a capital structure of 53% equity and 47% debt. The order also included the following material components:
•Approval of cancellation of the Lee Nuclear Project, with Duke Energy Carolinas maintaining the Combined Operating License;
•Approval of recovery of $125 million (South Carolina retail portion) of Lee Nuclear Project development costs (including AFUDC through December 2017) over a 12-year period, but denial of a return on the deferred balance of costs;
•Approval of recovery of $96 million of coal ash costs over a five-year period with a return at Duke Energy Carolinas' WACC;
•Denial of recovery of $115 million of certain coal ash costs deemed to be related to the Coal Ash Act and incremental to the federal CCR rule;
•Approval of a $66 million decrease to base rates to reflect the change in ongoing tax expense, primarily the reduction in the federal income tax rate from 35% to 21%;
•Approval of a $45 million decrease through the EDIT Rider to return EDIT resulting from the federal tax rate change and deferred revenues since January 2018 related to the change, to be returned in accordance with the Average Rate Assumption Method (ARAM) for protected EDIT, over a 20-year period for unprotected EDIT associated with Property, Plant and Equipment, over a five-year period for unprotected EDIT not associated with Property, Plant and Equipment and over a five-year period for the deferred revenues; and
•Approval of a $17 million decrease through the EDIT Rider related to reductions in the North Carolina state income tax rate from 6.9% to 2.5% to be returned over a five-year period.
As a result of the order, revised customer rates were effective June 1, 2019. On May 31, 2019, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a Petition for Rehearing or Reconsideration of that order contending substantial rights of Duke Energy Carolinas were prejudiced by unlawful, arbitrary and capricious rulings by the PSCSC on certain issues presented in the proceeding. On June 19, 2019, the PSCSC issued a Directive denying Duke Energy Carolinas' request to rehear or reconsider the commission's rulings on certain issues presented in the proceeding including coal ash remediation and disposal costs, return on equityROE and the recovery of a return on deferred operation and maintenance expenses. An order detailing the commission's decision in the Directive was issued on October 18, 2019. Duke Energy Carolinas filed a notice of appeal on November 15, 2019, with the Supreme Court of South Carolina. On November 20, 2019, the South Carolina Energy Users Committee filed a Notice of Appeal and the ORS filed a Notice of Cross Appeal with the Supreme Court of South Carolina. On February 12, 2020, Duke Energy Carolinas and the ORS filed a joint motion to extend briefing schedule deadlines, which was approved by the Supreme Court of South Carolina on February 20, 2020. On March 10, 2020, the ORS filed a consent motion requesting withdrawal of their appeal, which was granted by the Supreme Court of South Carolina on April 30, 2020. Initial briefs were filed on April 21, 2020, which included the South Carolina Energy User's Committee brief arguing that the PSCSC erred in allowing Duke Energy Carolinas' recovery of costs related to the Lee Nuclear Station. Response briefs were filed on July 6, 2020, and reply briefs were filed on August 11, 2020. Oral arguments have not yet been scheduled bywere heard before the Supreme Court of South Carolina. BasedCarolina on legal analysisMay 26, 2021.
On October 27, 2021, the Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed the PSCSC's May 2019 order to:
•Disallow cost recovery on certain CCR compliance costs the PSCSC deemed to be incremental to the federal CCR rules;
•Disallow recovery of certain coal ash litigation expenses;
•Disallow a return on certain deferred expenses; and
•Allow recovery of Lee Nuclear Project preconstruction costs.
The Supreme Court's decision notes the filingprior determination made by the PSCSC that Duke Energy could submit coal ash costs for recovery that were not initially approved in the rate case order if such costs can be attributed to the CCR rules. As a result of the appeal,Court's opinion, Duke Energy Carolinas has not recorded an adjustmentrecognized a pretax charge of approximately $160 million to Impairment of assets and other charges, and a $31 million increase in Other income and expenses, net, in the Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations for its deferredthe three and nine months ended September 30, 2021, principally related to coal ash costs.remediation at retired coal ash basin sites. Duke Energy Carolinas is evaluating whether to file a Petition for rehearing on the Supreme Court's decision. Petitions are due November 11, 2021, unless an extension is sought and granted.
| | | | | |
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS | REGULATORY MATTERS |
Oconee Nuclear Station Subsequent License Renewal
On June 7, 2021, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a subsequent license renewal application for the Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS) with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to renew ONS’s operating license for an additional 20 years. The subsequent license renewal would extend operations of the facility from 60 to 80 years. The current license for units 1 and 2 expire in 2033 and the license for unit 3 expires in 2034. By a Federal Register Notice dated July 28, 2021, the NRC provided a 60-day comment period for persons whose interest may be affected by the issuance of a subsequent renewed license for ONS to file a request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. On September 27, 2021, Beyond Nuclear and Sierra Club (Petitioners) filed a Hearing Request and Petition to Intervene (Hearing Request) and a Petition for Waiver. The Hearing Request proposes 3 contentions purporting to challenge Duke Energy Carolinas’ environmental report (ER). In general, the proposed contentions claim that the ER does not consider certain information regarding the environmental aspects of Severe Accidents caused by a hypothetical failure of the Jocassee Dam, and therefore does not satisfy the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), or the NRC’s NEPA-implementing regulations. Duke Energy Carolinas filed its answer to the proposed contentions on October 22, 2021, and the Petitioners have until November 5, 2021, to respond to Duke Energy Carolina’s answer.
Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress intend to seek renewal of operating licenses and 20-year license extensions for all of their nuclear stations. New depreciation rates were implemented for all of the nuclear facilities during the second quarter of 2021. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress 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 was subsequently adjusted to $420 million. 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 equityan ROE of 9.9% and a capital structure of 52% equity and 48% debt. On February 23, 2018, the NCUC issued an order approving the stipulation. The Public Staff, the North Carolina Attorney General and the Sierra Club filed notices of appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court.
On November 29, 2018, theThe North Carolina Attorney General's Office filed a motion withSupreme Court consolidated the Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress appeals. On December 11, 2020, the North Carolina Supreme Court requestingissued an opinion, which affirmed, in part, and reversed and remanded, in part, the NCUC’s decisions. In the Opinion, the court consolidateupheld the NCUC's decision to include coal ash costs in the cost of service, as well as the NCUC’s discretion to allow a return on the unamortized balance of coal ash costs. The court also remanded to the NCUC a single issue to consider the assessment of support for the Public Staff’s equitable sharing argument. On January 22, 2021, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Carolinas appealsentered into the CCR Settlement Agreement with the Settling Parties, which was filed with the NCUC on January 25, 2021, and enter an order adoptingapproved by the parties’ proposed briefing schedule as set out in the filing. Appellant briefs were filedNCUC on April 26, 2019.16, 2021. The Appellee response briefs were filedNCUC issued an Order on SeptemberRemand Accepting CCR Settlement and Affirming Previous Orders Setting Rates and Imposing Penalties on June 25, 2019. Oral arguments before the North Carolina Supreme Court were held on March 11, 2020. Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.2021.
2019 North Carolina Rate Case
On October 30, 2019, Duke Energy Progress filed an application with the NCUC for a net rate increase for retail customers of approximately $464 million, which represented an approximate 12.3% increase in annual base revenues. The gross rate case revenue increase request was $586 million, which was offset by riders of $122 million, primarily an EDIT rider of $120 million to return to customers North Carolina and federal EDIT resulting from recent reductions in corporate tax rates. The request for a rate increase was driven by major capital investments subsequent to the previous base rate case, coal ash pond closure costs, accelerated coal plant depreciation and deferred 2018 storm costs. Duke Energy Progress seekssought to defer and recover incremental Hurricane Dorian storm costs in this proceeding and requestsrequested rates be effective no later than September 1, 2020. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, on March 24, 2020, the NCUC suspended the procedural schedule and postponed the previously scheduled evidentiary hearing on this matter indefinitely. On April 7, 2020, the NCUC issued an order partially resuming the procedural schedule requiring intervenors to file direct testimony on April 13, 2020. Public Staff filed supplemental direct testimony on April 23, 2020. Duke Energy Progress filed rebuttal testimony on May 4, 2020.
|
| |
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS | REGULATORY MATTERS |
On June 2, 2020, Duke Energy Progress and the Public Staff filed an Agreement and Stipulation of Partial Settlement, which is subject to review and approval of the NCUC, resolving certain issues in the base rate proceeding. Major components of the settlement included:
Removal of deferred storm costs from the rate case;
Filing a petition seeking to securitize the deferred storm costs within 120 days of a commission order in this rate case regarding the reasonableness and prudency of the storm costs;
Agreement of certain assumptions to demonstrate the quantifiable benefits to customers of a securitization financing;
Agreement that the Asheville CC project is complete and in service and agreement on the amount to be included in rate base; and
Agreement on certain accounting matters, including recovery of employee incentives, severance, aviation costs and executive compensation.
On May 6, 2020, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Carolinas and the Public Staff filed a joint motion requesting that the NCUC issue an order scheduling one consolidated evidentiary hearing to consider the companies’ applications for net rate increases. On June 17, 2020, the NCUC issued an order adopting procedures for the expert witness hearings to take place in three phases: (1) a hearing on issues common to both rate cases conducted remotely; (2) a hearing on Duke Energy Carolinas specific rate case issues, followed immediately by; (3) a hearing on Duke Energy Progress specific rate case issues. On July 27, 2020, Duke Energy Progress filed a joint motion with Duke Energy Carolinas and the Public Staff notifying the commission that the parties reached a joint partial settlement with the Public Staff.
On July 31, 2020, Duke Energy Progress and the Public Staff filed a Second Agreement and Stipulation of Partial Settlement, (Second Partial Settlement), which is subject to review and approval of the NCUC, resolving certain remaining issues in the base rate proceeding. Major components of the Second Partial Settlement included:
A return on equity of 9.6% and a capital structure of 52% equity and 48% debt;
Agreement on amortization over a five-year period for unprotected federal EDIT flowbacks to customers;
Agreement on the inclusion of plant in service and other revenue requirement updates through May 31, 2020, subject to Public Staff review. Annual revenue requirement associated with the May 31 update is estimated at $25 million; and
Settlement to allow the deferral of costs for certain grid projects placed in service between June 1, 2020, and December 31, 2022, of $0.5 billion.
The remaining items litigated at hearing included recovery of deferred coal ash compliance costs that are subject to asset retirement obligation accounting and implementation of new depreciation rates.
On August 7, 2020, Duke Energy Progress filed a motion for approval of notice required to implement temporary rates,, seeking to exercise its statutory right to implement temporary rates subject to refund on or after September 1, 2020. The revenue requirement to be recovered subject to refund through the temporary rates iswas based on and consistent with the terms of the base rate component of the settlement agreements with the Public Staff and excludesexcluded items to be litigated noted above. Duke Energy Progress will not begin the amortization or implementation of these items until a final determination is issued in the rate case and new base rates are implemented. These items will also be excluded when determining whether a refund of amounts collected through these temporary rates is needed. In addition, Duke Energy Progress also seekssought authorization to place a temporary decrement EDIT Rider into effect, concurrent with the temporary base rate change. The temporary rate changes are not final rates and remain subject to the NCUC's determination of the just and reasonable rates to be charged by Duke Energy Progress on a permanent basis. The NCUC approved the August 7, 2020 temporary rates motion on August 11, 2020, and temporary rates went into effect on September 1, 2020.
The Duke Energy Progress evidentiary hearing concluded on October 6, 2020, and post-hearing filings are due to bewere filed with the NCUC from all parties by December 4, 2020. On January 22, 2021, Duke Energy Progress expectsand Duke Energy Carolinas entered into the CCR Settlement Agreement with the Settling Parties, which was filed with the NCUC to issueon January 25, 2021.
On April 16, 2021, the NCUC issued an order on its net rate increase by the end of the first quarter of 2021. Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Hurricane Dorian
Hurricane Dorian reached the Carolinas in September 2019 as a Category 2 hurricane making landfall within Duke Energy Progress’ service territory. Total estimated incremental operation and maintenance expenses incurred to repair and restore the system are approximately $168 million with an additional $4 million in capital investments made for restoration efforts. Approximately $145 million and $179 million of the operation and maintenance expenses are deferred in Regulatory assets within Other Noncurrent Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2020, and December 31, 2019, respectively. A request for an accounting order to defer incremental storm costs associated with Hurricane Dorian was included in Duke Energy Progress' October 30, 2019, general rate case filing with the NCUC. Terms ofapproving the June 2, 2020, Agreement and StipulationJuly 31, 2020, partial settlements. The order includes approval of Partial Settlement removed incremental1) an ROE of 9.6% based upon a capital structure of 52% equity and 48% debt; 2) deferral treatment of approximately $400 million of grid improvement projects with a return; 3) a flow back period of five years for unprotected federal EDIT; and 4) the reasonableness and prudence of approximately $714 million of deferred storm costs, which were removed from the general rate case. A petition seeking to securitize these costs, along with costs from Hurricane Florence, Hurricane Michaelcase and Winter Storm Diego, was filed on October 26, 2020, with the NCUC. The NCUC has until March 10, 2021, to issue financing orders. Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
On February 7, 2020, a petition was filed with the PSCSC in the 2019 storm deferrals docket requesting deferral of approximately $22 million in operation and maintenance expenses to an existing storm deferral balance previously approved by the PSCSC. The PSCSC voted to approve the request on March 4, 2020, and issued a final order on April 7, 2020. On July 1, 2020,for which Duke Energy Progress filed a supplemental true up reducingpetition seeking securitization in October 2020. Additionally, the actual costs to $17 million.order approved without modification the CCR Settlement Agreement.
|
| | | | |
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS | REGULATORY MATTERS |
The order denied Duke Energy Progress' proposal to shorten the remaining depreciable lives of certain Duke Energy Progress coal-fired generating units, indicating the NCUC has not had the chance to fully examine the issue within the context of an IRP proceeding, and upon retirement the remaining net book value of these units should be placed in a regulatory asset account to be amortized over an appropriate period to be determined in a future rate case.
On May 21, 2021, the NCUC issued an Order Approving Rate Schedules, which resulted in a net increase of approximately $178 million. Revised customer rates became effective on June 1, 2021. The deadline to appeal has passed and no parties appealed the NCUC's order.
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.
After hearings in April 2019, the PSCSC issued an order on May 21, 2019, which included a return on equityan ROE of 9.5% and a capital structure of 53% equity and 47% debt. The order also included the following material components:
•Approval of recovery of $4 million of coal ash costs over a five-year period with a return at Duke Energy Progress' WACC;
•Denial of recovery of $65 million of certain coal ash costs deemed to be related to the Coal Ash Act and incremental to the federal CCR rule;
•Approval of a $17 million decrease to base rates to reflect the change in ongoing tax expense, primarily the reduction in the federal income tax rate from 35% to 21%;
•Approval of a $12 million decrease through the EDIT Tax Savings Rider resulting from the federal tax rate change and deferred revenues since January 2018 related to the change, to be returned in accordance with ARAM for protected EDIT, over a 20-year period for unprotected EDIT associated with Property, Plant and Equipment, over a five-year period for unprotected EDIT not associated with Property, Plant and Equipment and over a three-year period for the deferred revenues; and
•Approval of a $12 million increase due to the expiration of EDIT related to reductions in the North Carolina state income tax rate from 6.9% to 2.5%.
As a result of the order, revised customer rates were effective June 1, 2019. On May 31, 2019, Duke Energy Progress filed a Petition for Rehearing or Reconsideration of that order contending substantial rights of Duke Energy Progress were prejudiced by unlawful, arbitrary and capricious rulings by the PSCSC on certain issues presented in the proceeding. On June 19, 2019, the PSCSC issued a Directive denying Duke Energy Progress' request to rehear or reconsider the commission's rulings on certain issues presented in the proceeding including coal ash remediation and disposal costs, return on equityROE and the recovery of a return on deferred operation and maintenance expenses, but allowing additional litigation-related costs. As a result of the Directive allowing litigation-related costs, customer rates were revised effective July 1, 2019. An order detailing the commission's decision in the Directive was issued on October 18, 2019. Duke Energy Progress filed a notice of appeal on November 15, 2019, with the Supreme Court of South Carolina. The ORS filed a Notice of Cross Appeal on November 20, 2019. On February 12, 2020, Duke Energy Progress and the ORS filed a joint motion to extend briefing schedule deadlines, which was approved by the Supreme Court of South Carolina on February 20, 2020. On March 10, 2020, the ORS filed a consent motion requesting withdrawal of their appeal, which was granted by the Supreme Court of South Carolina on April 30, 2020. Initial briefs were filed on April 21, 2020. Response briefs were filed on July 6, 2020, and reply briefs were filed on August 11, 2020. Oral arguments have not yet been scheduled bywere heard before the Supreme Court of South Carolina. BasedCarolina on legal analysisMay 26, 2021.
On October 27, 2021, the Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed the PSCSC's May 2019 order to:
•Disallow cost recovery on certain CCR compliance costs the PSCSC deemed to be incremental to the federal CCR rules;
•Disallow recovery of certain coal ash litigation expenses; and
•Disallow a return on certain deferred expenses.
The Supreme Court's decision notes the filingprior determination made by the PSCSC that Duke Energy could submit coal ash costs for recovery that were not initially approved in the rate case order if such costs can be attributed to the CCR rules. As a result of the appeal,Court's opinion, Duke Energy Progress has not recorded an adjustmentrecognized a pretax charge of approximately $42 million to Impairment of assets and other charges, and a $6 million increase in Other income and expenses, net, in the Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations for its deferredthe three and nine months ended September 30, 2021, principally related to coal ash costs.remediation at retired coal ash basin sites. Duke Energy Progress cannot predictis evaluating whether to file a Petition for rehearing on the outcome of this matter.Supreme Court's decision. Petitions are due November 11, 2021, unless an extension is sought and granted.
Western Carolinas Modernization PlanDuke Energy Ohio
Duke Energy Ohio has 2 reportable segments, Electric Utilities and Infrastructure and Gas Utilities and Infrastructure. The remainder of Duke Energy Ohio's operations is presented as Other.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Three Months Ended September 30, 2021 |
| Electric | | Gas | | Total | | | | | | |
| Utilities and | | Utilities and | | Reportable | | | | | | |
(in millions) | Infrastructure | | Infrastructure | | Segments | | Other | | Eliminations | | Total |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Total revenues | $ | 413 | | | $ | 93 | | | $ | 506 | | | $ | — | | | $ | — | | | $ | 506 | |
Segment income/Net (loss) income | $ | 48 | | | $ | 11 | | | $ | 59 | | | $ | (1) | | | $ | — | | | $ | 58 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Segment assets | $ | 6,716 | | | $ | 3,783 | | | $ | 10,499 | | | $ | 27 | | | $ | (21) | | | $ | 10,505 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Three Months Ended September 30, 2020 |
| Electric | | Gas | | Total | | | | | | |
| Utilities and | | Utilities and | | Reportable | | | | | | |
(in millions) | Infrastructure | | Infrastructure | | Segments | | Other | | | | Total |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Total revenues | $ | 394 | | | $ | 79 | | | $ | 473 | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 473 | |
Segment income/Net (loss) income | $ | 63 | | | $ | 9 | | | $ | 72 | | | $ | (2) | | | | | $ | 70 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Nine Months Ended September 30, 2021 |
| Electric | | Gas | | Total | | | | | | |
| Utilities and | | Utilities and | | Reportable | | | | | | |
(in millions) | Infrastructure | | Infrastructure | | Segments | | Other | | | | Total |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Total revenues | $ | 1,119 | | | $ | 375 | | | $ | 1,494 | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 1,494 | |
Segment income/Net (loss) income | $ | 122 | | | $ | 77 | | | $ | 199 | | | $ | (11) | | | | | $ | 188 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Nine Months Ended September 30, 2020 |
| Electric | | Gas | | Total | | | | | | |
| Utilities and | | Utilities and | | Reportable | | | | | | |
(in millions) | Infrastructure | | Infrastructure | | Segments | | Other | | | | Total |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Total revenues | $ | 1,070 | | | $ | 324 | | | $ | 1,394 | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 1,394 | |
Segment income/Net (loss) income | $ | 137 | | | $ | 68 | | | $ | 205 | | | $ | (4) | | | | | $ | 201 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | |
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS | REGULATORY MATTERS |
3. 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 retired the 376-MW Asheville coal-fired plant on
2021 Coal Ash Settlement
On January 29, 2020, at which time the net book value, including associated ash basin closure costs, of $214 million was transferred from Generation facilities to be retired, net to Regulatory assets within Current Assets22, 2021, Duke Energy Carolinas and Other Noncurrent Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.
On December 27, 2019, Asheville Combined Cycle Unit 5 Combustion Turbine and Unit 6 Steam Turbine Generator and the common systems that serve combined cycle units went into commercial operation. Duke Energy Progress placedentered into the Unit 7Coal Combustion Turbine into commercial operation in simple-cycle modeResiduals Settlement Agreement (the “CCR Settlement Agreement”) with the North Carolina Public Staff (Public Staff), the North Carolina Attorney General’s Office and the Sierra Club (collectively, the "Settling Parties"), which was filed with the NCUC on January 15, 2020.25, 2021. The Unit 8 Steam Turbine Generator went into commercial operationCCR Settlement Agreement resolves all coal ash prudence and cost recovery issues in connection with 2019 rate cases filed by Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress with the NCUC, as well as the equitable sharing issue on remand from the 2017 Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress North Carolina rate cases as a result of the December 11, 2020 North Carolina Supreme Court opinion. The settlement also provides clarity on coal ash cost recovery in North Carolina for Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress through January 2030 and February 2030 (the "Term"), respectively.
Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress agreed not to seek recovery of approximately $1 billion of systemwide deferred coal ash expenditures, but will retain the ability to earn a debt and equity return during the amortization period, which shall be five years under the 2019 North Carolina rate cases and will be set by the NCUC in future rate case proceedings. The equity return and the amortization period on deferred coal ash costs under the 2017 Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress North Carolina rate cases will remain unaffected. The equity return on deferred coal ash costs under the 2019 North Carolina rate cases and future rate cases in North Carolina will be set at 150 basis points lower than the authorized return on equity (ROE) then in effect, with a capital structure composed of 48% debt and 52% equity. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress retain the ability to earn a full WACC return during the deferral period, which is the period from when costs are incurred until they are recovered in rates.
The Settling Parties agreed that execution by Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress of a settlement agreement between themselves and the NCDEQ dated December 31, 2019, (the “DEQ Settlement”) and the coal ash management plans included therein or subsequently approved by DEQ are reasonable and prudent. The Settling Parties retain the right to challenge the reasonableness and prudence of actions taken by Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress and costs incurred to implement the scope of work agreed upon in the DEQ Settlement, after February 1, 2020, and March 1, 2020, for Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress, respectively. The Settling Parties further agreed to waive rights through the Term to challenge the reasonableness or prudence of Duke Energy Carolinas’ and Duke Energy Progress’ historical coal ash management practices, and to waive the right to assert any arguments that future coal ash costs, including financing costs, shall be shared between either company and customers through equitable sharing or any other rate base or return adjustment that shares the revenue requirement burden of coal ash costs not otherwise disallowed due to imprudence.
The Settling Parties agreed to a sharing arrangement for future coal ash insurance litigation proceeds between Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress and North Carolina customers. For more information, see Note 4 "Commitments and Contingencies."
As a result of the CCR Settlement Agreement, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress recorded a pretax charge of approximately $454 million and $494 million, respectively, in the fourth quarter of 2020 to Impairment charges and a reversal of approximately $50 million and $102 million, respectively, to Regulated electric operating revenues on the respective Consolidated Statements of Operations.
The Coal Ash Settlement was approved without modification in the NCUC Orders in the 2019 rate cases on March 31, 2021, and April 5, 2020. 16, 2021, for Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress, respectively. The NCUC issued an Order on Remand Accepting CCR Settlement and Affirming Previous Orders Setting Rates and Imposing Penalties in the 2017 rate cases on June 25, 2021.
2020 North Carolina Storm Securitization Filings
On June 2,October 26, 2020, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a requestjoint petition with the NCUC, as agreed to in partial settlements reached in the 2019 North Carolina Rate Cases for Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress, seeking authorization for the financing of the costs of each utility's storm recovery activities required as a result of Hurricane Florence, Hurricane Michael, Hurricane Dorian and Winter Storm Diego. Specifically, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress requested that the NCUC find that their storm recovery costs and related financing costs are appropriately financed by debt secured by storm recovery property, and that the commission issue financing orders by which each utility may accomplish such financing using a securitization structure. On January 27, 2021, Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and the Public Staff filed an Agreement and Stipulation of Partial Settlement, subject to review and approval of the NCUC, resolving certain accounting issues, including agreement to support an 18- to 20-year bond period. The total revenue requirement over a proposed 20-year bond period for the storm recovery charges is approximately $287 million for Duke Energy Carolinas and $920 million for Duke Energy Progress and will be finalized upon issuance of the bonds. A remote evidentiary hearing ended on January 29, 2021. In the NCUC Orders in the 2019 rate cases issued on March 31, 2021, and April 16, 2021, for Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress, respectively, the reasonableness and prudence of the deferred storm costs was approved. On May 10, 2021, the NCUC issued financing orders authorizing the companies to issue storm recovery bonds, subject to the terms of the financing orders, and approving the Agreement and Stipulation of Partial Settlement in its entirety. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress are currently in the process of structuring and marketing the bonds that will be presented to the market. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
| | | | | |
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS | REGULATORY MATTERS |
COVID-19 Filings
North Carolina
Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a joint petition on August 7, 2020, with the NCUC for deferral treatment of incremental costs and the cost of waived customer fees due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Comments on the joint petition were filed on November 5, 2020, and reply comments were filed on November 30, 2020. A summary of incremental COVID-19 costs incurred as of June 30, 2021, was filed with the NCUC by Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress on August 6, 2021. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
South Carolina
Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a report on June 30, 2020, as required by PSCSC order, reporting revenue impact, costs and savings related to COVID-19 to date. On August 14, 2020, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a joint petition with the PSCSC for approval of an accounting order to defer incremental COVID-19 related costs incurred through June 30, 2020, and for the deferral of post-in-service costs incurred in connection withongoing months during the additionduration of the Asheville combined-cycle generating plant. The petition requested the PSCSC issue an accounting order authorizingCOVID-19 pandemic. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress to defer post-in-service costs includingwithdrew their joint petition on May 17, 2021.
Duke Energy Carolinas
2017 North Carolina Rate Case
On August 25, 2017, Duke Energy Carolinas filed an application with the Asheville combined-cycle’s depreciation expense, property taxes, incremental O&M and carrying costs at WACCNCUC for a rate increase for retail customers of approximately $8 million annually.$647 million. 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 an ROE of 9.9% and a capital structure of 52% equity and 48% debt. On June 17,22, 2018, the NCUC issued an order approving the Stipulation of Partial Settlement and requiring a revenue reduction.
The North Carolina Attorney General and other parties separately filed Notices of Appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court. The North Carolina Supreme Court consolidated the Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress appeals. On December 11, 2020, the North Carolina Supreme Court issued an opinion, which affirmed, in part, and reversed and remanded, in part, the NCUC’s decisions. In the Opinion, the court upheld the NCUC's decision to include coal ash costs in the cost of service, as well as the NCUC’s discretion to allow a return on the unamortized balance of coal ash costs. The court also remanded to the NCUC a single issue to consider the assessment of support for the Public Staff’s equitable sharing argument. On January 22, 2021, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress entered into the CCR Settlement Agreement with the Settling Parties, which was filed with the NCUC on January 25, 2021, and approved by the NCUC on March 31, 2021. The NCUC issued an Order on Remand Accepting CCR Settlement and Affirming Previous Orders Setting Rates and Imposing Penalties on June 25, 2021.
2019 North Carolina Rate Case
On September 30, 2019, Duke Energy Carolinas filed an application with the NCUC for a net rate increase for retail customers of approximately $291 million, which represented an approximate 6% increase in annual base revenues. The gross rate case revenue increase request was $445 million, which was offset by an EDIT rider of $154 million to return to customers North Carolina and federal EDIT resulting from recent reductions in corporate tax rates. The request for a rate increase was driven by major capital investments subsequent to the previous base rate case, coal ash pond closure costs, accelerated coal plant depreciation and deferred 2018 storm costs. Duke Energy Carolinas requested rates be effective no later than August 1, 2020.
On March 25, 2020, Duke Energy Carolinas and the Public Staff filed an Agreement and Stipulation of Partial Settlement, subject to review and approval of the NCUC, resolving certain issues in the base rate proceeding. On July 24, 2020, Duke Energy Carolinas filed its request for approval of its notice to customers required to implement temporary rates. On July 27, 2020, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a joint motion with Duke Energy Progress and the Public Staff notifying the commission that the parties reached a joint partial settlement with the Public Staff. Also on July 27, 2020, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a letter stating that it intended to update its temporary rates calculation to reflect the terms of the partial settlement. On July 31, 2020, Duke Energy Carolinas and the Public Staff filed a Second Agreement and Stipulation of Partial Settlement (Second Partial Settlement), subject to review and approval of the NCUC, resolving certain remaining issues in the base rate proceeding. The remaining items litigated at hearing included recovery of deferred coal ash compliance costs that are subject to asset retirement obligation accounting, implementation of new depreciation rates and the amortization period of the loss on the hydro station sale.
On August 4, 2020, Duke Energy Carolinas filed an amended motion for approval of its amended notice to customers, seeking to exercise its statutory right to implement temporary rates subject to refund on or after August 24, 2020. The revenue requirement to be recovered, subject to refund, through the temporary rates was based on and consistent with the base rate component of the Second Partial Settlement and excluded the items to be litigated noted above. The NCUC approved the August 4, 2020 amended temporary rates motion on August 6, 2020, and temporary rates went into effect on August 24, 2020.
The Duke Energy Carolinas evidentiary hearing concluded on September 18, 2020, and post-hearing filings were made with the NCUC from all parties by November 4, 2020. On January 22, 2021, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress entered into the CCR Settlement Agreement with the Settling Parties, which was filed with the NCUC on January 25, 2021.
On March 31, 2021, the NCUC issued an order approving the March 25, 2020, and July 31, 2020, partial settlements. The order includes approval of 1) an ROE of 9.6% based upon a capital structure of 52% equity and 48% debt; 2) deferral treatment of approximately $800 million of grid improvement projects with a return; 3) a flow back period of five years for unprotected federal EDIT; and 4) the reasonableness and prudence of $213 million of deferred storm costs, which were removed from the rate case and for which Duke Energy Carolinas filed a petition seeking securitization in October 2020. Additionally, the order approved without modification the CCR Settlement Agreement.
| | | | | |
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS | REGULATORY MATTERS |
The order denied Duke Energy Carolinas' proposal to shorten the remaining depreciable lives of certain Duke Energy Carolinas coal-fired generating units, indicating the NCUC has not had the chance to fully examine the issue within the context of an integrated resource planning (IRP) proceeding, and upon retirement the remaining net book value of these units should be placed in a regulatory asset account to be amortized over an appropriate period to be determined in a future rate case.
On May 21, 2021, the NCUC issued an Order Approving Rate Schedules, which resulted in a net increase of approximately $33 million. Revised customer rates became effective on June 1, 2021. The deadline to appeal has passed and no parties appealed the NCUC's order.
2018 South Carolina Rate Case
On November 8, 2018, Duke Energy Carolinas filed an application with the PSCSC votedfor a rate increase for retail customers of approximately $168 million.
After hearings in March 2019, the PSCSC issued an order on May 21, 2019, which included an ROE of 9.5% and a capital structure of 53% equity and 47% debt. The order also included the following material components:
•Approval of cancellation of the Lee Nuclear Project, with Duke Energy Carolinas maintaining the Combined Operating License;
•Approval of recovery of $125 million (South Carolina retail portion) of Lee Nuclear Project development costs (including AFUDC through December 2017) over a 12-year period, but denial of a return on the deferred balance of costs;
•Approval of recovery of $96 million of coal ash costs over a five-year period with a return at Duke Energy Carolinas' WACC;
•Denial of recovery of $115 million of certain coal ash costs deemed to approvebe related to the petitionCoal Ash Act and incremental to the federal CCR rule;
•Approval of a $66 million decrease to base rates to reflect the change in ongoing tax expense, primarily the reduction in the federal income tax rate from 35% to 21%;
•Approval of a $45 million decrease through the EDIT Rider to return EDIT resulting from the federal tax rate change and deferred revenues since January 2018 related to the change, to be returned in accordance with the Average Rate Assumption Method (ARAM) for protected EDIT, over a 20-year period for unprotected EDIT associated with Property, Plant and Equipment, over a five-year period for unprotected EDIT not associated with Property, Plant and Equipment and over a five-year period for the deferred revenues; and
•Approval of a $17 million decrease through the EDIT Rider related to reductions in the North Carolina state income tax rate from 6.9% to 2.5% to be returned over a five-year period.
As a result of the order, revised customer rates were effective June 1, 2019. On May 31, 2019, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a Petition for Rehearing or Reconsideration of that order contending substantial rights of Duke Energy Carolinas were prejudiced by unlawful, arbitrary and capricious rulings by the PSCSC on certain issues presented in the proceeding. On June 19, 2019, the PSCSC issued its finala Directive denying Duke Energy Carolinas' request to rehear or reconsider the commission's rulings on certain issues presented in the proceeding including coal ash remediation and disposal costs, ROE and the recovery of a return on deferred operation and maintenance expenses. An order detailing the commission's decision in the Directive was issued on October 18, 2019. Duke Energy Carolinas filed a notice of appeal on November 15, 2019, with the Supreme Court of South Carolina. On November 20, 2019, the South Carolina Energy Users Committee filed a Notice of Appeal with the Supreme Court of South Carolina. Initial briefs were filed on April 21, 2020, which included the South Carolina Energy User's Committee brief arguing that the PSCSC erred in allowing Duke Energy Carolinas' recovery of costs related to the Lee Nuclear Station. Response briefs were filed on July 6, 2020, and reply briefs were filed on August 11, 2020. Oral arguments were heard before the Supreme Court of South Carolina on May 26, 2021.
On October 27, 2021, the Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed the PSCSC's May 2019 order to:
•Disallow cost recovery on certain CCR compliance costs the PSCSC deemed to be incremental to the federal CCR rules;
•Disallow recovery of certain coal ash litigation expenses;
•Disallow a return on certain deferred expenses; and
•Allow recovery of Lee Nuclear Project preconstruction costs.
The Supreme Court's decision notes the prior determination made by the PSCSC that Duke Energy could submit coal ash costs for recovery that were not initially approved in the rate case order if such costs can be attributed to the CCR rules. As a result of the Court's opinion, Duke Energy Carolinas recognized a pretax charge of approximately $160 million to Impairment of assets and other charges, and a $31 million increase in Other income and expenses, net, in the Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2021, principally related to coal ash remediation at retired coal ash basin sites. Duke Energy Carolinas is evaluating whether to file a Petition for rehearing on the Supreme Court's decision. Petitions are due November 11, 2021, unless an extension is sought and granted.
| | | | | |
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS | REGULATORY MATTERS |
Oconee Nuclear Station Subsequent License Renewal
On June 7, 2021, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a subsequent license renewal application for the Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS) with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to renew ONS’s operating license for an additional 20 years. The subsequent license renewal would extend operations of the facility from 60 to 80 years. The current license for units 1 and 2 expire in 2033 and the license for unit 3 expires in 2034. By a Federal Register Notice dated July 28, 2021, the NRC provided a 60-day comment period for persons whose interest may be affected by the issuance of a subsequent renewed license for ONS to file a request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. On September 27, 2021, Beyond Nuclear and Sierra Club (Petitioners) filed a Hearing Request and Petition to Intervene (Hearing Request) and a Petition for Waiver. The Hearing Request proposes 3 contentions purporting to challenge Duke Energy Carolinas’ environmental report (ER). In general, the proposed contentions claim that the ER does not consider certain information regarding the environmental aspects of Severe Accidents caused by a hypothetical failure of the Jocassee Dam, and therefore does not satisfy the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), or the NRC’s NEPA-implementing regulations. Duke Energy Carolinas filed its answer to the proposed contentions on October 8, 2018,22, 2021, and the Petitioners have until November 5, 2021, to respond to Duke Energy Carolina’s answer.
Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress intend to seek renewal of operating licenses and 20-year license extensions for all of their nuclear stations. New depreciation rates were implemented for all of the nuclear facilities during the second quarter of 2021. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress 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 CPCN to construct the Hot Springs Microgrid Solar and Battery Storage Facility,rate increase for retail customers of approximately $477 million, which was approvedsubsequently adjusted to $420 million. 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 an ROE of 9.9% and a capital structure of 52% equity and 48% debt. On February 23, 2018, the NCUC issued an order approving the stipulation. The Public Staff, the North Carolina Attorney General and the Sierra Club filed notices of appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court.
The North Carolina Supreme Court consolidated the Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress appeals. On December 11, 2020, the North Carolina Supreme Court issued an opinion, which affirmed, in part, and reversed and remanded, in part, the NCUC’s decisions. In the Opinion, the court upheld the NCUC's decision to include coal ash costs in the cost of service, as well as the NCUC’s discretion to allow a return on the unamortized balance of coal ash costs. The court also remanded to the NCUC a single issue to consider the assessment of support for the Public Staff’s equitable sharing argument. On January 22, 2021, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Carolinas entered into the CCR Settlement Agreement with certain conditions on May 10, 2019. A hearing to updatethe Settling Parties, which was filed with the NCUC on January 25, 2021, and approved by the status of the project was heldNCUC on March 5, 2020. Construction began in May 2020 with commercial operation expected to begin in OctoberApril 16, 2021. The NCUC issued an Order on Remand Accepting CCR Settlement and Affirming Previous Orders Setting Rates and Imposing Penalties on June 25, 2021.
2019 North Carolina Rate Case
On July 27, 2020,October 30, 2019, Duke Energy Progress filed an application with the NCUC for a CPCNnet rate increase for retail customers of approximately $464 million, which represented an approximate 12.3% increase in annual base revenues. The gross rate case revenue increase request was $586 million, which was offset by riders of $122 million, primarily an EDIT rider of $120 million to construct the Woodfin Solar Facility, a 5-MW solar generating facilityreturn to be constructed on a closed landfill in Buncombe County. The expert hearing is scheduled for November 18, 2020.
FERC Return on Equity Complaints
On October 11, 2019,customers North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency (NCEMPA) filedand federal EDIT resulting from recent reductions in corporate tax rates. The request for a complaint atrate increase was driven by major capital investments subsequent to the FERC againstprevious base rate case, coal ash pond closure costs, accelerated coal plant depreciation and deferred 2018 storm costs. Duke Energy Progress pursuantsought to Section 206defer and recover incremental Hurricane Dorian storm costs in this proceeding and requested rates be effective no later than September 1, 2020. As a result of the Federal Power Act (FPA). Duke Energy Progress provides NCEMPA with service under the Full Requirements Power Purchase Agreement (FRPPA). The complaint alleges that the 11% stated returnCOVID-19 pandemic, on equity (ROE) component contained in the FRPPA’s demand formula rate is unjust and unreasonable. On July 16,March 24, 2020, the FERC setNCUC suspended the procedural schedule and postponed the previously scheduled evidentiary hearing on this matter for hearing and settlement judge procedures and established a refund effective date of October 11, 2019. In its order setting the matter for settlement, the FERC allowed for variation to the base transmission-related ROE methodology developed in Order No. 569-A, through the introduction of “specific facts and circumstances” involving the parties to this case. The parties to this case are currently in FERC settlement procedures. It is Duke Energy Progress’ view that, in consideration of the specific facts and circumstances of risks under the provisions of the FRPPA, the stated 11% ROE applied to NCEMPA’s metered billing demand is just and reasonable. Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
|
| |
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS | REGULATORY MATTERS |
indefinitely.
On October 16, 2020, North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation (NCEMC) filed a complaint at the FERC against Duke Energy Progress pursuant to Section 206 of the FPA. The complaint alleges that the ROE component in the formula rate contained within the Power Supply and Coordination Agreement (PSCA) between NCEMC and Duke Energy Progress is unjust and unreasonable. The PSCA's return on equity is 11% as applied to the Production Capacity Rate for the requirements service provided by Duke Energy Progress. Under FPA Section 206, the earliest refund effective date that the FERC can establish is the date of the filing of the complaint. Duke Energy Progress will respond to the complaint and believes the 11% ROE is just and reasonable for the service provided under the contract. Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Duke Energy Florida
COVID-19 Filings
In March 2020, Governor Ron DeSantis directed the State Health Officer of Florida to declare a public health emergency in Florida related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The governor also issued an Executive Order on March 9, 2020, in which he declared a state of emergency in Florida and directed the Director of the Division of Emergency Management to implement the state’s Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. On March 19, 2020, Duke Energy Florida filed a request to modify its tariff to allow it to waive late fees for customers, and on April 6, 2020, the FPSC issued an order approving the request. Duke Energy Florida had already voluntarily waived reconnect fees and credit card fees, and ceased disconnecting customers for nonpayment. On AprilJune 2, 2020, Duke Energy FloridaProgress and the Public Staff filed a petition withan Agreement and Stipulation of Partial Settlement, subject to review and approval of the FPSC to accelerate a $78 million fuel cost refund to customersNCUC, resolving certain issues in the month of May 2020. Typically, the refund would be made over the course of 2021. The FPSC approved the petition on April 28, 2020. Duke Energy Florida resumed normal billing practices as of August 24, 2020, with the exception of the billing of late payment charges. Customers were notified of the resumption of normal billing practices, the option of deferred payment arrangements and where to find assistance, if necessary. Service disconnections for nonpayment for residential customers resumed on October 5, 2020.
Storm Restoration Cost Recovery
Duke Energy Florida filed a petition with the FPSC on April 30, 2019, to recover $223 million of estimated retail incremental storm restoration costs for Hurricane Michael, consistent with the provisions in the 2017 Settlement, and the FPSC approved the petition on June 11, 2019. The FPSC also approved allowing Duke Energy Florida to use the tax savings resulting from the Tax Act to recover these storm costs in lieu of implementing a storm surcharge. Approved storm costs are currently expected to be fully recovered by approximately year-end 2021.base rate proceeding. On November 22, 2019, Duke Energy Florida filed a petition for approval of actual retail recoverable storm restoration costs related to Hurricane Michael in the amount of $191 million plus interest. On May 19,July 27, 2020, Duke Energy FloridaProgress filed a supplemental true up reducing the actual retail recoverable storm restoration costs related to Hurricane Michael by approximately $3 million, resulting in a total request to recover $188 million actual retail recoverable storm restoration costs, plus interest. An Order Establishing Procedure was issued on January 30, 2020, and hearings are scheduled to begin December 8, 2020. Approximately $119 million and $204 million of these costs are included in Regulatory assets within Current Assets and Other Noncurrent Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2020, and December 31, 2019, respectively.joint motion with Duke Energy Florida cannot predictCarolinas and the outcome of this matter.
Duke Energy Florida filedPublic Staff notifying the commission that the parties reached a petitionjoint partial settlement with the FPSC on December 19, 2019, to recover $169 million of estimated retail incremental storm restoration costs for Hurricane Dorian, consistent with the provisions in the 2017 Settlement and the FPSC approved the petition on February 24, 2020. Approved storm costs are being recovered over a 12-month period with rates effective in March 2020 and subject to true up. The final actual amount of $145 million was filed on September 30, 2020, and the FPSC will hold a hearing to determine the final amount of incremental costs. Approximately $38 million and $167 million of these costs are included in Regulatory assets within Current Assets and Other Noncurrent Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2020, and December 31, 2019, respectively, representing recoverable costs under the FPSC’s storm rule and Duke Energy Florida's OATT formula rates. Duke Energy Florida cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Clean Energy Connection
On July 1, 2020, Duke Energy Florida petitioned the FPSC for approval of a voluntary solar program. The program consists of 10 new solar generating facilities with combined capacity of approximately 750 MW. The program allows participants to support cost-effective solar development in Florida by paying a subscription fee based on per kilowatt-subscriptions and receiving a credit on their bill based on the actual generation associated with their portion of the solar portfolio. The estimated cost of the 10 new solar generation facilities is approximately $1 billion over the next four years, and this investment will be included in base rates offset by the revenue from the subscription fees. The credits will be included for recovery in the fuel cost recovery clause. A hearing on the petition is scheduled to begin on November 17, 2020. Duke Energy Florida cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Crystal River Unit 3 Accelerated Decommissioning Filing
On May 29, 2019, Duke Energy Florida entered into a Decommissioning Services Agreement for the accelerated decommissioning of Crystal River Unit 3 located in Citrus County, Florida, with ADP CR3, LLC and ADP SF1, LLC, each of which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Accelerated Decommissioning Partners, LLC (ADP), a joint venture between NorthStar Group Services, Inc. and Orano USA LLC. The agreement will allow for completion of the decommissioning of Crystal River Unit 3 by 2027, rather than 2074 as originally planned. Duke Energy Florida will also sell and assign the spent nuclear fuel, storage canisters, high-level waste and existing dry spent fuel storage installation and certain related assets, together with certain associated liabilities and obligations to ADP SF1, LLC. Duke Energy Florida expects that the assets of the Nuclear Decommissioning Trust Fund as of September 30, 2020, will be sufficient to cover the contract price. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved the transaction on April 1, 2020, and the FPSC issued an order approving the transaction on August 27, 2020. The agreement closed on October 1, 2020.
|
| |
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS | REGULATORY MATTERS |
Storm Protection Plan
On April 10, 2020, Duke Energy Florida filed its initial Storm Protection Plan (SPP) with the FPSC. The SPP outlines storm protection programs over a 10-year planning period intended to enhance the existing infrastructure for the purpose of reducing restoration costs and reducing outage times associated with extreme weather conditions therefore improving overall service reliability.Public Staff. On July 31, 2020, Duke Energy FloridaProgress and the Public Staff filed a Second Agreement and Stipulation of Partial Settlement, subject to review and approval of the NCUC, resolving certain remaining issues in the base rate proceeding. The remaining items litigated at hearing included recovery of deferred coal ash compliance costs that are subject to asset retirement obligation accounting and implementation of new depreciation rates.
On August 7, 2020, Duke Energy Progress filed a motion for approval of notice required to implement temporary rates, seeking to exercise its statutory right to implement temporary rates subject to refund on or after September 1, 2020. The revenue requirement to be recovered subject to refund through the temporary rates was based on and consistent with the terms of the base rate component of the settlement agreements with the Public Staff and excluded items to be litigated noted above. In addition, Duke Energy Progress also sought authorization to place a temporary decrement EDIT Rider into effect, concurrent with the temporary base rate change. The NCUC approved the August 7, 2020 temporary rates motion on August 11, 2020, and temporary rates went into effect on September 1, 2020.
The Duke Energy Progress evidentiary hearing concluded on October 6, 2020, and post-hearing filings were filed with the NCUC from all parties by December 4, 2020. On January 22, 2021, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Carolinas entered into the CCR Settlement Agreement with the Settling Parties, which was filed with the NCUC on January 25, 2021.
On April 16, 2021, the NCUC issued an order approving the June 2, 2020, and July 31, 2020, partial settlements. The order includes approval of 1) an ROE of 9.6% based upon a settlementcapital structure of 52% equity and 48% debt; 2) deferral treatment of approximately $400 million of grid improvement projects with a return; 3) a flow back period of five years for unprotected federal EDIT; and 4) the reasonableness and prudence of approximately $714 million of deferred storm costs, which were removed from the rate case and for which Duke Energy Progress filed a petition seeking securitization in October 2020. Additionally, the order approved without modification the CCR Settlement Agreement.
| | | | | |
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS | REGULATORY MATTERS |
The order denied Duke Energy Progress' proposal to shorten the remaining depreciable lives of certain intervenorsDuke Energy Progress coal-fired generating units, indicating the NCUC has not had the chance to fully examine the issue within the context of an IRP proceeding, and upon retirement the remaining net book value of these units should be placed in supporta regulatory asset account to be amortized over an appropriate period to be determined in a future rate case.
On May 21, 2021, the NCUC issued an Order Approving Rate Schedules, which resulted in a net increase of this filing. approximately $178 million. Revised customer rates became effective on June 1, 2021. The deadline to appeal has passed and no parties appealed the NCUC's order.
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.
After hearings in April 2019, the PSCSC issued an order on May 21, 2019, which included an ROE of 9.5% and a capital structure of 53% equity and 47% debt. The order also included the following material components:
•Approval of recovery of $4 million of coal ash costs over a five-year period with a return at Duke Energy Progress' WACC;
•Denial of recovery of $65 million of certain coal ash costs deemed to be related to the Coal Ash Act and incremental to the federal CCR rule;
•Approval of a $17 million decrease to base rates to reflect the change in ongoing tax expense, primarily the reduction in the federal income tax rate from 35% to 21%;
•Approval of a $12 million decrease through the EDIT Tax Savings Rider resulting from the federal tax rate change and deferred revenues since January 2018 related to the change, to be returned in accordance with ARAM for protected EDIT, over a 20-year period for unprotected EDIT associated with Property, Plant and Equipment, over a five-year period for unprotected EDIT not associated with Property, Plant and Equipment and over a three-year period for the deferred revenues; and
•Approval of a $12 million increase due to the expiration of EDIT related to reductions in the North Carolina state income tax rate from 6.9% to 2.5%.
As a result of the order, revised customer rates were effective June 1, 2019. On May 31, 2019, Duke Energy Progress filed a Petition for Rehearing or Reconsideration of that order contending substantial rights of Duke Energy Progress were prejudiced by unlawful, arbitrary and capricious rulings by the PSCSC on certain issues presented in the proceeding. On June 19, 2019, the PSCSC issued a Directive denying Duke Energy Progress' request to rehear or reconsider the commission's rulings on certain issues presented in the proceeding including coal ash remediation and disposal costs, ROE and the recovery of a return on deferred operation and maintenance expenses, but allowing additional litigation-related costs. As a result of the Directive allowing litigation-related costs, customer rates were revised effective July 1, 2019. An order detailing the commission's decision in the Directive was issued on October 18, 2019. Duke Energy Progress filed a notice of appeal on November 15, 2019, with the Supreme Court of South Carolina. Initial briefs were filed on April 21, 2020. Response briefs were filed on July 6, 2020, and reply briefs were filed on August 28, 2020,11, 2020. Oral arguments were heard before the FPSC unanimouslySupreme Court of South Carolina on May 26, 2021.
On October 27, 2021, the Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed the PSCSC's May 2019 order to:
•Disallow cost recovery on certain CCR compliance costs the PSCSC deemed to be incremental to the federal CCR rules;
•Disallow recovery of certain coal ash litigation expenses; and
•Disallow a return on certain deferred expenses.
The Supreme Court's decision notes the prior determination made by the PSCSC that Duke Energy could submit coal ash costs for recovery that were not initially approved in the settlement agreement, which effectively approvesrate case order if such costs can be attributed to the 2020-2029 SPP as-filed, without modification.CCR rules. As a result of the Court's opinion, Duke Energy Progress recognized a pretax charge of approximately $42 million to Impairment of assets and other charges, and a $6 million increase in Other income and expenses, net, in the Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2021, principally related to coal ash remediation at retired coal ash basin sites. Duke Energy Progress is evaluating whether to file a Petition for rehearing on the Supreme Court's decision. Petitions are due November 11, 2021, unless an extension is sought and granted.
Duke Energy Ohio
Duke Energy Ohio has 2 reportable segments, Electric Utilities and Infrastructure and Gas Utilities and Infrastructure. The remainder of Duke Energy Ohio's operations is presented as Other.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Three Months Ended September 30, 2021 |
| Electric | | Gas | | Total | | | | | | |
| Utilities and | | Utilities and | | Reportable | | | | | | |
(in millions) | Infrastructure | | Infrastructure | | Segments | | Other | | Eliminations | | Total |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Total revenues | $ | 413 | | | $ | 93 | | | $ | 506 | | | $ | — | | | $ | — | | | $ | 506 | |
Segment income/Net (loss) income | $ | 48 | | | $ | 11 | | | $ | 59 | | | $ | (1) | | | $ | — | | | $ | 58 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Segment assets | $ | 6,716 | | | $ | 3,783 | | | $ | 10,499 | | | $ | 27 | | | $ | (21) | | | $ | 10,505 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Three Months Ended September 30, 2020 |
| Electric | | Gas | | Total | | | | | | |
| Utilities and | | Utilities and | | Reportable | | | | | | |
(in millions) | Infrastructure | | Infrastructure | | Segments | | Other | | | | Total |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Total revenues | $ | 394 | | | $ | 79 | | | $ | 473 | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 473 | |
Segment income/Net (loss) income | $ | 63 | | | $ | 9 | | | $ | 72 | | | $ | (2) | | | | | $ | 70 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Nine Months Ended September 30, 2021 |
| Electric | | Gas | | Total | | | | | | |
| Utilities and | | Utilities and | | Reportable | | | | | | |
(in millions) | Infrastructure | | Infrastructure | | Segments | | Other | | | | Total |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Total revenues | $ | 1,119 | | | $ | 375 | | | $ | 1,494 | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 1,494 | |
Segment income/Net (loss) income | $ | 122 | | | $ | 77 | | | $ | 199 | | | $ | (11) | | | | | $ | 188 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Nine Months Ended September 30, 2020 |
| Electric | | Gas | | Total | | | | | | |
| Utilities and | | Utilities and | | Reportable | | | | | | |
(in millions) | Infrastructure | | Infrastructure | | Segments | | Other | | | | Total |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Total revenues | $ | 1,070 | | | $ | 324 | | | $ | 1,394 | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 1,394 | |
Segment income/Net (loss) income | $ | 137 | | | $ | 68 | | | $ | 205 | | | $ | (4) | | | | | $ | 201 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | |
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS | REGULATORY MATTERS |
3. 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
2021 Coal Ash Settlement
On January 22, 2021, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress entered into the Coal Combustion Residuals Settlement Agreement (the “CCR Settlement Agreement”) with the North Carolina Public Staff (Public Staff), the North Carolina Attorney General’s Office and the Sierra Club (collectively, the "Settling Parties"), which was filed with the NCUC on January 25, 2021. The CCR Settlement Agreement resolves all coal ash prudence and cost recovery issues in connection with 2019 rate cases filed by Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress with the NCUC, as well as the equitable sharing issue on remand from the 2017 Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress North Carolina rate cases as a result of the December 11, 2020 North Carolina Supreme Court opinion. The settlement also provides clarity on coal ash cost recovery in North Carolina for Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress through January 2030 and February 2030 (the "Term"), respectively.
Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress agreed not to seek recovery of approximately $1 billion of systemwide deferred coal ash expenditures, but will retain the ability to earn a debt and equity return during the amortization period, which shall be five years under the 2019 North Carolina rate cases and will be set by the NCUC in future rate case proceedings. The equity return and the amortization period on deferred coal ash costs under the 2017 Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress North Carolina rate cases will remain unaffected. The equity return on deferred coal ash costs under the 2019 North Carolina rate cases and future rate cases in North Carolina will be set at 150 basis points lower than the authorized return on equity (ROE) then in effect, with a capital structure composed of 48% debt and 52% equity. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress retain the ability to earn a full WACC return during the deferral period, which is the period from when costs are incurred until they are recovered in rates.
The Settling Parties agreed that execution by Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress of a settlement agreement between themselves and the NCDEQ dated December 31, 2019, (the “DEQ Settlement”) and the coal ash management plans included therein or subsequently approved by DEQ are reasonable and prudent. The Settling Parties retain the right to challenge the reasonableness and prudence of actions taken by Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress and costs incurred to implement the scope of work agreed upon in the DEQ Settlement, after February 1, 2020, and March 1, 2020, for Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress, respectively. The Settling Parties further agreed to waive rights through the Term to challenge the reasonableness or prudence of Duke Energy Carolinas’ and Duke Energy Progress’ historical coal ash management practices, and to waive the right to assert any arguments that future coal ash costs, including financing costs, shall be shared between either company and customers through equitable sharing or any other rate base or return adjustment that shares the revenue requirement burden of coal ash costs not otherwise disallowed due to imprudence.
The Settling Parties agreed to a sharing arrangement for future coal ash insurance litigation proceeds between Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress and North Carolina customers. For more information, see Note 4 "Commitments and Contingencies."
As a result of the CCR Settlement Agreement, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress recorded a pretax charge of approximately $454 million and $494 million, respectively, in the fourth quarter of 2020 to Impairment charges and a reversal of approximately $50 million and $102 million, respectively, to Regulated electric operating revenues on the respective Consolidated Statements of Operations.
The Coal Ash Settlement was approved without modification in the NCUC Orders in the 2019 rate cases on March 31, 2021, and April 16, 2021, for Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress, respectively. The NCUC issued an Order on Remand Accepting CCR Settlement and Affirming Previous Orders Setting Rates and Imposing Penalties in the 2017 rate cases on June 25, 2021.
2020 North Carolina Storm Securitization Filings
On October 26, 2020, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a joint petition with the NCUC, as agreed to in partial settlements reached in the 2019 North Carolina Rate Cases for Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress, seeking authorization for the financing of the costs of each utility's storm recovery activities required as a result of Hurricane Florence, Hurricane Michael, Hurricane Dorian and Winter Storm Diego. Specifically, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress requested that the NCUC find that their storm recovery costs and related financing costs are appropriately financed by debt secured by storm recovery property, and that the commission issue financing orders by which each utility may accomplish such financing using a securitization structure. On January 27, 2021, Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and the Public Staff filed an Agreement and Stipulation of Partial Settlement, subject to review and approval of the NCUC, resolving certain accounting issues, including agreement to support an 18- to 20-year bond period. The total revenue requirement over a proposed 20-year bond period for the storm recovery charges is approximately $287 million for Duke Energy Carolinas and $920 million for Duke Energy Progress and will be finalized upon issuance of the bonds. A remote evidentiary hearing ended on January 29, 2021. In the NCUC Orders in the 2019 rate cases issued on March 31, 2021, and April 16, 2021, for Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress, respectively, the reasonableness and prudence of the deferred storm costs was approved. On May 10, 2021, the NCUC issued financing orders authorizing the companies to issue storm recovery bonds, subject to the terms of the financing orders, and approving the Agreement and Stipulation of Partial Settlement in its entirety. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress are currently in the process of structuring and marketing the bonds that will be presented to the market. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
| | | | | |
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS | REGULATORY MATTERS |
COVID-19 Filings
In responseNorth Carolina
Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a joint petition on August 7, 2020, with the NCUC for deferral treatment of incremental costs and the cost of waived customer fees due to the COVID-19 pandemic,pandemic. Comments on March 9,the joint petition were filed on November 5, 2020, Governor Mike DeWine declaredand reply comments were filed on November 30, 2020. A summary of incremental COVID-19 costs incurred as of June 30, 2021, was filed with the NCUC by Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress on August 6, 2021. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
South Carolina
Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a statereport on June 30, 2020, as required by PSCSC order, reporting revenue impact, costs and savings related to COVID-19 to date. On August 14, 2020, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a joint petition with the PSCSC for approval of emergency inan accounting order to defer incremental COVID-19 related costs incurred through June 30, 2020, and for the stateongoing months during the duration of Ohio. The PUCOthe COVID-19 pandemic. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress withdrew their joint petition on May 17, 2021.
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. 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 an ROE of 9.9% and a capital structure of 52% equity and 48% debt. On June 22, 2018, the NCUC issued an order directing utilitiesapproving the Stipulation of Partial Settlement and requiring a revenue reduction.
The North Carolina Attorney General and other parties separately filed Notices of Appeal to cease disconnections for nonpayment and waive late payment and reconnection fees and to minimize direct customer contact.the North Carolina Supreme Court. The PUCO also directed utilities to maintain flexible payment plans and tariff interpretations to assist customers during this crisis and to seek any regulatory waivers, if necessary. In response,North Carolina Supreme Court consolidated the Duke Energy Ohio ceased all disconnections exceptCarolinas and Duke Energy Progress appeals. On December 11, 2020, the North Carolina Supreme Court issued an opinion, which affirmed, in part, and reversed and remanded, in part, the NCUC’s decisions. In the Opinion, the court upheld the NCUC's decision to include coal ash costs in the cost of service, as well as the NCUC’s discretion to allow a return on the unamortized balance of coal ash costs. The court also remanded to the NCUC a single issue to consider the assessment of support for safety-related concernsthe Public Staff’s equitable sharing argument. On January 22, 2021, Duke Energy Carolinas and waived late paymentDuke Energy Progress entered into the CCR Settlement Agreement with the Settling Parties, which was filed with the NCUC on January 25, 2021, and reconnection fees. approved by the NCUC on March 31, 2021. The NCUC issued an Order on Remand Accepting CCR Settlement and Affirming Previous Orders Setting Rates and Imposing Penalties on June 25, 2021.
2019 North Carolina Rate Case
On September 30, 2019, Duke Energy Carolinas filed an application with the NCUC for a net rate increase for retail customers of approximately $291 million, which represented an approximate 6% increase in annual base revenues. The gross rate case revenue increase request was $445 million, which was offset by an EDIT rider of $154 million to return to customers North Carolina and federal EDIT resulting from recent reductions in corporate tax rates. The request for a rate increase was driven by major capital investments subsequent to the previous base rate case, coal ash pond closure costs, accelerated coal plant depreciation and deferred 2018 storm costs. Duke Energy Carolinas requested rates be effective no later than August 1, 2020.
On March 19,25, 2020, Duke Energy OhioCarolinas and the Public Staff filed an Agreement and Stipulation of Partial Settlement, subject to review and approval of the NCUC, resolving certain issues in the base rate proceeding. On July 24, 2020, Duke Energy Carolinas filed its compliance planrequest for approval of its notice to customers required to implement temporary rates. On July 27, 2020, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a joint motion with Duke Energy Progress and the Public Staff notifying the commission that the parties reached a joint partial settlement with the PUCOPublic Staff. Also on July 27, 2020, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a letter stating that it intended to update its temporary rates calculation to reflect the terms of the partial settlement. On July 31, 2020, Duke Energy Carolinas and sought waiverthe Public Staff filed a Second Agreement and Stipulation of several regulationsPartial Settlement (Second Partial Settlement), subject to minimize direct customer contact. review and approval of the NCUC, resolving certain remaining issues in the base rate proceeding. The remaining items litigated at hearing included recovery of deferred coal ash compliance costs that are subject to asset retirement obligation accounting, implementation of new depreciation rates and the amortization period of the loss on the hydro station sale.
On MayAugust 4, 2020, Duke Energy OhioCarolinas filed an amended motion for approval of its amended notice to customers, seeking to exercise its statutory right to implement temporary rates subject to refund on or after August 24, 2020. The revenue requirement to be recovered, subject to refund, through the temporary rates was based on and consistent with the base rate component of the Second Partial Settlement and excluded the items to be litigated noted above. The NCUC approved the August 4, 2020 amended temporary rates motion on August 6, 2020, and temporary rates went into effect on August 24, 2020.
The Duke Energy Carolinas evidentiary hearing concluded on September 18, 2020, and post-hearing filings were made with the NCUC from all parties by November 4, 2020. On January 22, 2021, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress entered into the CCR Settlement Agreement with the Settling Parties, which was filed with the NCUC on January 25, 2021.
On March 31, 2021, the NCUC issued an order approving the March 25, 2020, and July 31, 2020, partial settlements. The order includes approval of 1) an ROE of 9.6% based upon a capital structure of 52% equity and 48% debt; 2) deferral treatment of approximately $800 million of grid improvement projects with a return; 3) a flow back period of five years for unprotected federal EDIT; and 4) the reasonableness and prudence of $213 million of deferred storm costs, which were removed from the rate case and for which Duke Energy Carolinas filed a motion to suspend payment rules to enable proactive outreach to residential customers offering additional options for managing their utility bills. PUCO foundpetition seeking securitization in October 2020. Additionally, the order approved without modification the CCR Settlement Agreement.
| | | | | |
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS | REGULATORY MATTERS |
The order denied Duke Energy Carolinas' proposal to addressshorten the stateremaining depreciable lives of emergency and the accompanying waivers reasonable and directedcertain Duke Energy OhioCarolinas coal-fired generating units, indicating the NCUC has not had the chance to work withfully examine the PUCO Staff onissue within the context of an integrated resource planning (IRP) proceeding, and upon retirement the remaining net book value of these units should be placed in a comprehensive plan for resumption of activities and operations,regulatory asset account to be filed 45 days before resumptionamortized over an appropriate period to be determined in a future rate case.
On May 21, 2021, the NCUC issued an Order Approving Rate Schedules, which resulted in a net increase of activities. The transition plan to resume normal operations to pre-COVID-19 levels was filedapproximately $33 million. Revised customer rates became effective on June 26, 2020,1, 2021. The deadline to appeal has passed and approved byno parties appealed the PUCO on July 29, 2020. It included resuming suspended work and activities beginning August 10, 2020, and resuming disconnections in September 2020.NCUC's order.
2018 South Carolina Rate Case
On April 16, 2020,November 8, 2018, Duke Energy OhioCarolinas filed an application with the PSCSC for a Reasonable Arrangement to temporarily lowerrate increase for retail customers of approximately $168 million.
After hearings in March 2019, the minimum bill for demand-metered commercialPSCSC issued an order on May 21, 2019, which included an ROE of 9.5% and industrial customers. On June 17, 2020,a capital structure of 53% equity and 47% debt. The order also included the PUCO deniedfollowing material components:
•Approval of cancellation of the Lee Nuclear Project, with Duke Energy Ohio's application forCarolinas maintaining the Combined Operating License;
•Approval of recovery of $125 million (South Carolina retail portion) of Lee Nuclear Project development costs (including AFUDC through December 2017) over a reasonable arrangement and ordered12-year period, but denial of a return on the deferred balance of costs;
•Approval of recovery of $96 million of coal ash costs over a five-year period with a return at Duke Energy OhioCarolinas' WACC;
•Denial of recovery of $115 million of certain coal ash costs deemed to workbe related to the Coal Ash Act and incremental to the federal CCR rule;
•Approval of a $66 million decrease to base rates to reflect the change in ongoing tax expense, primarily the reduction in the federal income tax rate from 35% to 21%;
•Approval of a $45 million decrease through the EDIT Rider to return EDIT resulting from the federal tax rate change and deferred revenues since January 2018 related to the change, to be returned in accordance with the PUCO Staff on payment arrangementsAverage Rate Assumption Method (ARAM) for impacted nonresidential customers.protected EDIT, over a 20-year period for unprotected EDIT associated with Property, Plant and Equipment, over a five-year period for unprotected EDIT not associated with Property, Plant and Equipment and over a five-year period for the deferred revenues; and
On May 11, 2020, Duke Energy Ohio filed with•Approval of a $17 million decrease through the PUCOEDIT Rider related to reductions in the North Carolina state income tax rate from 6.9% to 2.5% to be returned over a request seeking deferral of incremental costs incurred, as well as specific miscellaneous lost revenues using existing bad debts and uncollectible riders already in place for both electric and natural gas operations. Duke Energy Ohio would subsequently file for rider recovery at a later date. On June 17, 2020, the PUCO approved Duke Energy Ohio’s deferral application. The commission denied the accrual of carrying costs and ordered Duke Energy Ohio to also track potential savings experienced asfive-year period.
As a result of COVID-19.the order, revised customer rates were effective June 1, 2019. On May 31, 2019, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a Petition for Rehearing or Reconsideration of that order contending substantial rights of Duke Energy Carolinas were prejudiced by unlawful, arbitrary and capricious rulings by the PSCSC on certain issues presented in the proceeding. On June 19, 2019, the PSCSC issued a Directive denying Duke Energy Carolinas' request to rehear or reconsider the commission's rulings on certain issues presented in the proceeding including coal ash remediation and disposal costs, ROE and the recovery of a return on deferred operation and maintenance expenses. An order detailing the commission's decision in the Directive was issued on October 18, 2019. Duke Energy Carolinas filed a notice of appeal on November 15, 2019, with the Supreme Court of South Carolina. On November 20, 2019, the South Carolina Energy Users Committee filed a Notice of Appeal with the Supreme Court of South Carolina. Initial briefs were filed on April 21, 2020, which included the South Carolina Energy User's Committee brief arguing that the PSCSC erred in allowing Duke Energy Carolinas' recovery of costs related to the Lee Nuclear Station. Response briefs were filed on July 6, 2020, and reply briefs were filed on August 11, 2020. Oral arguments were heard before the Supreme Court of South Carolina on May 26, 2021.
On October 27, 2021, the Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed the PSCSC's May 2019 order to:
•Disallow cost recovery on certain CCR compliance costs the PSCSC deemed to be incremental to the federal CCR rules;
•Disallow recovery of certain coal ash litigation expenses;
•Disallow a return on certain deferred expenses; and
•Allow recovery of Lee Nuclear Project preconstruction costs.
The Supreme Court's decision notes the prior determination made by the PSCSC that Duke Energy could submit coal ash costs for recovery that were not initially approved in the rate case order if such costs can be attributed to the CCR rules. As a result of the Court's opinion, Duke Energy Carolinas recognized a pretax charge of approximately $160 million to Impairment of assets and other charges, and a $31 million increase in Other income and expenses, net, in the Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2021, principally related to coal ash remediation at retired coal ash basin sites. Duke Energy Carolinas is evaluating whether to file a Petition for rehearing on the Supreme Court's decision. Petitions are due November 11, 2021, unless an extension is sought and granted.
| | | | | |
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS | REGULATORY MATTERS |
Oconee Nuclear Station Subsequent License Renewal
On June 7, 2021, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a subsequent license renewal application for the Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS) with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to renew ONS’s operating license for an additional 20 years. The subsequent license renewal would extend operations of the facility from 60 to 80 years. The current license for units 1 and 2 expire in 2033 and the license for unit 3 expires in 2034. By a Federal Register Notice dated July 28, 2021, the NRC provided a 60-day comment period for persons whose interest may be affected by the issuance of a subsequent renewed license for ONS to file a request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. On September 27, 2021, Beyond Nuclear and Sierra Club (Petitioners) filed a Hearing Request and Petition to Intervene (Hearing Request) and a Petition for Waiver. The Hearing Request proposes 3 contentions purporting to challenge Duke Energy Carolinas’ environmental report (ER). In general, the proposed contentions claim that the ER does not consider certain information regarding the environmental aspects of Severe Accidents caused by a hypothetical failure of the Jocassee Dam, and therefore does not satisfy the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), or the NRC’s NEPA-implementing regulations. Duke Energy Carolinas filed its answer to the proposed contentions on October 22, 2021, and the Petitioners have until November 5, 2021, to respond to Duke Energy Carolina’s answer.
Duke Energy Kentucky COVID-19
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, on March 6, 2020, Governor Andy Beshear declared a state of emergency in the commonwealth of Kentucky. The KPSC issued an order directing utilities to cease disconnections for nonpaymentCarolinas and waive late payment fees. The KPSC also directed utilities to maintain flexible payment plans and tariff interpretations to assist customers during this crisis andDuke Energy Progress intend to seek any regulatory waivers, if necessary. In response,renewal of operating licenses and 20-year license extensions for all of their nuclear stations. New depreciation rates were implemented for all of the nuclear facilities during the second quarter of 2021. Duke Energy Kentucky ceased all disconnections except for safety-related concernsCarolinas and waived late payment and reconnection fees. On September 21, 2020, the KPSC issued an order ending the disconnection moratorium for residential and nonresidential customers effective no earlier than October 20, 2020. Utilities are required to offer residential customers a default payment plan for any arrearages accumulated through the October 2020 billing cycle. Utilities are permitted to resume assessment of late payment charges for nonresidential customers beginning October 20, 2020, and for residential customers after December 31, 2020. Duke Energy Kentucky will followProgress cannot predict the order, as clarified on September 30, 2020, by the KPSC.outcome of this matter.
Duke Energy Progress
2017 Electric Security Plan FilingNorth Carolina Rate Case
On June 1, 2017, Duke Energy OhioProgress filed an application with the NCUC for a rate increase for retail customers of approximately $477 million, which was subsequently adjusted to $420 million. 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 an ROE of 9.9% and a capital structure of 52% equity and 48% debt. On February 23, 2018, the NCUC issued an order approving the stipulation. The Public Staff, the North Carolina Attorney General and the Sierra Club filed notices of appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court.
The North Carolina Supreme Court consolidated the Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress appeals. On December 11, 2020, the North Carolina Supreme Court issued an opinion, which affirmed, in part, and reversed and remanded, in part, the NCUC’s decisions. In the Opinion, the court upheld the NCUC's decision to include coal ash costs in the cost of service, as well as the NCUC’s discretion to allow a return on the unamortized balance of coal ash costs. The court also remanded to the NCUC a single issue to consider the assessment of support for the Public Staff’s equitable sharing argument. On January 22, 2021, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Carolinas entered into the CCR Settlement Agreement with the Settling Parties, which was filed with the PUCONCUC on January 25, 2021, and approved by the NCUC on April 16, 2021. The NCUC issued an Order on Remand Accepting CCR Settlement and Affirming Previous Orders Setting Rates and Imposing Penalties on June 25, 2021.
2019 North Carolina Rate Case
On October 30, 2019, Duke Energy Progress filed an application with the NCUC for a net rate increase for retail customers of approximately $464 million, which represented an approximate 12.3% increase in annual base revenues. The gross rate case revenue increase request was $586 million, which was offset by riders of $122 million, primarily an EDIT rider of $120 million to return to customers North Carolina and federal EDIT resulting from recent reductions in corporate tax rates. The request for a standard service offerrate increase was driven by major capital investments subsequent to the previous base rate case, coal ash pond closure costs, accelerated coal plant depreciation and deferred 2018 storm costs. Duke Energy Progress sought to defer and recover incremental Hurricane Dorian storm costs in this proceeding and requested rates be effective no later than September 1, 2020. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, on March 24, 2020, the NCUC suspended the procedural schedule and postponed the previously scheduled evidentiary hearing on this matter indefinitely.
On June 2, 2020, Duke Energy Progress and the Public Staff filed an Agreement and Stipulation of Partial Settlement, subject to review and approval of the NCUC, resolving certain issues in the formbase rate proceeding. On July 27, 2020, Duke Energy Progress filed a joint motion with Duke Energy Carolinas and the Public Staff notifying the commission that the parties reached a joint partial settlement with the Public Staff. On July 31, 2020, Duke Energy Progress and the Public Staff filed a Second Agreement and Stipulation of Partial Settlement, subject to review and approval of the NCUC, resolving certain remaining issues in the base rate proceeding. The remaining items litigated at hearing included recovery of deferred coal ash compliance costs that are subject to asset retirement obligation accounting and implementation of new depreciation rates.
On August 7, 2020, Duke Energy Progress filed a motion for approval of notice required to implement temporary rates, seeking to exercise its statutory right to implement temporary rates subject to refund on or after September 1, 2020. The revenue requirement to be recovered subject to refund through the temporary rates was based on and consistent with the terms of the base rate component of the settlement agreements with the Public Staff and excluded items to be litigated noted above. In addition, Duke Energy Progress also sought authorization to place a temporary decrement EDIT Rider into effect, concurrent with the temporary base rate change. The NCUC approved the August 7, 2020 temporary rates motion on August 11, 2020, and temporary rates went into effect on September 1, 2020.
The Duke Energy Progress evidentiary hearing concluded on October 6, 2020, and post-hearing filings were filed with the NCUC from all parties by December 4, 2020. On January 22, 2021, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Carolinas entered into the CCR Settlement Agreement with the Settling Parties, which was filed with the NCUC on January 25, 2021.
On April 16, 2021, the NCUC issued an order approving the June 2, 2020, and July 31, 2020, partial settlements. The order includes approval of 1) an ROE of 9.6% based upon a capital structure of 52% equity and 48% debt; 2) deferral treatment of approximately $400 million of grid improvement projects with a return; 3) a flow back period of five years for unprotected federal EDIT; and 4) the reasonableness and prudence of approximately $714 million of deferred storm costs, which were removed from the rate case and for which Duke Energy Progress filed a petition seeking securitization in October 2020. Additionally, the order approved without modification the CCR Settlement Agreement.
| | | | | |
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS | REGULATORY MATTERS |
The order denied Duke Energy Progress' proposal to shorten the remaining depreciable lives of certain Duke Energy Progress coal-fired generating units, indicating the NCUC has not had the chance to fully examine the issue within the context of an ESP. IRP proceeding, and upon retirement the remaining net book value of these units should be placed in a regulatory asset account to be amortized over an appropriate period to be determined in a future rate case.
On April 13,May 21, 2021, the NCUC issued an Order Approving Rate Schedules, which resulted in a net increase of approximately $178 million. Revised customer rates became effective on June 1, 2021. The deadline to appeal has passed and no parties appealed the NCUC's order.
2018 South Carolina Rate Case
On November 8, 2018, Duke Energy Ohio, alongProgress filed an application with the PSCSC for a rate increase for retail customers of approximately $59 million.
After hearings in April 2019, the PSCSC issued an order on May 21, 2019, which included an ROE of 9.5% and a capital structure of 53% equity and 47% debt. The order also included the following material components:
•Approval of recovery of $4 million of coal ash costs over a five-year period with a return at Duke Energy Progress' WACC;
•Denial of recovery of $65 million of certain coal ash costs deemed to be related to the Coal Ash Act and incremental to the federal CCR rule;
•Approval of a $17 million decrease to base rates to reflect the change in ongoing tax expense, primarily the reduction in the federal income tax rate from 35% to 21%;
•Approval of a $12 million decrease through the EDIT Tax Savings Rider resulting from the federal tax rate change and deferred revenues since January 2018 related to the change, to be returned in accordance with ARAM for protected EDIT, over a 20-year period for unprotected EDIT associated with Property, Plant and Equipment, over a five-year period for unprotected EDIT not associated with Property, Plant and Equipment and over a three-year period for the deferred revenues; and
•Approval of a $12 million increase due to the expiration of EDIT related to reductions in the North Carolina state income tax rate from 6.9% to 2.5%.
As a result of the order, revised customer rates were effective June 1, 2019. On May 31, 2019, Duke Energy Progress filed a Petition for Rehearing or Reconsideration of that order contending substantial rights of Duke Energy Progress were prejudiced by unlawful, arbitrary and capricious rulings by the PSCSC on certain issues presented in the proceeding. On June 19, 2019, the PSCSC issued a Directive denying Duke Energy Progress' request to rehear or reconsider the commission's rulings on certain issues presented in the proceeding including coal ash remediation and disposal costs, ROE and the recovery of a return on deferred operation and maintenance expenses, but allowing additional litigation-related costs. As a result of the Directive allowing litigation-related costs, customer rates were revised effective July 1, 2019. An order detailing the commission's decision in the Directive was issued on October 18, 2019. Duke Energy Progress filed a notice of appeal on November 15, 2019, with the Supreme Court of South Carolina. Initial briefs were filed on April 21, 2020. Response briefs were filed on July 6, 2020, and reply briefs were filed on August 11, 2020. Oral arguments were heard before the Supreme Court of South Carolina on May 26, 2021.
On October 27, 2021, the Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed the PSCSC's May 2019 order to:
•Disallow cost recovery on certain CCR compliance costs the PSCSC deemed to be incremental to the federal CCR rules;
•Disallow recovery of certain coal ash litigation expenses; and
•Disallow a return on certain deferred expenses.
The Supreme Court's decision notes the prior determination made by the PSCSC that Duke Energy could submit coal ash costs for recovery that were not initially approved in the rate case order if such costs can be attributed to the CCR rules. As a result of the Court's opinion, Duke Energy Progress recognized a pretax charge of approximately $42 million to Impairment of assets and other charges, and a $6 million increase in Other income and expenses, net, in the Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2021, principally related to coal ash remediation at retired coal ash basin sites. Duke Energy Progress is evaluating whether to file a Petition for rehearing on the Supreme Court's decision. Petitions are due November 11, 2021, unless an extension is sought and granted.
Western Carolinas Modernization Plan
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, which was approved with certain intervenors,conditions on May 10, 2019. A hearing to update the NCUC on the status of the project was held on March 5, 2020. Construction began in May 2020 with commercial operation expected to begin in December 2021.
On July 27, 2020, Duke Energy Progress filed an application with the NCUC for a CPCN to construct the Woodfin Solar Facility, a 5-MW solar generating facility to be constructed on a closed landfill in Buncombe County. The expert hearing was held on November 18, 2020. The application was approved and a CPCN was granted by order of the NCUC on April 20, 2021. Construction began in April 2021 with an expected in-service date in March 2022.
| | | | | |
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS | REGULATORY MATTERS |
FERC Return on Equity Complaints
On October 11, 2019, North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency (NCEMPA) filed a Stipulationcomplaint at the FERC against Duke Energy Progress pursuant to Section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), alleging that the 11% stated ROE component contained in the demand formula rate in the Full Requirements Power Purchase Agreement (FRPPA) between NCEMPA and Recommendation (Stipulation)Duke Energy Progress is unjust and unreasonable. On July 16, 2020, the FERC set this matter for hearing and settlement judge procedures and established a refund effective date of October 11, 2019. In its order setting the matter for settlement, the FERC allowed for the consideration of variations to the base transmission-related ROE methodology developed in its Order No. 569-A, through the introduction of “specific facts and circumstances” involving issues specific to the case. The parties reached a settlement in principle at a settlement conference on January 7, 2021, and filed a settlement package on March 10, 2021. The FERC Trial Staff filed comments in support of the settlement. On April 19, 2021, the Settlement Judge certified the settlement to the FERC as an uncontested settlement. The FERC approved the settlement on May 25, 2021, and Duke Energy Progress filed compliance documents on June 10, 2021. The FERC accepted the compliance filing on October 8, 2021.
On October 16, 2020, North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation (NCEMC) filed a complaint at the FERC against Duke Energy Progress pursuant to Section 206 of the FPA, alleging that the 11% stated ROE component in the demand formula rate in the Power Supply and Coordination Agreement between NCEMC and Duke Energy Progress is unjust and unreasonable. Under FPA Section 206, the earliest refund effective date that the FERC can establish is the date of the filing of the complaint. Duke Energy Progress responded to the complaint on November 20, 2020, seeking dismissal, demonstrating that the 11% ROE is just and reasonable for the service provided. The parties filed responsive pleadings and are awaiting an order from the FERC. Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Duke Energy Florida
2021 Settlement Agreement
On January 14, 2021, Duke Energy Florida filed a Settlement Agreement (the “2021 Settlement”) with the PUCO resolvingFPSC. The parties to the 2021 Settlement include Duke Energy Florida, the Office of Public Counsel (OPC), the Florida Industrial Power Users Group, White Springs Agricultural Chemicals, Inc. d/b/a PCS Phosphate and NUCOR Steel Florida, Inc. (collectively, the “Parties”).
Pursuant to the 2021 Settlement, the Parties agreed to a base rate stay-out provision that expires year-end 2024; however, Duke Energy Florida is allowed an increase to its base rates of an incremental $67 million in 2022, $49 million in 2023 and $79 million in 2024, subject to adjustment in the event of tax reform during the years 2021, 2022 and 2023. The Parties also agreed to an ROE band of 8.85% to 10.85% with a midpoint of 9.85% based on a capital structure of 53% equity and 47% debt. The ROE band can be increased by 25 basis points if the average 30-year U.S. Treasury rate increases 50 basis points or more over a six-month period in which case the midpoint ROE would rise from 9.85% to 10.10%. Duke Energy Florida will also be able to retain the DOE award of approximately $173 million for spent nuclear fuel, which is expected to be received in 2022, in order to mitigate customer rates over the term of the ESP would2021 Settlement. In return, Duke Energy Florida will be able to recognize the $173 million into earnings from 2022 through 2024.
In addition to these terms, the 2021 Settlement contains provisions related to the accelerated depreciation of Crystal River Units 4-5, the approval of approximately $1 billion in future investments in new cost-effective solar power, the implementation of a new Electric Vehicle Charging Station Program and the deferral and recovery of costs in connection with the implementation of Duke Energy Florida’s Vision Florida program, which explores various emerging non-carbon emitting generation technology, distributed technologies and resiliency projects, among other things. The 2021 Settlement also resolves remaining unrecovered storm costs for Hurricane Dorian and Hurricane Michael.
The FPSC approved the 2021 Settlement on May 4, 2021, issuing an order on June 1, 2018, to May 31, 2025, and included continuation of market-based4, 2021. Revised customer rates through competitive procurement processeswill be effective January 1, 2022, with subsequent base rate increases effective January 1, 2023, and January 1, 2024.
Storm Restoration Cost Recovery
Duke Energy Florida filed a petition with the FPSC on April 30, 2019, to recover $223 million of estimated retail incremental storm restoration costs for generation, continuationHurricane Michael, consistent with the provisions in the 2017 Settlement, and expansionthe FPSC approved the petition on June 11, 2019. The FPSC also approved allowing Duke Energy Florida to use the tax savings resulting from the Tax Act to recover these storm costs in lieu of existing rider mechanismsimplementing a storm surcharge. Approved storm costs are currently expected to be fully recovered by year-end 2021. On November 22, 2019, Duke Energy Florida filed a petition for approval of actual retail recoverable storm restoration costs related to Hurricane Michael in the amount of $191 million plus interest. On May 19, 2020, Duke Energy Florida filed a supplemental true up reducing the actual retail recoverable storm restoration costs related to Hurricane Michael by approximately $3 million, resulting in a total request to recover $188 million actual retail recoverable storm restoration costs, plus interest. Approximately $80 million of these costs are included in Regulatory assets within Current Assets and Other Noncurrent Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2020.
Duke Energy Florida filed a petition with the FPSC on December 19, 2019, to recover $169 million of estimated retail incremental storm restoration costs for Hurricane Dorian, consistent with the provisions in the 2017 Settlement and the FPSC approved new rider mechanismsthe petition on February 24, 2020. The final actual amount of $145 million was filed on September 30, 2020. The 2021 Settlement resolved all matters regarding storm cost recovery relating to costs incurredHurricane Michael and Hurricane Dorian.
Clean Energy Connection
On July 1, 2020, Duke Energy Florida petitioned the FPSC for approval of a voluntary solar program. The program consists of 10 new solar generating facilities with combined capacity of approximately 750 MW. The program allows participants to enhancesupport cost-effective solar development in Florida by paying a subscription fee based on per kilowatt-subscriptions and receiving a credit on their bill based on the customer experienceactual generation associated with their portion of the solar portfolio. The estimated cost of the 10 new solar generation facilities is approximately $1 billion over the next four years, and transformthis investment will be included in base rates offset by the gridrevenue from the subscription fees. The credits will be included for recovery in the fuel cost recovery clause. A remote hearing was held on November 17, 2020, and post-hearing briefs were filed with the FPSC from all parties by December 9, 2020. The FPSC voted to approve the program on January 5, 2021, and issued its written order on January 26, 2021.
| | | | | |
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS | REGULATORY MATTERS |
On February 24, 2021, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) filed a service reliability rider for vegetation management. On September 13, 2019, and September 16, 2019, Interstate Gas Supply/Retail Supply Association andnotice of appeal of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel (OCC), respectively, filed appealsFPSC’s order approving the Clean Energy Connection to the Supreme Court of Ohio claimingFlorida. LULAC's initial brief was filed on May 26, 2021, and Appellees' response briefs were filed on July 26, 2021. LULAC's reply brief was filed on September 24, 2021, and its request for oral argument was filed on September 28, 2021. The FPSC approval order remains in effect pending the PUCO’s order was in error. On March 13, 2020, the Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed OCC's appeal. On April 22, 2020, the Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed all remaining appealsoutcome of the PUCO's December 19, 2018 order approvingappeal. Duke Energy Florida cannot predict the Stipulation. The case has been resolved.outcome of this matter.
Duke Energy Ohio
|
| |
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS | REGULATORY MATTERS |
Duke Energy Ohio Electric Base Rate Case
Duke Energy Ohio filed with the PUCO an electric distribution base rate case application andon October 1, 2021, with supporting testimony filed on October 15, 2021, requesting an increase in Marchelectric distribution base rates of approximately $55 million and an ROE of 10.3%. This is an approximate 3.3% average increase across all customer classes. The drivers for this case are capital invested since Duke Energy Ohio's last electric distribution base rate case in 2017. Duke Energy Ohio requested an estimated annual increase of approximately $15 million and a returnis also seeking to adjust the caps on equity of 10.4%its Distribution Capital Investment Rider (DCI Rider). On April 13, 2018, Duke Energy Ohio along with certain intervenors, filed the Stipulation withanticipates the PUCO including a $19 million decrease in annual base distribution revenue with a returnwill rule on equity unchanged from the current raterequest by the summer of 9.84% based upon a capital structure of 50.75% equity and 49.25% debt. Upon approval of new rates, Duke Energy Ohio's rider for recovering its initial SmartGrid implementation ended as these costs would be recovered through base rates. The Stipulation also renewed 14 existing riders, some of which were included in Duke Energy Ohio's ESP, and added two new riders including the Enhanced Service Reliability Rider to recover vegetation management costs not included in base rates, up to $10 million per year (operation and maintenance only) and the Power Future Initiatives Rider (formerly PowerForward Rider) to recover costs incurred to enhance the customer experience and further transform the grid (operation and maintenance and capital). In addition to the changes in revenue attributable to the Stipulation, Duke Energy Ohio’s capital-related riders, including the Distribution Capital Investments Rider, began to reflect the lower federal income tax rate associated with the Tax Act with updates to customers’ bills beginning April 1, 2018. This change reduced electric revenue by approximately $20 million on an annualized basis. On December 19, 2018, the PUCO approved the Stipulation without material modification. New base rates were implemented effective January 2, 2019. On September 13, 2019, and September 16, 2019, Interstate Gas Supply/Retail Supply Association and the OCC, respectively, filed appeals to the Supreme Court of Ohio claiming the PUCO’s order was in error. On March 13, 2020, the Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed OCC's appeal. On April 22, 2020, the Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed all remaining appeals of the PUCO's December 19, 2018 order approving the Stipulation. The case has been resolved.
Ohio Valley Electric Corporation
On March 31, 2017,2022. Duke Energy Ohio filed for approval to adjust its existing Rider PSR to pass through net costs related to its contractual entitlement to capacity and energy fromcannot predict the generating assets owned by OVEC. Duke Energy outcome of this matter.
Ohio sought deferral authority for net costs incurred from April 1, 2017, until the new rates under Rider PSR were put into effect. On April 13, 2018, Duke Energy Ohio, along with certain intervenors, filed a Stipulation with the PUCO resolving numerous issues including those related to Rider PSR. The Stipulation activated Rider PSR for recovery of net costs incurred from January 1, 2018, through May 2025. On December 19, 2018, the PUCO approved the Stipulation without material modification. The PSR rider became effective April 1, 2019. On September 13, 2019, and September 16, 2019, Interstate Gas Supply/Retail Supply Association and the OCC filed appeals to the Supreme Court of Ohio claiming the PUCO’s order was in error. On March 13, 2020, the Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed OCC's appeal. On April 22, 2020, the Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed all remaining appeals of the PUCO's December 19, 2018 order approving the Stipulation. The case has been resolved.House Bill 6
On July 23, 2019, House Bill 6 (HB 6) was signed into law thatand became effective January 1, 2020. Among other things, the bill allows for funding, through a rider mechanism referred to as the Clean Air Fund (Rider CAF), of two2 nuclear generating facilities located in Northern Ohio through a charge on utility bills owned by Energy Harbor (f/k/a FirstEnergy Solutions), and certain renewable resources, repeal of energy efficiency mandates and recovery of prudently incurred costs, net of any revenues, for Ohio investor-owned utilities that are participants under the OVEC power agreement. The OVEC recovery shall beis through a non-bypassable rider that is to replacereplaced any existing recovery mechanism approved by the PUCO and will remain in place through 2030. As such, Duke Energy Ohio created the Legacy Generation Rider (Rider LGR) that replaced Rider PSR effective January 1, 2020. The amounts recoverable from customers will beare subject to an annual cap, with incremental costs that exceed such cap eligible for deferral and recovery subject to review. See Note 1211 for additional discussion of Duke Energy Ohio's ownership interest in OVEC. In July 2020, legislation to repealHouse Bill 128 was signed into law on March 31, 2021, and became effective June 30, 2021. The bill removes nuclear plant funding included in HB 6, was proposedeliminates Rider CAF and establishes the Solar Generation Fund Rider (Rider SGF) to recover the renewable investments originally included in both the Ohio House and Senate, with subsequent hearings to receive witness testimony. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter.HB 6. HB 128 does not impact OVEC cost recovery or any transmission or distribution rider.
South Carolina
Duke Energy Efficiency Cost RecoveryCarolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a report on June 30, 2020, as required by PSCSC order, reporting revenue impact, costs and savings related to COVID-19 to date. On August 14, 2020, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a joint petition with the PSCSC for approval of an accounting order to defer incremental COVID-19 related costs incurred through June 30, 2020, and for the ongoing months during the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress withdrew their joint petition on May 17, 2021.
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. On February 26, 2020,28, 2018, Duke Energy Carolinas and the PUCOPublic Staff filed an Agreement and Stipulation of Partial Settlement resolving certain portions of the proceeding. Terms of the settlement included an ROE of 9.9% and a capital structure of 52% equity and 48% debt. On June 22, 2018, the NCUC issued an order directing utilitiesapproving the Stipulation of Partial Settlement and requiring a revenue reduction.
The North Carolina Attorney General and other parties separately filed Notices of Appeal to wind down their demand-side management programsthe North Carolina Supreme Court. The North Carolina Supreme Court consolidated the Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress appeals. On December 11, 2020, the North Carolina Supreme Court issued an opinion, which affirmed, in part, and reversed and remanded, in part, the NCUC’s decisions. In the Opinion, the court upheld the NCUC's decision to include coal ash costs in the cost of service, as well as the NCUC’s discretion to allow a return on the unamortized balance of coal ash costs. The court also remanded to the NCUC a single issue to consider the assessment of support for the Public Staff’s equitable sharing argument. On January 22, 2021, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress entered into the CCR Settlement Agreement with the Settling Parties, which was filed with the NCUC on January 25, 2021, and approved by the NCUC on March 31, 2021. The NCUC issued an Order on Remand Accepting CCR Settlement and Affirming Previous Orders Setting Rates and Imposing Penalties on June 25, 2021.
2019 North Carolina Rate Case
On September 30, 2020,2019, Duke Energy Carolinas filed an application with the NCUC for a net rate increase for retail customers of approximately $291 million, which represented an approximate 6% increase in annual base revenues. The gross rate case revenue increase request was $445 million, which was offset by an EDIT rider of $154 million to return to customers North Carolina and federal EDIT resulting from recent reductions in corporate tax rates. The request for a rate increase was driven by major capital investments subsequent to terminate the programs by December 31, 2020, in response to changes in Ohio law that eliminated Ohio's energy efficiency mandates. previous base rate case, coal ash pond closure costs, accelerated coal plant depreciation and deferred 2018 storm costs. Duke Energy Carolinas requested rates be effective no later than August 1, 2020.
On March 25, 2020, Duke Energy Carolinas and the Public Staff filed an Agreement and Stipulation of Partial Settlement, subject to review and approval of the NCUC, resolving certain issues in the base rate proceeding. On July 24, 2020, Duke Energy Carolinas filed its request for approval of its notice to customers required to implement temporary rates. On July 27, 2020, Duke Energy OhioCarolinas filed a joint motion with Duke Energy Progress and the Public Staff notifying the commission that the parties reached a joint partial settlement with the Public Staff. Also on July 27, 2020, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a letter stating that it intended to update its temporary rates calculation to reflect the terms of the partial settlement. On July 31, 2020, Duke Energy Carolinas and the Public Staff filed a Second Agreement and Stipulation of Partial Settlement (Second Partial Settlement), subject to review and approval of the NCUC, resolving certain remaining issues in the base rate proceeding. The remaining items litigated at hearing included recovery of deferred coal ash compliance costs that are subject to asset retirement obligation accounting, implementation of new depreciation rates and the amortization period of the loss on the hydro station sale.
On August 4, 2020, Duke Energy Carolinas filed an Applicationamended motion for approval of its amended notice to customers, seeking to exercise its statutory right to implement temporary rates subject to refund on or after August 24, 2020. The revenue requirement to be recovered, subject to refund, through the temporary rates was based on and consistent with the base rate component of the Second Partial Settlement and excluded the items to be litigated noted above. The NCUC approved the August 4, 2020 amended temporary rates motion on August 6, 2020, and temporary rates went into effect on August 24, 2020.
The Duke Energy Carolinas evidentiary hearing concluded on September 18, 2020, and post-hearing filings were made with the NCUC from all parties by November 4, 2020. On January 22, 2021, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress entered into the CCR Settlement Agreement with the Settling Parties, which was filed with the NCUC on January 25, 2021.
On March 31, 2021, the NCUC issued an order approving the March 25, 2020, and July 31, 2020, partial settlements. The order includes approval of 1) an ROE of 9.6% based upon a capital structure of 52% equity and 48% debt; 2) deferral treatment of approximately $800 million of grid improvement projects with a return; 3) a flow back period of five years for unprotected federal EDIT; and 4) the reasonableness and prudence of $213 million of deferred storm costs, which were removed from the rate case and for which Duke Energy Carolinas filed a petition seeking securitization in October 2020. Additionally, the order approved without modification the CCR Settlement Agreement.
| | | | | |
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS | REGULATORY MATTERS |
The order denied Duke Energy Carolinas' proposal to shorten the remaining depreciable lives of certain Duke Energy Carolinas coal-fired generating units, indicating the NCUC has not had the chance to fully examine the issue within the context of an integrated resource planning (IRP) proceeding, and upon retirement the remaining net book value of these units should be placed in a regulatory asset account to be amortized over an appropriate period to be determined in a future rate case.
On May 21, 2021, the NCUC issued an Order Approving Rate Schedules, which resulted in a net increase of approximately $33 million. Revised customer rates became effective on June 1, 2021. The deadline to appeal has passed and no parties appealed the NCUC's order.
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.
After hearings in March 2019, the PSCSC issued an order on May 21, 2019, which included an ROE of 9.5% and a capital structure of 53% equity and 47% debt. The order also included the following material components:
•Approval of cancellation of the Lee Nuclear Project, with Duke Energy Carolinas maintaining the Combined Operating License;
•Approval of recovery of $125 million (South Carolina retail portion) of Lee Nuclear Project development costs (including AFUDC through December 2017) over a 12-year period, but denial of a return on the deferred balance of costs;
•Approval of recovery of $96 million of coal ash costs over a five-year period with a return at Duke Energy Carolinas' WACC;
•Denial of recovery of $115 million of certain coal ash costs deemed to be related to the Coal Ash Act and incremental to the federal CCR rule;
•Approval of a $66 million decrease to base rates to reflect the change in ongoing tax expense, primarily the reduction in the federal income tax rate from 35% to 21%;
•Approval of a $45 million decrease through the EDIT Rider to return EDIT resulting from the federal tax rate change and deferred revenues since January 2018 related to the change, to be returned in accordance with the Average Rate Assumption Method (ARAM) for protected EDIT, over a 20-year period for unprotected EDIT associated with Property, Plant and Equipment, over a five-year period for unprotected EDIT not associated with Property, Plant and Equipment and over a five-year period for the deferred revenues; and
•Approval of a $17 million decrease through the EDIT Rider related to reductions in the North Carolina state income tax rate from 6.9% to 2.5% to be returned over a five-year period.
As a result of the order, revised customer rates were effective June 1, 2019. On May 31, 2019, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a Petition for Rehearing seeking clarificationor Reconsideration of that order contending substantial rights of Duke Energy Carolinas were prejudiced by unlawful, arbitrary and capricious rulings by the PSCSC on certain issues presented in the proceeding. On June 19, 2019, the PSCSC issued a Directive denying Duke Energy Carolinas' request to rehear or reconsider the commission's rulings on certain issues presented in the proceeding including coal ash remediation and disposal costs, ROE and the recovery of a return on deferred operation and maintenance expenses. An order detailing the commission's decision in the Directive was issued on October 18, 2019. Duke Energy Carolinas filed a notice of appeal on November 15, 2019, with the Supreme Court of South Carolina. On November 20, 2019, the South Carolina Energy Users Committee filed a Notice of Appeal with the Supreme Court of South Carolina. Initial briefs were filed on April 21, 2020, which included the South Carolina Energy User's Committee brief arguing that the PSCSC erred in allowing Duke Energy Carolinas' recovery of costs related to the Lee Nuclear Station. Response briefs were filed on July 6, 2020, and reply briefs were filed on August 11, 2020. Oral arguments were heard before the Supreme Court of South Carolina on May 26, 2021.
On October 27, 2021, the Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed the PSCSC's May 2019 order to:
•Disallow cost recovery on certain CCR compliance costs the PSCSC deemed to be incremental to the federal CCR rules;
•Disallow recovery of certain coal ash litigation expenses;
•Disallow a return on certain deferred expenses; and
•Allow recovery of Lee Nuclear Project preconstruction costs.
The Supreme Court's decision notes the prior determination made by the PSCSC that Duke Energy could submit coal ash costs for recovery that were not initially approved in the rate case order if such costs can be attributed to the CCR rules. As a result of the Court's opinion, Duke Energy Carolinas recognized a pretax charge of approximately $160 million to Impairment of assets and other charges, and a $31 million increase in Other income and expenses, net, in the Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2021, principally related to coal ash remediation at retired coal ash basin sites. Duke Energy Carolinas is evaluating whether to file a Petition for rehearing on the final true upSupreme Court's decision. Petitions are due November 11, 2021, unless an extension is sought and reconciliation process after 2020. granted.
| | | | | |
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS | REGULATORY MATTERS |
Oconee Nuclear Station Subsequent License Renewal
On AprilJune 7, 2021, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a subsequent license renewal application for the Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS) with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to renew ONS’s operating license for an additional 20 years. The subsequent license renewal would extend operations of the facility from 60 to 80 years. The current license for units 1 and 2 expire in 2033 and the license for unit 3 expires in 2034. By a Federal Register Notice dated July 28, 2021, the NRC provided a 60-day comment period for persons whose interest may be affected by the issuance of a subsequent renewed license for ONS to file a request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. On September 27, 2021, Beyond Nuclear and Sierra Club (Petitioners) filed a Hearing Request and Petition to Intervene (Hearing Request) and a Petition for Waiver. The Hearing Request proposes 3 contentions purporting to challenge Duke Energy Carolinas’ environmental report (ER). In general, the proposed contentions claim that the ER does not consider certain information regarding the environmental aspects of Severe Accidents caused by a hypothetical failure of the Jocassee Dam, and therefore does not satisfy the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), or the NRC’s NEPA-implementing regulations. Duke Energy Carolinas filed its answer to the proposed contentions on October 22, 2020,2021, and the PUCO granted rehearingPetitioners have until November 5, 2021, to respond to Duke Energy Carolina’s answer.
Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress intend to seek renewal of operating licenses and 20-year license extensions for further consideration.all of their nuclear stations. New depreciation rates were implemented for all of the nuclear facilities during the second quarter of 2021. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress 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 was subsequently adjusted to $420 million. 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 an ROE of 9.9% and a capital structure of 52% equity and 48% debt. On February 23, 2018, the NCUC issued an order approving the stipulation. The Public Staff, the North Carolina Attorney General and the Sierra Club filed notices of appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court.
The North Carolina Supreme Court consolidated the Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress appeals. On December 11, 2020, the North Carolina Supreme Court issued an opinion, which affirmed, in part, and reversed and remanded, in part, the NCUC’s decisions. In the Opinion, the court upheld the NCUC's decision to include coal ash costs in the cost of service, as well as the NCUC’s discretion to allow a return on the unamortized balance of coal ash costs. The court also remanded to the NCUC a single issue to consider the assessment of support for the Public Staff’s equitable sharing argument. On January 22, 2021, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Carolinas entered into the CCR Settlement Agreement with the Settling Parties, which was filed with the NCUC on January 25, 2021, and approved by the NCUC on April 16, 2021. The NCUC issued an Order on Remand Accepting CCR Settlement and Affirming Previous Orders Setting Rates and Imposing Penalties on June 25, 2021.
2019 North Carolina Rate Case
On October 30, 2019, Duke Energy Progress filed an application with the NCUC for a net rate increase for retail customers of approximately $464 million, which represented an approximate 12.3% increase in annual base revenues. The gross rate case revenue increase request was $586 million, which was offset by riders of $122 million, primarily an EDIT rider of $120 million to return to customers North Carolina and federal EDIT resulting from recent reductions in corporate tax rates. The request for a rate increase was driven by major capital investments subsequent to the previous base rate case, coal ash pond closure costs, accelerated coal plant depreciation and deferred 2018 storm costs. Duke Energy Progress sought to defer and recover incremental Hurricane Dorian storm costs in this proceeding and requested rates be effective no later than September 1, 2020. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, on March 24, 2020, the NCUC suspended the procedural schedule and postponed the previously scheduled evidentiary hearing on this matter indefinitely.
On June 2, 2020, Duke Energy Progress and the Public Staff filed an Agreement and Stipulation of Partial Settlement, subject to review and approval of the NCUC, resolving certain issues in the base rate proceeding. On July 27, 2020, Duke Energy Progress filed a joint motion with Duke Energy Carolinas and the Public Staff notifying the commission that the parties reached a joint partial settlement with the Public Staff. On July 31, 2020, Duke Energy Progress and the Public Staff filed a Second Agreement and Stipulation of Partial Settlement, subject to review and approval of the NCUC, resolving certain remaining issues in the base rate proceeding. The remaining items litigated at hearing included recovery of deferred coal ash compliance costs that are subject to asset retirement obligation accounting and implementation of new depreciation rates.
On August 7, 2020, Duke Energy Progress filed a motion for approval of notice required to implement temporary rates, seeking to exercise its statutory right to implement temporary rates subject to refund on or after September 1, 2020. The revenue requirement to be recovered subject to refund through the temporary rates was based on and consistent with the terms of the base rate component of the settlement agreements with the Public Staff and excluded items to be litigated noted above. In addition, Duke Energy Progress also sought authorization to place a temporary decrement EDIT Rider into effect, concurrent with the temporary base rate change. The NCUC approved the August 7, 2020 temporary rates motion on August 11, 2020, and temporary rates went into effect on September 1, 2020.
The Duke Energy Progress evidentiary hearing concluded on October 6, 2020, and post-hearing filings were filed with the NCUC from all parties by December 4, 2020. On January 22, 2021, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Carolinas entered into the CCR Settlement Agreement with the Settling Parties, which was filed with the NCUC on January 25, 2021.
On April 16, 2021, the NCUC issued an order approving the June 2, 2020, and July 31, 2020, partial settlements. The order includes approval of 1) an ROE of 9.6% based upon a capital structure of 52% equity and 48% debt; 2) deferral treatment of approximately $400 million of grid improvement projects with a return; 3) a flow back period of five years for unprotected federal EDIT; and 4) the reasonableness and prudence of approximately $714 million of deferred storm costs, which were removed from the rate case and for which Duke Energy Progress filed a petition seeking securitization in October 2020. Additionally, the order approved without modification the CCR Settlement Agreement.
| | | | | |
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS | REGULATORY MATTERS |
The order denied Duke Energy Progress' proposal to shorten the remaining depreciable lives of certain Duke Energy Progress coal-fired generating units, indicating the NCUC has not had the chance to fully examine the issue within the context of an IRP proceeding, and upon retirement the remaining net book value of these units should be placed in a regulatory asset account to be amortized over an appropriate period to be determined in a future rate case.
On May 21, 2021, the NCUC issued an Order Approving Rate Schedules, which resulted in a net increase of approximately $178 million. Revised customer rates became effective on June 1, 2021. The deadline to appeal has passed and no parties appealed the NCUC's order.
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.
After hearings in April 2019, the PSCSC issued an order on May 21, 2019, which included an ROE of 9.5% and a capital structure of 53% equity and 47% debt. The order also included the following material components:
•Approval of recovery of $4 million of coal ash costs over a five-year period with a return at Duke Energy Progress' WACC;
•Denial of recovery of $65 million of certain coal ash costs deemed to be related to the Coal Ash Act and incremental to the federal CCR rule;
•Approval of a $17 million decrease to base rates to reflect the change in ongoing tax expense, primarily the reduction in the federal income tax rate from 35% to 21%;
•Approval of a $12 million decrease through the EDIT Tax Savings Rider resulting from the federal tax rate change and deferred revenues since January 2018 related to the change, to be returned in accordance with ARAM for protected EDIT, over a 20-year period for unprotected EDIT associated with Property, Plant and Equipment, over a five-year period for unprotected EDIT not associated with Property, Plant and Equipment and over a three-year period for the deferred revenues; and
•Approval of a $12 million increase due to the expiration of EDIT related to reductions in the North Carolina state income tax rate from 6.9% to 2.5%.
As a result of the order, revised customer rates were effective June 1, 2019. On May 31, 2019, Duke Energy Progress filed a Petition for Rehearing or Reconsideration of that order contending substantial rights of Duke Energy Progress were prejudiced by unlawful, arbitrary and capricious rulings by the PSCSC on certain issues presented in the proceeding. On June 19, 2019, the PSCSC issued a Directive denying Duke Energy Progress' request to rehear or reconsider the commission's rulings on certain issues presented in the proceeding including coal ash remediation and disposal costs, ROE and the recovery of a return on deferred operation and maintenance expenses, but allowing additional litigation-related costs. As a result of the Directive allowing litigation-related costs, customer rates were revised effective July 1, 2019. An order detailing the commission's decision in the Directive was issued on October 18, 2019. Duke Energy Progress filed a notice of appeal on November 15, 2019, with the Supreme Court of South Carolina. Initial briefs were filed on April 21, 2020. Response briefs were filed on July 6, 2020, and reply briefs were filed on August 11, 2020. Oral arguments were heard before the Supreme Court of South Carolina on May 26, 2021.
On October 27, 2021, the Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed the PSCSC's May 2019 order to:
•Disallow cost recovery on certain CCR compliance costs the PSCSC deemed to be incremental to the federal CCR rules;
•Disallow recovery of certain coal ash litigation expenses; and
•Disallow a return on certain deferred expenses.
The Supreme Court's decision notes the prior determination made by the PSCSC that Duke Energy could submit coal ash costs for recovery that were not initially approved in the rate case order if such costs can be attributed to the CCR rules. As a result of the Court's opinion, Duke Energy Progress recognized a pretax charge of approximately $42 million to Impairment of assets and other charges, and a $6 million increase in Other income and expenses, net, in the Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2021, principally related to coal ash remediation at retired coal ash basin sites. Duke Energy Progress is evaluating whether to file a Petition for rehearing on the Supreme Court's decision. Petitions are due November 11, 2021, unless an extension is sought and granted.
Western Carolinas Modernization Plan
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, which was approved with certain conditions on May 10, 2019. A hearing to update the NCUC on the status of the project was held on March 5, 2020. Construction began in May 2020 with commercial operation expected to begin in December 2021.
On July 27, 2020, Duke Energy Progress filed an application with the NCUC for a CPCN to construct the Woodfin Solar Facility, a 5-MW solar generating facility to be constructed on a closed landfill in Buncombe County. The expert hearing was held on November 18, 2020. The application was approved and a CPCN was granted by order of the NCUC on April 20, 2021. Construction began in April 2021 with an expected in-service date in March 2022.
| | | | | |
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS | REGULATORY MATTERS |
FERC Return on Equity Complaints
On October 11, 2019, North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency (NCEMPA) filed a complaint at the FERC against Duke Energy Progress pursuant to Section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), alleging that the 11% stated ROE component contained in the demand formula rate in the Full Requirements Power Purchase Agreement (FRPPA) between NCEMPA and Duke Energy Progress is unjust and unreasonable. On July 16, 2020, the FERC set this matter for hearing and settlement judge procedures and established a refund effective date of October 11, 2019. In its order setting the matter for settlement, the FERC allowed for the consideration of variations to the base transmission-related ROE methodology developed in its Order No. 569-A, through the introduction of “specific facts and circumstances” involving issues specific to the case. The parties reached a settlement in principle at a settlement conference on January 7, 2021, and filed a settlement package on March 10, 2021. The FERC Trial Staff filed comments in support of the settlement. On April 19, 2021, the Settlement Judge certified the settlement to the FERC as an uncontested settlement. The FERC approved the settlement on May 25, 2021, and Duke Energy Progress filed compliance documents on June 10, 2021. The FERC accepted the compliance filing on October 8, 2021.
On October 16, 2020, North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation (NCEMC) filed a complaint at the FERC against Duke Energy Progress pursuant to Section 206 of the FPA, alleging that the 11% stated ROE component in the demand formula rate in the Power Supply and Coordination Agreement between NCEMC and Duke Energy Progress is unjust and unreasonable. Under FPA Section 206, the earliest refund effective date that the FERC can establish is the date of the filing of the complaint. Duke Energy Progress responded to the complaint on November 20, 2020, seeking dismissal, demonstrating that the 11% ROE is just and reasonable for the service provided. The parties filed responsive pleadings and are awaiting an order from the FERC. Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Duke Energy Florida
2021 Settlement Agreement
On January 14, 2021, Duke Energy Florida filed a Settlement Agreement (the “2021 Settlement”) with the FPSC. The parties to the 2021 Settlement include Duke Energy Florida, the Office of Public Counsel (OPC), the Florida Industrial Power Users Group, White Springs Agricultural Chemicals, Inc. d/b/a PCS Phosphate and NUCOR Steel Florida, Inc. (collectively, the “Parties”).
Pursuant to the 2021 Settlement, the Parties agreed to a base rate stay-out provision that expires year-end 2024; however, Duke Energy Florida is allowed an increase to its base rates of an incremental $67 million in 2022, $49 million in 2023 and $79 million in 2024, subject to adjustment in the event of tax reform during the years 2021, 2022 and 2023. The Parties also agreed to an ROE band of 8.85% to 10.85% with a midpoint of 9.85% based on a capital structure of 53% equity and 47% debt. The ROE band can be increased by 25 basis points if the average 30-year U.S. Treasury rate increases 50 basis points or more over a six-month period in which case the midpoint ROE would rise from 9.85% to 10.10%. Duke Energy Florida will also be able to retain the DOE award of approximately $173 million for spent nuclear fuel, which is expected to be received in 2022, in order to mitigate customer rates over the term of the 2021 Settlement. In return, Duke Energy Florida will be able to recognize the $173 million into earnings from 2022 through 2024.
In addition to these terms, the 2021 Settlement contains provisions related to the accelerated depreciation of Crystal River Units 4-5, the approval of approximately $1 billion in future investments in new cost-effective solar power, the implementation of a new Electric Vehicle Charging Station Program and the deferral and recovery of costs in connection with the implementation of Duke Energy Florida’s Vision Florida program, which explores various emerging non-carbon emitting generation technology, distributed technologies and resiliency projects, among other things. The 2021 Settlement also resolves remaining unrecovered storm costs for Hurricane Dorian and Hurricane Michael.
The FPSC approved the 2021 Settlement on May 4, 2021, issuing an order on June 4, 2021. Revised customer rates will be effective January 1, 2022, with subsequent base rate increases effective January 1, 2023, and January 1, 2024.
Storm Restoration Cost Recovery
Duke Energy Florida filed a petition with the FPSC on April 30, 2019, to recover $223 million of estimated retail incremental storm restoration costs for Hurricane Michael, consistent with the provisions in the 2017 Settlement, and the FPSC approved the petition on June 11, 2019. The FPSC also approved allowing Duke Energy Florida to use the tax savings resulting from the Tax Act to recover these storm costs in lieu of implementing a storm surcharge. Approved storm costs are currently expected to be fully recovered by year-end 2021. On November 22, 2019, Duke Energy Florida filed a petition for approval of actual retail recoverable storm restoration costs related to Hurricane Michael in the amount of $191 million plus interest. On May 19, 2020, Duke Energy Florida filed a supplemental true up reducing the actual retail recoverable storm restoration costs related to Hurricane Michael by approximately $3 million, resulting in a total request to recover $188 million actual retail recoverable storm restoration costs, plus interest. Approximately $80 million of these costs are included in Regulatory assets within Current Assets and Other Noncurrent Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2020.
Duke Energy Florida filed a petition with the FPSC on December 19, 2019, to recover $169 million of estimated retail incremental storm restoration costs for Hurricane Dorian, consistent with the provisions in the 2017 Settlement and the FPSC approved the petition on February 24, 2020. The final actual amount of $145 million was filed on September 30, 2020. The 2021 Settlement resolved all matters regarding storm cost recovery relating to Hurricane Michael and Hurricane Dorian.
Clean Energy Connection
On July 1, 2020, Duke Energy Florida petitioned the FPSC for approval of a voluntary solar program. The program consists of 10 new solar generating facilities with combined capacity of approximately 750 MW. The program allows participants to support cost-effective solar development in Florida by paying a subscription fee based on per kilowatt-subscriptions and receiving a credit on their bill based on the actual generation associated with their portion of the solar portfolio. The estimated cost of the 10 new solar generation facilities is approximately $1 billion over the next four years, and this investment will be included in base rates offset by the revenue from the subscription fees. The credits will be included for recovery in the fuel cost recovery clause. A remote hearing was held on November 17, 2020, and post-hearing briefs were filed with the FPSC from all parties by December 9, 2020. The FPSC voted to approve the program on January 5, 2021, and issued its written order on January 26, 2021.
| | | | | |
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS | REGULATORY MATTERS |
On February 24, 2021, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) filed a notice of appeal of the FPSC’s order approving the Clean Energy Connection to the Supreme Court of Florida. LULAC's initial brief was filed on May 26, 2021, and Appellees' response briefs were filed on July 26, 2021. LULAC's reply brief was filed on September 24, 2021, and its request for oral argument was filed on September 28, 2021. The FPSC approval order remains in effect pending the outcome of the appeal. Duke Energy Florida cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Duke Energy Ohio
Duke Energy Ohio Electric Base Rate Case
Duke Energy Ohio filed an application to implement a voluntary energy efficiency program portfolio to commence on January 1, 2021. The application proposes a mechanism for recovery of program costs, lost margins and a shared savings incentive mechanism similar to those previously approved by the PUCO. On June 17, 2020,with the PUCO an electric distribution base rate case application on its own motion, struckOctober 1, 2021, with supporting testimony filed on October 15, 2021, requesting an increase in electric distribution base rates of approximately $55 million and an ROE of 10.3%. This is an approximate 3.3% average increase across all customer classes. The drivers for this case are capital invested since Duke Energy Ohio’s proposal to include a shared savings mechanismOhio's last electric distribution base rate case in its plan finding such incentives are not permissible or supportable under Ohio law. On June 26, 2020,2017. Duke Energy Ohio withdrewis also seeking to adjust the caps on its application. On October 9, 2020,Distribution Capital Investment Rider (DCI Rider). Duke Energy Ohio filed an application to implement a voluntary efficiency program portfolio to commenceanticipates the PUCO will rule on January 1, 2021. The application proposes a mechanism for recoverythe request by the summer of program costs and a benefit associated with avoided transmission and distribution costs.2022. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Natural Gas Pipeline ExtensionOhio House Bill 6
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) and that construction of the pipeline extension is expected to be completed before the 2021/2022 winter season. An evidentiary hearing for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need concluded on April 11, 2019. Briefs were filed on May 13, 2019, and reply briefs were filed on June 10, 2019. On November 21, 2019, the Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) approved Duke Energy Ohio's application subject to 41 conditions on construction. Applications for rehearing were filed by several stakeholders on DecemberJuly 23, 2019, arguing that the OPSB approvalHouse Bill 6 was incorrect. On February 20, 2020, the OPSB denied the rehearing requests. On April 15, 2020, Joint Appellants filed a notice of appeal at the Supreme Court of Ohio of the OPSB’s decision approving Duke Energy Ohio’s Central Corridor application. On June 4, 2020, the OPSB filed a motion to dismiss claims raised by one of the Joint Appellantssigned into law and on August 5, 2020, the Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed one of the Joint Appellants from the appeal. Joint Appellants filed their merit briefs on August 26,became effective January 1, 2020. Appellee briefs were filed October 15, 2020. On September 22, 2020, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application with OPSB for approval to amend the certificated pipeline route. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
|
| |
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS | REGULATORY MATTERS |
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 2 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 has collected approximately $55 million in environmental remediation costs between 2009 through 2012 through Rider MGP, which is currently suspended. 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, amongAmong other things, the obligation Dukebill allows for funding, through a rider mechanism referred to as the Clean Air Fund (Rider CAF), of 2 nuclear generating facilities located in Northern Ohio owned by Energy Harbor (f/k/a FirstEnergy Solutions) and certain renewable resources, repeal of energy efficiency mandates and recovery of prudently incurred costs, net of any revenues, for Ohio hasinvestor-owned utilities that are participants under Ohio law to remediate all areas impactedthe OVEC power agreement. The OVEC recovery is through a non-bypassable rider that replaced any existing recovery mechanism approved by the former MGPsPUCO and not just physical property that housed the former plants and equipment. On March 29, 2019, Duke Energy Ohio filed its annual application to recover incremental remediation expense for the calendar year 2018 seeking recovery of approximately $20 millionwill remain in remediation costs. On July 12, 2019, the staff recommended a disallowance of approximately $11 million for work that staff believes occurred in areas not authorized for recovery. Additionally, staff recommended that any discussion pertaining to Duke Energy Ohio's recovery of ongoing MGP costs should be directly tied to or netted against insurance proceeds collected by Duke Energy Ohio. An evidentiary hearing concluded on November 21, 2019. Initial briefs were filed on January 17, 2020, and reply briefs were filed on February 14, 2020. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
On March 31, 2020, Duke Energy Ohio filed its annual application to recover incremental remediation expense for the calendar year 2019 seeking recovery of approximately $39 million in remediation costs incurred during 2019. On July 23, 2020, the staff recommended a disallowance of approximately $4 million for work the staff believes occurred in areas not authorized for recovery. Additionally, the staff recommended insurance proceeds, net of litigation costs and attorney fees, should be reimbursed to customers and not be held by Duke Energy Ohio until all investigation and remediation is complete. Duke Energy Ohio filed comments in response to the staff report on August 21, 2020. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
The 2012 PUCO order also contained conditional deadlines for completing the MGP environmental investigation and the deferral of remediation costs at the MGP sites. Subsequent to the order, the deadline was extended to December 31, 2019. On May 10, 2019, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application requesting a continuation of its existing deferral authority for MGP remediation and investigation that must occur after December 31, 2019. On September 13, 2019, intervenor comments were filed opposing Duke Energy Ohio's request for continuation of existing deferral authority and on October 2, 2019, Duke Energy Ohio filed reply comments. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Duke Energy Kentucky Electric Base Rate Case
On September 3, 2019, Duke Energy Kentucky filed a rate case with the KPSC requesting an increase in electric base rates of approximately $46 million. On January 31, 2020, Duke Energy Kentucky filed rebuttal testimony updating its rate increase calculations to approximately $44 million. Hearings concluded on February 20, 2020, and briefing was completed March 20, 2020. On April 27, 2020, the KPSC issued its decision approving a $24 million increase for Duke Energy Kentucky with a 9.25% return on equity. The KPSC denied Duke Energy Kentucky’s major storm deferral mechanism and EV and battery storage pilots. The KPSC approved Duke Energy Kentucky’s Green Source Advantage tariff. New customer rates were effective on May 1, 2020. On May 18, 2020, Duke Energy Kentucky filed its motion for rehearing and on June 4, 2020, the motion was granted in part and denied in part by the KPSC. On October 16, 2020, the KPSC issued an Order on Rehearing authorizing an additional $4 million increase in revenue requirement bringing the total authorized revenue requirement increase to $28 million. Revised customer rates will take effect in November 2020.
Duke Energy Indiana
COVID-19 Filing
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, on March 6, 2020, Governor Eric Holcomb declared a public health disaster emergency in the state of Indiana, which is currently extendedplace through December 1, 2020. Duke Energy Indiana had already voluntarily suspended all disconnections and waived late payment fees and check return fees. The utility also waived credit card fees for residential customers. The Executive Order requiring utilities in the state to suspend disconnection of utility service expired July 1, 2020.
On May 8, 2020, Duke Energy Indiana, along with other Indiana utilities, filed a request with the IURC for approval of deferral treatment for costs and revenue reductions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. The utilities requested initial deferral approval in July 2020, with individual subdockets for each utility to be established for consideration of utility-specific cost and revenue impacts, cost recovery timing and customer payment plans. On June 29, 2020, the IURC issued an order in Phase 1 wherein it extended the disconnection moratorium for jurisdictional utilities until August 14, 2020, along with requiring six-month payment arrangements, waiver of late fees, reconnection fees, convenience fees and deposits. The IURC permitted jurisdictional utilities to use regulatory accounting for any impacts associated with the prohibition on utility disconnections, waiver or exclusion of certain utility fees (i.e., late fees, convenience fees, deposits, and reconnection fees), the use of expanded payment arrangements to aid customers, and for COVID-19 related uncollectible and incremental bad debt expense. The IURC did not permit recovery of lost revenues due to load reduction or carrying costs. In Phase 2 filings, individual utilities may choose to request regulatory accounting for other COVID-19 related operation and maintenance costs wherein evidence of the impact of any costs or offsetting savings can be presented and considered in an evidentiary hearing. On August 12, 2020, the IURC issued a supplemental order extending the requirement for six-month payment arrangements and waiver of certain customer fees for another 60 days, but did not extend the disconnect moratorium.2030. As such, Duke Energy Indiana resumed service disconnectionsOhio created the Legacy Generation Rider (Rider LGR) that replaced Rider PSR effective January 1, 2020. The amounts recoverable from customers are subject to an annual cap, with incremental costs that exceed such cap eligible for nonpayment in mid-September 2020. Normal billing practices resumed in mid-October 2020, except thatdeferral and recovery subject to review. See Note 11 for additional discussion of Duke Energy Indiana has committed to provide extended payment arrangements and waive credit card and pay station fees for residential customers through the end of 2020. Customers were notified of the resumption of normal billing practices, the option of deferred payment arrangements and where to find assistance, if necessary. Duke Energy Indiana cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
|
| |
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS | REGULATORY MATTERS |
2019 Indiana Rate Case
On July 2, 2019, Duke Energy Indiana filed a general rate case with the IURC for a rate increase for retail customers of approximately $395 million. The rebuttal case, filedOhio's ownership interest in OVEC. House Bill 128 was signed into law on December 4, 2019, updated the requested revenue requirement to result in a 15.6% or $396 million average retail rate increase, including the impacts of the Utility Receipts Tax. Hearings concluded on February 7, 2020. On June 29, 2020, the IURC issued the order in the rate case approving a revenue increase of $146 million before certain adjustments and ratemaking refinements. The order provided for an overall cost of capital of 5.7% based on a 9.7% return on equity and a 53% equity component of the capital structure, and approved Duke Energy Indiana’s requested forecasted rate base of $10.2 billion as of DecemberMarch 31, 2020, including the Edwardsport IGCC Plant. The IURC reduced Duke Energy Indiana’s request by slightly more than $200 million, when accounting for the utility receipts tax and other adjustments. Approximately 50% of the reduction is due to a prospective change in depreciation and use of regulatory asset for the end-of-life inventory at retired generating plants, approximately 20% is due to the approved 9.7% return on equity versus requested 10.4% and approximately 20% is related to miscellaneous earnings neutral adjustments. Step one rates are estimated to be approximately 75% of the total2021, and became effective on JulyJune 30, 2020. Step two rates are estimated2021. The bill removes nuclear plant funding included in HB 6, eliminates Rider CAF and establishes the Solar Generation Fund Rider (Rider SGF) to berecover the remaining 25% of the total rate increase and will be effectiverenewable investments originally included in the first quarter of 2021. Several groups filed notices of appeal of the IURC order on July 29, 2020. Appellate briefs were filed on October 14, 2020, focusing on three issues: wholesale sales allocations, coal ash basinHB 6. HB 128 does not impact OVEC cost recovery and the Edwardsport IGCC operating and maintenance expense level approved. The case will be fully briefed by year-end, with a decision expected in the first quarter of 2021. Duke Energy Indiana cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
2020 Indiana Coal Ash Recovery Case
In Duke Energy Indiana’s rate case, the IURC approved coal ash basin closure costs expended through 2018 including financing costs as a regulatory asset and included in rate base. The IURC opened a subdocket to deal with the post-2018 coal ash related expenditures. Duke Energy Indiana filed testimony on April 15, 2020, in the coal ash subdocket requesting recovery for the post-2018 coal ash basin closure costs for plans that have been approved by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management as well as continuing deferral, with carrying costs, on the balance. An evidentiary hearing was held on September 14, 2020, and the parties have agreed on a delayed briefing schedule that allows for the Indiana Rate Case appeal to proceed. Briefing will be completed by mid-May 2021. Duke Energy Indiana cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Piedmont
COVID-19 Filings
North Carolina
On March 10, 2020, Governor Roy Cooper issued Executive Order No. 116 declaring a state of emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic. On March 19, 2020, the NCUC issued on order directing that utilities under its jurisdiction suspend disconnections for nonpayment of utility bills during the state of emergency (as defined by Executive Order No. 116) and allow for customers to enter into payment arrangements to pay off arrearages accumulated during the state of emergency after the end of the state of emergency. Additionally, to help mitigate the financial impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on their customers, on March 19, 2020, Piedmont filed a request with the NCUC seeking authorization to waive: (1)or any late payment charges incurred by a residentialtransmission or nonresidential customer, effective March 21, 2020; (2) the application of fees for checks returned for insufficient funds for residential and nonresidential customers; (3) the reconnection charge when a residential or nonresidential customer seeks to have service restored for those customers whose service was recently disconnected for nonpayment and to work with customers regarding the other requirements to restore service, including re-establishment of credit; and (4) the fees and charges associated with the use of credit cards or debit cards to pay residential electric utility bills, effective March 21, 2020. The NCUC granted Piedmont’s request on March 20, 2020.distribution rider.
On July 29, 2020, the NCUC issued its Order Lifting Disconnection Moratorium and Allowing Collection of Arrearages Pursuant to Special Repayment Plans. The order contained the following: (1) public utilities may resume customer disconnections due to nonpayment for bills first rendered on or after September 1, 2020, after appropriate notice; (2) the late fee moratorium will continue through the end of the state of emergency or until further order of the commission; (3) Duke Energy utilities may reinstate fees for checks returned for insufficient funds as well as transaction fees for use of credit cards or debit cards for bills first rendered on or after September 1, 2020; and (4) no sooner than September 1, 2020, the collection of past-due or delinquent accounts accrued up to and including August 31, 2020, may proceed subject to conditions.
Normal billing practices resumed as of October 1, 2020, with the exception of billing of late payment charges. Service disconnections for nonpayment resumed on November 4, 2020. Customers were notified of the resumption of normal billing practices, the option of payment arrangements and where to find assistance, if necessary. The NCUC's moratorium for the billing of late payment charges is still in effect until further order from the NCUC. Piedmont cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
South Carolina
On March 13, 2020, Governor Henry McMaster issued Executive Order No. 2020-08 declaring a state of emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The governor also issued a letter on March 14, 2020, to the ORS Executive Director regarding the suspension of disconnection of essential utility services for nonpayment. On March 18, 2020, the PSCSC issued an order approving such waivers,Duke Energy Carolinas and also approved waivers for regulations related to late fees and reconnect fees. The PSCSC's order also required utilities to track the financial impacts of actions taken pursuant to such waivers for possible reporting to the PSCSC.
|
| |
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS | REGULATORY MATTERS |
On May 13, 2020, the ORS filed a letter with the PSCSC that included a request from Governor McMaster that utilities proceed with developing and implementing plans for phasing in normal business operations. On May 14, 2020, the PSCSC conditionally vacated the regulation waivers regarding termination of service and suspension of disconnect fees. Prior to termination, utilities are to refer past-due customers to local organizations for assistance and/or deferred payment arrangements. PiedmontDuke Energy Progress filed a report on June 30, 2020, as required by PSCSC order, reporting revenue impact, costs and savings related to COVID-19 to date. Updates on cost impacts wereOn August 14, 2020, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed on Septembera joint petition with the PSCSC for approval of an accounting order to defer incremental COVID-19 related costs incurred through June 30, 2020, and for the ongoing months during the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress withdrew their joint petition on May 17, 2021.
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. 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 financial impacts throughan ROE of 9.9% and a capital structure of 52% equity and 48% debt. On June 22, 2018, the endNCUC issued an order approving the Stipulation of August 2020.Partial Settlement and requiring a revenue reduction.
The North Carolina Attorney General and other parties separately filed Notices of Appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court. The North Carolina Supreme Court consolidated the Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress appeals. On December 11, 2020, the North Carolina Supreme Court issued an opinion, which affirmed, in part, and reversed and remanded, in part, the NCUC’s decisions. In the Opinion, the court upheld the NCUC's decision to include coal ash costs in the cost of service, as well as the NCUC’s discretion to allow a return on the unamortized balance of coal ash costs. The court also remanded to the NCUC a single issue to consider the assessment of support for the Public Staff’s equitable sharing argument. On January 22, 2021, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress entered into the CCR Settlement Agreement with the Settling Parties, which was filed with the NCUC on January 25, 2021, and approved by the NCUC on March 31, 2021. The NCUC issued an Order on Remand Accepting CCR Settlement and Affirming Previous Orders Setting Rates and Imposing Penalties on June 25, 2021.
2019 North Carolina Rate Case
On September 30, 2020, Piedmont2019, Duke Energy Carolinas filed an update on their plannedapplication with the NCUC for a net rate increase for retail customers of approximately $291 million, which represented an approximate 6% increase in annual base revenues. The gross rate case revenue increase request was $445 million, which was offset by an EDIT rider of $154 million to return to normal operations duringcustomers North Carolina and federal EDIT resulting from recent reductions in corporate tax rates. The request for a rate increase was driven by major capital investments subsequent to the COVID-19 pandemic. Normal billing practices resumed asprevious base rate case, coal ash pond closure costs, accelerated coal plant depreciation and deferred 2018 storm costs. Duke Energy Carolinas requested rates be effective no later than August 1, 2020.
On March 25, 2020, Duke Energy Carolinas and the Public Staff filed an Agreement and Stipulation of October 1,Partial Settlement, subject to review and approval of the NCUC, resolving certain issues in the base rate proceeding. On July 24, 2020, Duke Energy Carolinas filed its request for approval of its notice to customers required to implement temporary rates. On July 27, 2020, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a joint motion with Duke Energy Progress and the Public Staff notifying the commission that the parties reached a joint partial settlement with the Public Staff. Also on July 27, 2020, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a letter stating that it intended to update its temporary rates calculation to reflect the terms of the partial settlement. On July 31, 2020, Duke Energy Carolinas and the Public Staff filed a Second Agreement and Stipulation of Partial Settlement (Second Partial Settlement), subject to review and approval of the NCUC, resolving certain remaining issues in the base rate proceeding. The remaining items litigated at hearing included recovery of deferred coal ash compliance costs that are subject to asset retirement obligation accounting, implementation of new depreciation rates and the amortization period of the loss on the hydro station sale.
On August 4, 2020, Duke Energy Carolinas filed an amended motion for approval of its amended notice to customers, seeking to exercise its statutory right to implement temporary rates subject to refund on or after August 24, 2020. The revenue requirement to be recovered, subject to refund, through the temporary rates was based on and consistent with the base rate component of the Second Partial Settlement and excluded the items to be litigated noted above. The NCUC approved the August 4, 2020 amended temporary rates motion on August 6, 2020, and service disconnections for nonpayment resumedtemporary rates went into effect on August 24, 2020.
The Duke Energy Carolinas evidentiary hearing concluded on September 18, 2020, and post-hearing filings were made with the NCUC from all parties by November 4, 2020. Customers were notified ofOn January 22, 2021, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress entered into the resumption of normal billing practices,CCR Settlement Agreement with the option of payment arrangements and where to find assistance, if necessary.
TennesseeSettling Parties, which was filed with the NCUC on January 25, 2021.
On March 12,31, 2021, the NCUC issued an order approving the March 25, 2020, Governor Bill Lee issued Executive Order No. 14 declaringand July 31, 2020, partial settlements. The order includes approval of 1) an ROE of 9.6% based upon a statecapital structure of emergency due to52% equity and 48% debt; 2) deferral treatment of approximately $800 million of grid improvement projects with a return; 3) a flow back period of five years for unprotected federal EDIT; and 4) the COVID-19 pandemic. In an effort to help mitigatereasonableness and prudence of $213 million of deferred storm costs, which were removed from the financial impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on their customers, on March 20, 2020, Piedmontrate case and for which Duke Energy Carolinas filed a request withpetition seeking securitization in October 2020. Additionally, the TPUC seeking authorization to waive, effective March 21, 2020: (1) any late payment charges incurred by a residential or nonresidential customer; (2)order approved without modification the application of fees for checks returned for insufficient funds for residential and nonresidential customers; and (3) the reconnection charge when a residential or nonresidential customer seeks to have service restored for those customers whose service was recently disconnected for nonpayment and to work with customers regarding the other requirements to restore service, including re-establishment of credit. The TPUC granted Piedmont’s request by Order issued March 31,2020. The Order also stated that customers were not relieved of their obligation to pay for utility services received.CCR Settlement Agreement.
| | | | | |
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS | REGULATORY MATTERS |
The TPUC held its regularly scheduled Commission Conference electronically on August 10, 2020,order denied Duke Energy Carolinas' proposal to shorten the remaining depreciable lives of certain Duke Energy Carolinas coal-fired generating units, indicating the NCUC has not had the chance to fully examine the issue within the context of an integrated resource planning (IRP) proceeding, and on September 16, 2020,upon retirement the remaining net book value of these units should be placed in a regulatory asset account to be amortized over an appropriate period to be determined in a future rate case.
On May 21, 2021, the NCUC issued an Order Lifting SuspensionApproving Rate Schedules, which resulted in a net increase of Disconnectionsapproximately $33 million. Revised customer rates became effective on June 1, 2021. The deadline to appeal has passed and no parties appealed the NCUC's order.
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 Service for Lackapproximately $168 million.
After hearings in March 2019, the PSCSC issued an order on May 21, 2019, which included an ROE of Payment9.5% and a capital structure of 53% equity and 47% debt. The order also included the following material components:
•Approval of cancellation of the Lee Nuclear Project, with Conditions, effective August 29, 2020. The conditions relateDuke Energy Carolinas maintaining the Combined Operating License;
•Approval of recovery of $125 million (South Carolina retail portion) of Lee Nuclear Project development costs (including AFUDC through December 2017) over a 12-year period, but denial of a return on the deferred balance of costs;
•Approval of recovery of $96 million of coal ash costs over a five-year period with a return at Duke Energy Carolinas' WACC;
•Denial of recovery of $115 million of certain coal ash costs deemed to required customer communications, payment plan options for past-due amounts and ongoing reportingbe related to the TPUC. PotentialCoal Ash Act and incremental to the federal CCR rule;
•Approval of a $66 million decrease to base rates to reflect the change in ongoing tax expense, primarily the reduction in the federal income tax rate from 35% to 21%;
•Approval of a $45 million decrease through the EDIT Rider to return EDIT resulting from the federal tax rate change and deferred revenues since January 2018 related to the change, to be returned in accordance with the Average Rate Assumption Method (ARAM) for protected EDIT, over a 20-year period for unprotected EDIT associated with Property, Plant and Equipment, over a five-year period for unprotected EDIT not associated with Property, Plant and Equipment and over a five-year period for the deferred revenues; and
•Approval of a $17 million decrease through the EDIT Rider related to reductions in the North Carolina state income tax rate from 6.9% to 2.5% to be returned over a five-year period.
As a result of the order, revised customer rates were effective June 1, 2019. On May 31, 2019, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a Petition for Rehearing or Reconsideration of that order contending substantial rights of Duke Energy Carolinas were prejudiced by unlawful, arbitrary and capricious rulings by the PSCSC on certain issues presented in the proceeding. On June 19, 2019, the PSCSC issued a Directive denying Duke Energy Carolinas' request to rehear or reconsider the commission's rulings on certain issues presented in the proceeding including coal ash remediation and disposal costs, ROE and the recovery of a return on deferred operation and maintenance expenses. An order detailing the commission's decision in the Directive was issued on October 18, 2019. Duke Energy Carolinas filed a notice of appeal on November 15, 2019, with the Supreme Court of South Carolina. On November 20, 2019, the South Carolina Energy Users Committee filed a Notice of Appeal with the Supreme Court of South Carolina. Initial briefs were filed on April 21, 2020, which included the South Carolina Energy User's Committee brief arguing that the PSCSC erred in allowing Duke Energy Carolinas' recovery of costs related to the COVID-19 pandemic may be considered in future, individual docketed proceedings.Lee Nuclear Station. Response briefs were filed on July 6, 2020, and reply briefs were filed on August 11, 2020. Oral arguments were heard before the Supreme Court of South Carolina on May 26, 2021.
On October 27, 2021, the Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed the PSCSC's May 2019 order to:
•Disallow cost recovery on certain CCR compliance costs the PSCSC deemed to be incremental to the federal CCR rules;
•Disallow recovery of certain coal ash litigation expenses;
•Disallow a return on certain deferred expenses; and
•Allow recovery of Lee Nuclear Project preconstruction costs.
The Supreme Court's decision notes the prior determination made by the PSCSC that Duke Energy could submit coal ash costs for recovery that were not initially approved in the rate case order if such costs can be attributed to the CCR rules. As a result of the Court's opinion, Duke Energy Carolinas recognized a pretax charge of approximately $160 million to Impairment of assets and other charges, and a $31 million increase in Other income and expenses, net, in the Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2021, principally related to coal ash remediation at retired coal ash basin sites. Duke Energy Carolinas is evaluating whether to file a Petition for rehearing on the Supreme Court's decision. Petitions are due November 11, 2021, unless an extension is sought and granted.
| | | | | |
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS | REGULATORY MATTERS |
Oconee Nuclear Station Subsequent License Renewal
On June 7, 2021, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a subsequent license renewal application for the Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS) with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to renew ONS’s operating license for an additional 20 years. The subsequent license renewal would extend operations of the facility from 60 to 80 years. The current license for units 1 and 2 expire in 2033 and the license for unit 3 expires in 2034. By a Federal Register Notice dated July 28, 2021, the NRC provided a 60-day comment period for persons whose interest may be affected by the issuance of a subsequent renewed license for ONS to file a request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. On September 27, 2021, Beyond Nuclear and Sierra Club (Petitioners) filed a Hearing Request and Petition to Intervene (Hearing Request) and a Petition for Waiver. The Hearing Request proposes 3 contentions purporting to challenge Duke Energy Carolinas’ environmental report (ER). In general, the proposed contentions claim that the ER does not consider certain information regarding the environmental aspects of Severe Accidents caused by a hypothetical failure of the Jocassee Dam, and therefore does not satisfy the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), or the NRC’s NEPA-implementing regulations. Duke Energy Carolinas filed its answer to the proposed contentions on October 22, 2021, and the Petitioners have until November 5, 2021, to respond to Duke Energy Carolina’s answer.
Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress intend to seek renewal of operating licenses and 20-year license extensions for all of their nuclear stations. New depreciation rates were implemented for all of the nuclear facilities during the second quarter of 2021. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress 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 was subsequently adjusted to $420 million. 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 an ROE of 9.9% and a capital structure of 52% equity and 48% debt. On February 23, 2018, the NCUC issued an order approving the stipulation. The Public Staff, the North Carolina Attorney General and the Sierra Club filed notices of appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court.
The North Carolina Supreme Court consolidated the Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress appeals. On December 11, 2020, the North Carolina Supreme Court issued an opinion, which affirmed, in part, and reversed and remanded, in part, the NCUC’s decisions. In the Opinion, the court upheld the NCUC's decision to include coal ash costs in the cost of service, as well as the NCUC’s discretion to allow a return on the unamortized balance of coal ash costs. The court also remanded to the NCUC a single issue to consider the assessment of support for the Public Staff’s equitable sharing argument. On January 22, 2021, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Carolinas entered into the CCR Settlement Agreement with the Settling Parties, which was filed with the NCUC on January 25, 2021, and approved by the NCUC on April 16, 2021. The NCUC issued an Order on Remand Accepting CCR Settlement and Affirming Previous Orders Setting Rates and Imposing Penalties on June 25, 2021.
2019 North Carolina Rate Case
On October 30, 2019, Duke Energy Progress filed an application with the NCUC for a net rate increase for retail customers of approximately $464 million, which represented an approximate 12.3% increase in annual base revenues. The gross rate case revenue increase request was $586 million, which was offset by riders of $122 million, primarily an EDIT rider of $120 million to return to customers North Carolina and federal EDIT resulting from recent reductions in corporate tax rates. The request for a rate increase was driven by major capital investments subsequent to the previous base rate case, coal ash pond closure costs, accelerated coal plant depreciation and deferred 2018 storm costs. Duke Energy Progress sought to defer and recover incremental Hurricane Dorian storm costs in this proceeding and requested rates be effective no later than September 1, 2020. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, on March 24, 2020, the NCUC suspended the procedural schedule and postponed the previously scheduled evidentiary hearing on this matter indefinitely.
On June 2, 2020, Duke Energy Progress and the Public Staff filed an Agreement and Stipulation of Partial Settlement, subject to review and approval of the NCUC, resolving certain issues in the base rate proceeding. On July 27, 2020, Duke Energy Progress filed a joint motion with Duke Energy Carolinas and the Public Staff notifying the commission that the parties reached a joint partial settlement with the Public Staff. On July 31, 2020, Duke Energy Progress and the Public Staff filed a Second Agreement and Stipulation of Partial Settlement, subject to review and approval of the NCUC, resolving certain remaining issues in the base rate proceeding. The remaining items litigated at hearing included recovery of deferred coal ash compliance costs that are subject to asset retirement obligation accounting and implementation of new depreciation rates.
On August 7, 2020, Duke Energy Progress filed a motion for approval of notice required to implement temporary rates, seeking to exercise its statutory right to implement temporary rates subject to refund on or after September 1, 2020. The revenue requirement to be recovered subject to refund through the temporary rates was based on and consistent with the terms of the base rate component of the settlement agreements with the Public Staff and excluded items to be litigated noted above. In addition, Duke Energy Progress also sought authorization to place a temporary decrement EDIT Rider into effect, concurrent with the temporary base rate change. The NCUC approved the August 7, 2020 temporary rates motion on August 11, 2020, and temporary rates went into effect on September 1, 2020.
The Duke Energy Progress evidentiary hearing concluded on October 6, 2020, and post-hearing filings were filed with the NCUC from all parties by December 4, 2020. On January 22, 2021, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Carolinas entered into the CCR Settlement Agreement with the Settling Parties, which was filed with the NCUC on January 25, 2021.
On April 16, 2021, the NCUC issued an order approving the June 2, 2020, and July 31, 2020, partial settlements. The order includes approval of 1) an ROE of 9.6% based upon a capital structure of 52% equity and 48% debt; 2) deferral treatment of approximately $400 million of grid improvement projects with a return; 3) a flow back period of five years for unprotected federal EDIT; and 4) the reasonableness and prudence of approximately $714 million of deferred storm costs, which were removed from the rate case and for which Duke Energy Progress filed a petition seeking securitization in October 2020. Additionally, the order approved without modification the CCR Settlement Agreement.
| | | | | |
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS | REGULATORY MATTERS |
The order denied Duke Energy Progress' proposal to shorten the remaining depreciable lives of certain Duke Energy Progress coal-fired generating units, indicating the NCUC has not had the chance to fully examine the issue within the context of an IRP proceeding, and upon retirement the remaining net book value of these units should be placed in a regulatory asset account to be amortized over an appropriate period to be determined in a future rate case.
On May 21, 2021, the NCUC issued an Order Approving Rate Schedules, which resulted in a net increase of approximately $178 million. Revised customer rates became effective on June 1, 2021. The deadline to appeal has passed and no parties appealed the NCUC's order.
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.
After hearings in April 2019, the PSCSC issued an order on May 21, 2019, which included an ROE of 9.5% and a capital structure of 53% equity and 47% debt. The order also included the following material components:
•Approval of recovery of $4 million of coal ash costs over a five-year period with a return at Duke Energy Progress' WACC;
•Denial of recovery of $65 million of certain coal ash costs deemed to be related to the Coal Ash Act and incremental to the federal CCR rule;
•Approval of a $17 million decrease to base rates to reflect the change in ongoing tax expense, primarily the reduction in the federal income tax rate from 35% to 21%;
•Approval of a $12 million decrease through the EDIT Tax Savings Rider resulting from the federal tax rate change and deferred revenues since January 2018 related to the change, to be returned in accordance with ARAM for protected EDIT, over a 20-year period for unprotected EDIT associated with Property, Plant and Equipment, over a five-year period for unprotected EDIT not associated with Property, Plant and Equipment and over a three-year period for the deferred revenues; and
•Approval of a $12 million increase due to the expiration of EDIT related to reductions in the North Carolina state income tax rate from 6.9% to 2.5%.
As a result of the order, revised customer rates were effective June 1, 2019. On May 31, 2019, Duke Energy Progress filed a Petition for Rehearing or Reconsideration of that order contending substantial rights of Duke Energy Progress were prejudiced by unlawful, arbitrary and capricious rulings by the PSCSC on certain issues presented in the proceeding. On June 19, 2019, the PSCSC issued a Directive denying Duke Energy Progress' request to rehear or reconsider the commission's rulings on certain issues presented in the proceeding including coal ash remediation and disposal costs, ROE and the recovery of a return on deferred operation and maintenance expenses, but allowing additional litigation-related costs. As a result of the Directive allowing litigation-related costs, customer rates were revised effective July 1, 2019. An order detailing the commission's decision in the Directive was issued on October 18, 2019. Duke Energy Progress filed a notice of appeal on November 15, 2019, with the Supreme Court of South Carolina. Initial briefs were filed on April 21, 2020. Response briefs were filed on July 6, 2020, and reply briefs were filed on August 11, 2020. Oral arguments were heard before the Supreme Court of South Carolina on May 26, 2021.
On October 27, 2021, the Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed the PSCSC's May 2019 order to:
•Disallow cost recovery on certain CCR compliance costs the PSCSC deemed to be incremental to the federal CCR rules;
•Disallow recovery of certain coal ash litigation expenses; and
•Disallow a return on certain deferred expenses.
The Supreme Court's decision notes the prior determination made by the PSCSC that Duke Energy could submit coal ash costs for recovery that were not initially approved in the rate case order if such costs can be attributed to the CCR rules. As a result of the Court's opinion, Duke Energy Progress recognized a pretax charge of approximately $42 million to Impairment of assets and other charges, and a $6 million increase in Other income and expenses, net, in the Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2021, principally related to coal ash remediation at retired coal ash basin sites. Duke Energy Progress is evaluating whether to file a Petition for rehearing on the Supreme Court's decision. Petitions are due November 11, 2021, unless an extension is sought and granted.
Western Carolinas Modernization Plan
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, which was approved with certain conditions on May 10, 2019. A hearing to update the NCUC on the status of the project was held on March 5, 2020. Construction began in May 2020 with commercial operation expected to begin in December 2021.
On July 27, 2020, Duke Energy Progress filed an application with the NCUC for a CPCN to construct the Woodfin Solar Facility, a 5-MW solar generating facility to be constructed on a closed landfill in Buncombe County. The expert hearing was held on November 18, 2020. The application was approved and a CPCN was granted by order of the NCUC on April 20, 2021. Construction began in April 2021 with an expected in-service date in March 2022.
| | | | | |
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS | REGULATORY MATTERS |
FERC Return on Equity Complaints
On October 11, 2019, North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency (NCEMPA) filed a complaint at the FERC against Duke Energy Progress pursuant to Section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), alleging that the 11% stated ROE component contained in the demand formula rate in the Full Requirements Power Purchase Agreement (FRPPA) between NCEMPA and Duke Energy Progress is unjust and unreasonable. On July 16, 2020, the FERC set this matter for hearing and settlement judge procedures and established a refund effective date of October 11, 2019. In its order setting the matter for settlement, the FERC allowed for the consideration of variations to the base transmission-related ROE methodology developed in its Order No. 569-A, through the introduction of “specific facts and circumstances” involving issues specific to the case. The parties reached a settlement in principle at a settlement conference on January 7, 2021, and filed a settlement package on March 10, 2021. The FERC Trial Staff filed comments in support of the settlement. On April 19, 2021, the Settlement Judge certified the settlement to the FERC as an uncontested settlement. The FERC approved the settlement on May 25, 2021, and Duke Energy Progress filed compliance documents on June 10, 2021. The FERC accepted the compliance filing on October 8, 2021.
On October 16, 2020, North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation (NCEMC) filed a complaint at the FERC against Duke Energy Progress pursuant to Section 206 of the FPA, alleging that the 11% stated ROE component in the demand formula rate in the Power Supply and Coordination Agreement between NCEMC and Duke Energy Progress is unjust and unreasonable. Under FPA Section 206, the earliest refund effective date that the FERC can establish is the date of the filing of the complaint. Duke Energy Progress responded to the complaint on November 20, 2020, seeking dismissal, demonstrating that the 11% ROE is just and reasonable for the service provided. The parties filed responsive pleadings and are awaiting an order from the FERC. Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Duke Energy Florida
2021 Settlement Agreement
On January 14, 2021, Duke Energy Florida filed a Settlement Agreement (the “2021 Settlement”) with the FPSC. The parties to the 2021 Settlement include Duke Energy Florida, the Office of Public Counsel (OPC), the Florida Industrial Power Users Group, White Springs Agricultural Chemicals, Inc. d/b/a PCS Phosphate and NUCOR Steel Florida, Inc. (collectively, the “Parties”).
Pursuant to the 2021 Settlement, the Parties agreed to a base rate stay-out provision that expires year-end 2024; however, Duke Energy Florida is allowed an increase to its base rates of an incremental $67 million in 2022, $49 million in 2023 and $79 million in 2024, subject to adjustment in the event of tax reform during the years 2021, 2022 and 2023. The Parties also agreed to an ROE band of 8.85% to 10.85% with a midpoint of 9.85% based on a capital structure of 53% equity and 47% debt. The ROE band can be increased by 25 basis points if the average 30-year U.S. Treasury rate increases 50 basis points or more over a six-month period in which case the midpoint ROE would rise from 9.85% to 10.10%. Duke Energy Florida will also be able to retain the DOE award of approximately $173 million for spent nuclear fuel, which is expected to be received in 2022, in order to mitigate customer rates over the term of the 2021 Settlement. In return, Duke Energy Florida will be able to recognize the $173 million into earnings from 2022 through 2024.
In addition to these terms, the 2021 Settlement contains provisions related to the accelerated depreciation of Crystal River Units 4-5, the approval of approximately $1 billion in future investments in new cost-effective solar power, the implementation of a new Electric Vehicle Charging Station Program and the deferral and recovery of costs in connection with the implementation of Duke Energy Florida’s Vision Florida program, which explores various emerging non-carbon emitting generation technology, distributed technologies and resiliency projects, among other things. The 2021 Settlement also resolves remaining unrecovered storm costs for Hurricane Dorian and Hurricane Michael.
The FPSC approved the 2021 Settlement on May 4, 2021, issuing an order on June 4, 2021. Revised customer rates will be effective January 1, 2022, with subsequent base rate increases effective January 1, 2023, and January 1, 2024.
Storm Restoration Cost Recovery
Duke Energy Florida filed a petition with the FPSC on April 30, 2019, to recover $223 million of estimated retail incremental storm restoration costs for Hurricane Michael, consistent with the provisions in the 2017 Settlement, and the FPSC approved the petition on June 11, 2019. The FPSC also approved allowing Duke Energy Florida to use the tax savings resulting from the Tax Act to recover these storm costs in lieu of implementing a storm surcharge. Approved storm costs are currently expected to be fully recovered by year-end 2021. On November 22, 2019, Duke Energy Florida filed a petition for approval of actual retail recoverable storm restoration costs related to Hurricane Michael in the amount of $191 million plus interest. On May 19, 2020, Duke Energy Florida filed a supplemental true up reducing the actual retail recoverable storm restoration costs related to Hurricane Michael by approximately $3 million, resulting in a total request to recover $188 million actual retail recoverable storm restoration costs, plus interest. Approximately $80 million of these costs are included in Regulatory assets within Current Assets and Other Noncurrent Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2020.
Duke Energy Florida filed a petition with the FPSC on December 19, 2019, to recover $169 million of estimated retail incremental storm restoration costs for Hurricane Dorian, consistent with the provisions in the 2017 Settlement and the FPSC approved the petition on February 24, 2020. The final actual amount of $145 million was filed on September 30, 2020. The 2021 Settlement resolved all matters regarding storm cost recovery relating to Hurricane Michael and Hurricane Dorian.
Clean Energy Connection
On July 1, 2020, Duke Energy Florida petitioned the FPSC for approval of a voluntary solar program. The program consists of 10 new solar generating facilities with combined capacity of approximately 750 MW. The program allows participants to support cost-effective solar development in Florida by paying a subscription fee based on per kilowatt-subscriptions and receiving a credit on their bill based on the actual generation associated with their portion of the solar portfolio. The estimated cost of the 10 new solar generation facilities is approximately $1 billion over the next four years, and this investment will be included in base rates offset by the revenue from the subscription fees. The credits will be included for recovery in the fuel cost recovery clause. A remote hearing was held on November 17, 2020, and post-hearing briefs were filed with the FPSC from all parties by December 9, 2020. The FPSC voted to approve the program on January 5, 2021, and issued its written order on January 26, 2021.
| | | | | |
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS | REGULATORY MATTERS |
On February 24, 2021, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) filed a notice of appeal of the FPSC’s order approving the Clean Energy Connection to the Supreme Court of Florida. LULAC's initial brief was filed on May 26, 2021, and Appellees' response briefs were filed on July 26, 2021. LULAC's reply brief was filed on September 24, 2021, and its request for oral argument was filed on September 28, 2021. The FPSC approval order remains in effect pending the outcome of the appeal. Duke Energy Florida cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Duke Energy Ohio
Duke Energy Ohio Electric Base Rate Case
Duke Energy Ohio filed with the PUCO an electric distribution base rate case application on October 1, 2021, with supporting testimony filed on October 15, 2021, requesting an increase in electric distribution base rates of approximately $55 million and an ROE of 10.3%. This is an approximate 3.3% average increase across all customer classes. The drivers for this case are capital invested since Duke Energy Ohio's last electric distribution base rate case in 2017. Duke Energy Ohio is also seeking to adjust the caps on its Distribution Capital Investment Rider (DCI Rider). Duke Energy Ohio anticipates the PUCO will rule on the request by the summer of 2022. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Ohio House Bill 6
On July 23, 2019, House Bill 6 was signed into law and became effective January 1, 2020. Among other things, the bill allows for funding, through a rider mechanism referred to as the Clean Air Fund (Rider CAF), of 2 nuclear generating facilities located in Northern Ohio owned by Energy Harbor (f/k/a FirstEnergy Solutions) and certain renewable resources, repeal of energy efficiency mandates and recovery of prudently incurred costs, net of any revenues, for Ohio investor-owned utilities that are participants under the OVEC power agreement. The OVEC recovery is through a non-bypassable rider that replaced any existing recovery mechanism approved by the PUCO and will remain in place through 2030. As such, Duke Energy Ohio created the Legacy Generation Rider (Rider LGR) that replaced Rider PSR effective January 1, 2020. The amounts recoverable from customers are subject to an annual cap, with incremental costs that exceed such cap eligible for deferral and recovery subject to review. See Note 11 for additional discussion of Duke Energy Ohio's ownership interest in OVEC. House Bill 128 was signed into law on March 31, 2021, and became effective June 30, 2021. The bill removes nuclear plant funding included in HB 6, eliminates Rider CAF and establishes the Solar Generation Fund Rider (Rider SGF) to recover the renewable investments originally included in HB 6. HB 128 does not impact OVEC cost recovery or any transmission or distribution rider.
Energy Efficiency Cost Recovery
On February 26, 2020, the PUCO issued an order directing utilities to wind down their demand-side management programs by September 30, 2020, and to terminate the programs by December 31, 2020, in response to changes in Ohio law that eliminated Ohio's energy efficiency mandates. On March 27, 2020, Duke Energy Ohio filed an Application for Rehearing seeking clarification on the final true up and reconciliation process after 2020. On November 18, 2020, the PUCO issued 2 orders on the application for rehearing. The first order was a Third Entry on Rehearing on the Duke Energy Ohio portfolio holding the cost cap previously imposed was unlawful, a shared savings cap of $8 million pretax should be imposed and lost distribution revenues could not be recovered after December 31, 2020. The second order directs all utilities set the rider to zero effective January 1, 2021, and to file a separate application for final reconciliation of all energy efficiency costs prior to December 31, 2020. On December 18, 2020, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application for rehearing. On January 13, 2021, the application for rehearing was granted for further consideration. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
On October 9, 2020, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application to implement a voluntary energy efficiency program portfolio to commence on January 1, 2021. The application proposes a mechanism for recovery of program costs and a benefit associated with avoided transmission and distribution costs. The application remains under review. Effective January 1, 2021, Duke Energy Ohio suspended its energy efficiency programs due to changes in Ohio law. On June 14, 2021, the PUCO issued an entry for each utility to file by July 15, 2021, a proposal to reestablish low-income programs through December 31, 2021. Duke Energy Ohio filed its application on July 14, 2021. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Natural Gas Pipeline Extension
Duke Energy Ohio is installing 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 $185 million to $205 million in direct costs (excluding overheads and AFUDC) and that construction of the pipeline extension will be completed in time for use during the 2021/2022 winter season. An evidentiary hearing on Duke Energy Ohio's application for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need concluded on April 11, 2019. On November 21, 2019, the Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) approved Duke Energy Ohio's application subject to 41 conditions on construction. Applications for rehearing were filed by several stakeholders on December 23, 2019, arguing that the OPSB approval was incorrect. On February 20, 2020, the OPSB denied the rehearing requests. On April 15, 2020, Piedmontthose stakeholders filed a notice of appeal at the Supreme Court of Ohio of the OPSB’s decision approving Duke Energy Ohio’s Central Corridor project application. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the OPSB order on September 22, 2021.
On September 22, 2020, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application with the OPSB for approval to amend the certificated pipeline route due to changes in the route negotiated with property owners and municipalities. On January 21, 2021, the OPSB approved the amended filing with recommended conditions that reaffirm previous conditions and provide guidance regarding local permitting and construction supervision.
| | | | | |
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS | REGULATORY MATTERS |
MGP Cost Recovery
In an order issued in 2013, the PUCO approved Duke Energy Ohio's deferral and recovery of costs related to environmental remediation at 2 sites (East End and West End) that housed former MGP operations. Duke Energy Ohio has collected approximately $55 million in environmental remediation costs incurred between 2008 through 2012 through Rider MGP, which is currently suspended. 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 base rate case. To date, the PUCO has not ruled on Duke Energy Ohio’s annual applications for the calendar years 2013 through 2019. On September 28, 2018, the Staff of the PUCO (Staff) 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 2013 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. On March 29, 2019, Duke Energy Ohio filed its annual application to recover incremental remediation expense for the calendar year 2018 seeking recovery of approximately $20 million in remediation costs. On July 12, 2019, the Staff recommended a disallowance of approximately $11 million for work that the Staff believes occurred in areas not authorized for recovery. Additionally, the Staff recommended that any discussion pertaining to Duke Energy Ohio's recovery of ongoing MGP costs should be directly tied to or netted against insurance proceeds collected by Duke Energy Ohio. An evidentiary hearing concluded on November 21, 2019. Initial briefs were filed on January 17, 2020, and reply briefs were filed on February 14, 2020.
On March 31, 2020, Duke Energy Ohio filed its annual application to recover incremental MGP remediation expense, seeking recovery of approximately $39 million in remediation costs incurred during 2019. On July 23, 2020, the Staff recommended a disallowance of approximately $4 million for work the Staff believes occurred in areas not authorized for recovery. Additionally, the Staff recommended insurance proceeds, net of litigation costs and attorney fees, should be paid to customers and not be held by Duke Energy Ohio until all investigation and remediation is complete. Duke Energy Ohio filed comments in response to the Staff report on their planned returnAugust 21, 2020, and intervenor comments were filed on November 9, 2020.
The 2013 PUCO order also contained conditional deadlines for completing the MGP environmental remediation and the deferral of related remediation costs. Subsequent to normal operationsthe order, the deadline was extended to December 31, 2019. On May 10, 2019, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application requesting a continuation of its existing deferral authority for MGP remediation that must occur after December 31, 2019. On July 12, 2019, the Staff recommended the commission deny the deferral authority request. On September 13, 2019, intervenor comments were filed opposing Duke Energy Ohio's request for continuation of existing deferral authority and on October 2, 2019, Duke Energy Ohio filed reply comments.
A Stipulation and Recommendation was filed jointly by Duke Energy Ohio, the Staff, the Office of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel and the Ohio Energy Group on August 31, 2021, which is subject to review and approval by the PUCO. If approved, the Stipulation and Recommendation would, among other things, resolve all open issues regarding MGP remediation costs incurred between 2013 and 2019, including Duke Energy Ohio’s request for additional deferral authority beyond 2019, and the pending issues related to the Tax Act as it relates to Duke Energy Ohio’s natural gas operations. These impacts are not expected to have a material impact on the Duke Energy Ohio financial statements. The Stipulation and Recommendation further acknowledges Duke Energy Ohio’s ability to file a request for additional deferral authority in the future related to environmental remediation of any MGP impacts in the Ohio River if necessary, subject to specific conditions. On October 15, 2021, the PUCO granted motions to intervene filed in September 2021 by Interstate Gas Supply, Inc. and Retail Energy Supply Association on a limited basis. An evidentiary hearing is scheduled for November 22, 2021. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Tax Act – Ohio
On December 21, 2018, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application to change its base rate tariffs 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 tariff changes and rider effective April 1, 2019. The new rider will flow through to customers the benefit of the reduction in the statutory federal tax rate from 35% to 21% 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 established a procedural schedule and testimony was filed on July 31, 2019. An evidentiary hearing occurred on August 7, 2019. Initial briefs were filed on September 11, 2019. Reply briefs were filed on September 25, 2019. The Stipulation and Recommendation filed on August 31, 2021, disclosed in the MGP Cost Recovery matter above, also resolves the outstanding issues in this proceeding. On October 15, 2021, the PUCO granted motions to intervene filed in September 2021 by Interstate Gas Supply, Inc. and Retail Energy Supply Association on a limited basis. An evidentiary hearing is scheduled for November 22, 2021. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Duke Energy Kentucky Natural Gas Base Rate Case
On June 1, 2021, Duke Energy Kentucky filed an application with the KPSC requesting an increase in natural gas base rates of approximately $15 million, an approximate 13% average increase across all customer classes. The drivers for this case are capital invested since Duke Energy Kentucky's last natural gas base rate case in 2018. Duke Energy Kentucky is also seeking implementation of a Governmental Mandate Adjustment mechanism (Rider GMA) in order to recover from or pay to customers the financial impact of governmental directives and mandates, including changes in federal or state tax rates and regulations issued by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). On October 8, 2021, Duke Energy Kentucky filed a Stipulation and Recommendation jointly with the Kentucky Attorney General, subject to review and approval by the KPSC, which if approved, would resolve the case. The Stipulation and Recommendation includes a $9 million increase in base revenues, an ROE of 9.375% for natural gas base rates and 9.3% for natural gas riders, a rider for PHMSA-required capital investments with an annual 5% rate increase cap and a four-year natural gas base rate case stay-out. The hearing was held on October 18, 2021. Duke Energy Kentucky anticipates the KPSC will rule on the request by the end of 2021. Duke Energy Kentucky cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
| | | | | |
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS | REGULATORY MATTERS |
Midwest Propane Caverns
Duke Energy Ohio uses propane stored in caverns to meet peak demand during winter. Once the COVID-19 pandemic. Normal billing practices resumedCentral Corridor Project is complete, the propane peaking facilities will no longer be necessary and will be retired. On October 7, 2021, Duke Energy Ohio requested deferral treatment of the property, plant and equipment as well as costs related to propane inventory and decommissioning costs. There is approximately $27 million in Property, Plant and Equipment on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of October 1,September 30, 2021, and December 31, 2020, and service disconnectionsrelated to the propane caverns. Duke Energy Ohio cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Duke Energy Indiana
2019 Indiana Rate Case
On July 2, 2019, Duke Energy Indiana filed a general rate case with the IURC for nonpayment resumeda rate increase for retail customers of approximately $395 million. The rebuttal case, filed on NovemberDecember 4, 2020. Customers were notified2019, updated the requested revenue requirement to result in a 15.6% or $396 million average retail rate increase, including the impacts of the resumptionUtility Receipts Tax. Hearings concluded on February 7, 2020. On June 29, 2020, the IURC issued an order in the rate case approving a revenue increase of normal billing practices,$146 million before certain adjustments and ratemaking refinements. The order approved Duke Energy Indiana’s requested forecasted rate base of $10.2 billion as of December 31, 2020, including the optionEdwardsport Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) Plant. The IURC reduced Duke Energy Indiana’s request by slightly more than $200 million, when accounting for the utility receipts tax and other adjustments. Approximately 50% of payment arrangementsthe reduction was due to a prospective change in depreciation and whereuse of regulatory asset for the end-of-life inventory at retired generating plants, approximately 20% was due to find assistance, if necessary.the approved ROE of 9.7% versus the requested ROE of 10.4% and approximately 20% was related to miscellaneous earnings neutral adjustments. Step one rates were estimated to be approximately 75% of the total and became effective on July 30, 2020. Step two rates are estimated to be the remaining 25% of the total rate increase. Step two rates were approved July 28, 2021, and implemented in August 2021. Step two rates are based on a return on equity of 9.7% and actual December 31, 2020 capital structure with a 54% equity component. Step two rates will be reconciled to January 1, 2021. Several groups appealed the IURC order to the Indiana Court of Appeals. Appellate briefs were filed on October 14, 2020, focusing on three issues: wholesale sales allocations, coal ash basin cost recovery and the Edwardsport IGCC operating and maintenance expense level approved. The appeal was fully briefed in January 2021 and an oral argument was held on April 8, 2021. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the IURC decision on May 13, 2021. The Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor (OUCC) and the Duke Industrial Group filed a joint petition to transfer the rate case appeal to the Indiana Supreme Court on June 28, 2021. Response briefs were filed July 19, 2021. The Indiana Supreme Court granted the petition to transfer on September 16, 2021, and scheduled oral argument for November 16, 2021. Duke Energy Indiana cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
2020 Indiana Coal Ash Recovery Case
In Duke Energy Indiana’s 2019 rate case, the IURC approved coal ash basin closure costs expended through 2018 including financing costs as a regulatory asset and included in rate base. The IURC also opened a subdocket for post-2018 coal ash related expenditures. Duke Energy Indiana filed testimony on April 15, 2020, in the coal ash subdocket requesting recovery for the post-2018 coal ash basin closure costs for plans that have been approved by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) as well as continuing deferral, with carrying costs, on the balance. An evidentiary hearing was held on September 14, 2020. Briefing was completed by mid-September 2021. On November 3, 2021, the IURC issued an order allowing recovery for post-2018 coal ash basin closure costs for the plans that have been approved by IDEM, as well as continuing deferral, with carrying costs, on the balance. The IURC order is subject to appeal within 30 days to the IURC or the Indiana Court of Appeals. Duke Energy Indiana cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Piedmont
2020 Tennessee Rate Case
On July 2, 2020, Piedmont filed an application with the TPUC, its first general rate case in Tennessee in nine years, for a rate increase for retail customers of approximately $30 million, which represents an approximate 15% increase in annual revenues. The rate increase is driven by significant infrastructure upgrade investments since itsPiedmont's previous rate case. Approximately half of the plant additions being added to rate base are categories of capital investment not covered under the IMR mechanism, which was approved in 2013. Piedmont amended its requested increase to approximately $26 million in December 2020. As authorized under Tennessee law, Piedmont implemented interim rates on January 2, 2021, at the level requested in its adjusted request. A settlement reached with the Tennessee Consumer Advocate in mid-January was filed with the TPUC on February 2, 2021. The settlement results in an increase of revenues of approximately $16 million and an ROE of 9.8%. On August 25, 2020,May 6, 2021, the TPUC issued an order approving the procedural schedulesettlement. Revised customer rates became effective January 2, 2021. Piedmont refunded customers the difference between bills previously rendered under interim rates and such bills if rendered under approved rates, plus interest, in April 2021.
2021 North Carolina Rate Case
On March 22, 2021, Piedmont filed an application with the NCUC for this case, targetinga rate increase for retail customers of approximately $109 million, which represents an approximate 10% increase in retail revenues. The rate increase is driven by customer growth and significant infrastructure upgrade investments (plant additions) since the last general rate case. Approximately 70% 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. On July 28, 2021, Piedmont amended its requested increase to approximately $97 million.
| | | | | |
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS | REGULATORY MATTERS |
On September 7, 2021, Piedmont and the Public Staff, the Carolina Utility Customers Association, Inc. and the Carolina Industrial Group for Fair Utility Rates IV filed a Stipulation of Partial Settlement (Stipulation), which is subject to review and approval by the NCUC, resolving most issues between these parties. Major components of the Stipulation include:
•A return on equity of 9.6% and a capital structure of 51.6% equity and 48.4% debt;
•Continuation of the IMR mechanism and margin decoupling; and
•A revenue increase of $67 million, subject to completion of the Robeson County LNG facility and the Pender Onslow County expansion project.
An evidentiary hearing to beginreview the Stipulation and other issues concluded on January 11,September 9, 2021. The TPUC is requiredOn October 12, 2021, Piedmont notified the NCUC of its intent to renderimplement the stipulated rates effective November 1, 2021, on a decision ontemporary basis and subject to refund. On October 18, 2021, Piedmont and the Public Staff filed supplemental testimony attesting to the completion of the Robeson County LNG facility and the Pender Onslow County expansion project and to the propriety of including the capital investment for these two projects in this matter on or before April 1, 2021.proceeding. Piedmont cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
OTHER REGULATORY MATTERS
Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC
Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP pipeline) iswas planned to be an approximately 600-mile interstate natural gas pipeline running from West Virginia to North Carolina. Duke Energy indirectly owns a 47% interest, which is accounted for as an equity method investment through its Gas Utilities and Infrastructure segment.
On April 15, 2020, the United States District Court for the District of Montana granted partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in Northern Plains Resource Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (Northern Plains), vacating USACE’s Nationwide Permit 12 (NWP 12) and remanding it to USACE for consultation under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. In Northern Plains, the court ruled that NWP 12 was unlawful because USACE did not consult under the ESA with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or National Marine Fisheries Service prior to NWP 12’s reissuance in 2017. Because NWP 12 has been vacated and its application enjoined, USACE currently has suspended verification of any new or pending applications under NWP 12 until further court action clarifies the situation.
On May 28, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling that limited the NWP 12 vacatur to energy infrastructure projects. In July 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an order allowing other new oil and gas pipeline projects to use the NWP 12 process pending appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; however, that did not decrease the uncertainty associated with an eventual ruling. Together, these rulings indicated that the timeline to reinstate the necessary water crossing permits for ACP would likely cause further delays and cost increases.
On July 5, 2020, Dominion Energy, Inc. announced a sale of substantially all of its gas transmission and storage segment assets, operations core to the ACP pipeline project.
As a result of the uncertainty created by the NWP 12various legal rulings, the potential impact on the cost and schedule for the project, the ongoing legal challenges and the risk of additional legal challenges and delays through the construction period and Dominion’s decision to sell substantially all of its gas transmission and storage segment assets, Duke Energy's Board of Directors and management decided that it was not prudent to continue to invest in the project. On July 5, 2020, Duke Energy and Dominion announced the cancellation of the ACP pipeline project.
|
| |
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS | REGULATORY MATTERS |
As a result, Duke Energy recordedpart of the pretax charges to earnings of approximately $2.1 billion for the nine months ended September 30,recorded in June 2020, within Equity in (losses) earnings of unconsolidated affiliates on the Duke Energy Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. The tax benefit associated with this cancellation was $389 million and is recorded in Income Tax Expense (Benefit) on the Duke Energy Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. Additional charges of less than $50 million are expected to be recorded within the next 12 months as ACP incurs obligations to exit operations.
As part of the pretax charges to earnings of approximately $2.1 billion,Operations, Duke Energy established liabilities related to the cancellation of the ACP pipeline projectproject. In February 2021, Duke Energy paid approximately $855 million to fund ACP's outstanding debt, relieving Duke Energy of $927its guarantee. At September 30, 2021, there is $36 million and $19$63 million within Other Current Liabilities and Other Noncurrent Liabilities, respectively, in the Gas Utilities and Infrastructure segment. The liability representsliabilities represent Duke Energy's obligation of approximately $860$99 million to fund ACP's outstanding debt and approximately $86 million to satisfy remaining ARO requirements to restore construction sites.
See Notes 1 4 and 1211 for additional information regarding this transaction.
Potential Coal Plant Retirements
The Subsidiary Registrants periodically file integrated resource plans (IRPs)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. 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. Dollar amounts in the table below are included in Net property, plant and equipment on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2020,2021, and exclude capitalized asset retirement costs.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Remaining Net | | | | |
| Capacity | | | | | | | | Book Value | | | | |
| (in MW) | | | | | | | | (in millions) | | | | |
Duke Energy Carolinas | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Allen Steam Station Units 1-2(a) | 324 | | | | | | | | | $ | 19 | | | | | |
Allen Steam Station Units 4-5(b) | 516 | | | | | | | | | 362 | | | | | |
Cliffside Unit 5(b) | 544 | | | | | | | | | 367 | | | | | |
Duke Energy Progress | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Mayo Unit 1(b) | 704 | | | | | | | | | 640 | | | | | |
Roxboro Units 3-4(b) | 1,392 | | | | | | | | | 465 | | | | | |
Duke Energy Florida | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Crystal River Units 4-5(c) | 1,410 | | | | | | | | | 1,658 | | | | | |
Duke Energy Indiana (d) | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Gibson Units 1-5(e) | 2,822 | | | | | | | | | 1,814 | | | | | |
Cayuga Units 1-2(e) | 995 | | | | | | | | | 713 | | | | | |
Total Duke Energy | 8,707 | | | | | | | | | $ | 6,038 | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | |
| | | Remaining Net |
|
| Capacity |
| | Book Value |
|
| (in MW) |
| | (in millions) |
|
Duke Energy Carolinas | | | |
Allen Steam Station Units 1-3(a) | 582 |
| | $ | 141 |
|
Allen Steam Station Units 4-5(b) | 516 |
| | 321 |
|
Cliffside Unit 5(b) | 544 |
| | 355 |
|
Duke Energy Progress | | | |
Mayo Unit 1(b) | 727 |
| | 673 |
|
Roxboro Units 3-4(b) | 1,392 |
| | 486 |
|
Duke Energy Indiana | | | |
Gallagher Units 2 and 4(c) | 280 |
| | 112 |
|
Gibson Units 1-5(d) | 3,132 |
| | 1,683 |
|
Cayuga Units 1-2(d) | 1,005 |
| | 935 |
|
Total Duke Energy | 8,178 |
| | $ | 4,706 |
|
| | | | | |
(a)FINANCIAL STATEMENTS | As part of the 2015 resolution of a lawsuit involving alleged New Source Review violations, Duke Energy Carolinas must retire Allen Steam Station Units 1 through 3 by December 31, 2024. The long-term energy options considered in the IRP could result in retirement of these units earlier than their current estimated useful lives.REGULATORY MATTERS |
| |
(b) | These units are included in the IRP filed by Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress in North Carolina and South Carolina on September 1, 2020. The long-term energy options considered in the IRP could result in retirement of these units earlier than their current estimated useful lives. In 2019, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed North Carolina rate cases that included depreciation studies that accelerate end of life dates for these plants. A decision by NCUC is expected by the end of the first quarter 2021. |
| |
(c) | Duke Energy Indiana committed to either retire or stop burning coal at Gallagher units 2 and 4 by December 31, 2022, as part of the 2016 settlement of Edwardsport IGCC matters. |
| |
(d) | On July 1, 2019, Duke Energy Indiana filed its 2018 IRP with the IURC. The 2018 IRP included scenarios evaluating the potential retirement of coal-fired generating units at Gibson and Cayuga. The rate case filed July 2, 2019, included proposed depreciation rates reflecting retirement dates from 2026 to 2038. The depreciation rates reflecting these updated retirement dates were approved by the IURC as part of the rate case order issued on June 29, 2020. |
4. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
The Duke Energy Registrants are subject to federal, state and local regulations regarding air and water quality, hazardous and solid waste disposal, coal ash and other environmental matters. These regulations can be changed from time to time, imposing new obligations on the Duke Energy Registrants. The following environmental matters impact all Duke Energy Registrants.
In addition to AROs recorded as a result of various environmental regulations, the Duke Energy Registrants are responsible for environmental remediation at various sites. These include certain properties that are part of ongoing operations and sites formerly owned or used by Duke Energy entities. These sites are in various stages of investigation, remediation and monitoring. Managed in conjunction with relevant federal, state and local agencies, remediation activities vary based upon site conditions and location, remediation requirements, complexity and sharing of responsibility. If remediation activities involve joint and several liability provisions, strict liability, or cost recovery or contribution actions, the Duke Energy Registrants could potentially be held responsible for environmental impacts caused by other potentially responsible parties and may also benefit from insurance policies or contractual indemnities that cover some or all cleanup costs. Liabilities are recorded when losses become probable and are reasonably estimable. The total costs that may be incurred cannot be estimated because the extent of environmental impact, allocation among potentially responsible parties, remediation alternatives and/or regulatory decisions have not yet been determined at all sites. Additional costs associated with remediation activities are likely to be incurred in the future and could be significant. Costs are typically expensed as Operation, maintenance and other on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations unless regulatory recovery of the costs is deemed probable.
Additional losses in excess of recorded reserves that could be incurred for the stages of investigation, remediation and monitoring for environmental sites that have been evaluated at this time are not material except as presentedmaterial.